phoenician figures

8/10/2019 Phoenician Figures

1/14

FENCIOS E PNICOS,POR TERRA E MAR 2Ana Margarida Arruda, ed.

ESTUDOS &MEMRIAS 6

CENTRO DE ARQUEOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA


2/14


3/14

BRONZE MALE DEITIES: ELEMENTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATIONOF A PHOENICIAN GROUP IN MEDITERRANEAN

Javier Jimnez vila

Instituto de Arqueologa de Mrida(Junta de Extremadura-Consorcio de Mrida-CSIC)

R

La aparicin de un creciente nmero de figuras masculinas de bronce en pose y atuendo egipciosen el Sur de la Pennsula Ibrica, favorece abordar el estudio de conjunto de este grupo e intentarestablecer algunas de sus caractersticas fundamentales, as como verificar su extensin como seriede produccin homognea a lo largo del Mediterrneo fenicio, adscribindole otros elementos queinicialmente se haban relacionado con tradiciones artesanales distintas. En estas zonas se producirn,adems, imitaciones locales bien diferenciables de los productos propiamente fenicios. La definicin deeste grupo, aparte de establecer criterios ms firmes a la hora de valorar algunas figuras ya conocidasy de incorporar otras nuevas, permite aproximarnos a algunos aspectos relacionados con la artesana,la iconografa y la religin fenicias.

A

The emergence of an increasing number of bronze male figurines of Egyptian posture andoutfit in the South of the Iberian Peninsula has favoured the study of this group and the definitionof some of its fundamental characteristics. Moreover, it has enabled us to confirm its extension as ahomogenous production series throughout the Phoenician Mediterranean and to ascribe to this groupa number of elements which had been related to separate crafts traditions. In the areas concerned,local imitations were produced which were quite dierentiable from the truly Phoenician products.The definition of this group, as well as establishing stronger criteria for the assessment of some of

the known figurines and the incorporation of new ones, enables us to approach particular aspects ofPhoenician craftsmanship, iconography and religion.


4/14

763

Bronze male deities: elements for the identication of a phoenician group in Mediterranean

J J

The emergence of an increasing number of bronze male figurines of Egyptian posture andoutfit in the South of the Iberian Peninsula has favoured the study of this group and the definitionof some of its fundamental characteristics. Moreover, it has enabled us to confirm its extensionas a homogenous production series throughout the Phoenician Mediterranean and to ascribe

to this group a number of elements which had been related to separate crafts traditions. In theareas concerned, local imitations were produced which were quite dierentiable from the trulyPhoenician products. The definition of this group, as well as establishing stronger criteria for theassessment of some of the known figurines and the incorporation of new ones, enables us toapproach particular aspects of Phoenician craftsmanship, iconography and religion.

The Bronze Figurines of the Iberian Peninsula

The first figurine of this group is one which, quite dubiously, was recovered from Mrida(Badajoz) and is held in the Hispanic Society of New York since 1957 (Hibbs, e.p.; Bisi, 1986; Jimn-

ez vila, 2002). This well made figurine could be used to define some of the main characteristicsof the group: relatively homogenous dimensions (around 12 inches) and the presence of well-marked Egyptian traits, visible in both their dress, materialised in high crowns, schentirobes and

pectorals, and in their hieratic position, often reinforced by the conventional forward stepping of

the left foot (Fig. 3).Another figurine that can be related to this group was published by M. Almagro Basch in

1980. It is of smaller size and displays a White Crown and smiting posture (Fig. 3).As part of the Vives Collection, it is held in the Spanish Museo Arqueolgico Nacional

and appears to come from the area of Itlica, close to Seville. This geographical attribution of

both early (the Astart of the Carambolo) and recent (the excavation of the Carambolo site itself)finds, is much more understandable than that of Mrida, and places us in a more obvious relationto the areas of Phoenician colonisation of the Iberian Peninsula.

Two figurines of the same type were recovered from the nets of a fisherman in the 1970s,in an area named Barra de Huelva (Huelva), on the sea-bed (Fig. 3). Both are made of bronze,contrary to what has been published about them (it was suggested that one was made of iron,something that would not have been technically possible at the time of production), and aftermany years in a private collection, they now belong to the Museum of Huelva, thanks to the

intervention of the Civil Guard. These two figurines have been subjected to dierent cultural as-signments: when first published by I. Gamer-Wallert (1982), it was suggested that they were anEgyptian product of the Saite Period, while further studies opened the possibility of their produc-tion in Syria, albeit without discarding the Egyptian option (Fernndez-Miranda 1986). They werelater assimilated to a Phoenician production, which is now commonly accepted (Falsone 1988;Jimnez vila 2002).

In order to relate these figurines with the Phoenician colonisation of the Iberian Peninsula,the recovery of the largest group in Cdiz, in the proximity of the island of Sancti Petri, a location

traditionally associated with the famous temple of Melqart, has been decisive.

The bronzes of Sancti Petri already add up to 8 examples1(Fig. 3), a number that has in-creased since the publication by A. Blanco of the first three figurines 20 years ago up until themost recent finds (Blanco Freijeiro 1985; Acquaro 1988; Perdigones 1990; Jimnez vila 2002;Sez et al.2005). Moreover, rumours exist regarding the existence of further bronzes which havecirculated on the antiquities black market.

1 As well as the seven statuettes shown in Figure 3, a further unpublished example is held in the Museumof San Fernando (Cdiz). We are grateful to Dr. J. Corzo for this information.


5/14

A,

64

VI CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE ESTUDOS FENCIO PNICOS

With all of these elements, we already have a suciently large collection on the basis ofwhich to put forward a basic characterisation and to try to locate the existence of more figurinesof this type throughout the Mediterranean.

If there is something that characterises these figurines, it is their poor iconographic fixa-

tion. This can be confirmed by the examination of the combinations that take place between theirmost significant distinguishing elements: the head dresses that cover their heads and their corpo-ral poses, both of which are imbued with strong Egyptian traits as we mentioned above.

The head dresses correspond to three basic formats: 1) the White Crown of Higher Egypt,well known and characterised by its globular finish; 2) a bulbous crown, related to but dierentfrom the former, which I have named Mitre; 3) the AtefCrown, the head dress of Osiris parexcellence, which is the result of adding two ostrich feathers to either side of the White Crown.

On the other hand, the corporal poses of these figures correspond to four basic stereotypeswhich are fundamentally achieved through the position of the arms: 1) the arms fall alongside thebody, a formula traditionally called the Egyptian posture; 2) the arms are held out, slightly bent,in front of the subject, sometimes holding weapons or other belongings, in a position named

smiting(Collon, 1972); 3) with one arm folded across the chest and holding an object in a ritualattitude; 4) showing the palm of the right hand open in a posture that we now identify withactions of greeting or blessing.

Apart from these stereotypical traits, the decoration, the schenti, the presence or not of

pectorals, beards, etc, provide this group with great iconographic variety.

However, the most remarkable and interesting point, as I mentioned earlier, is the enor-mous variability that can be observed in the breakdown of the possible combinations of basic

traits (head dresses and postures) as shown in Figure 1 which includes figurines from both the Ibe-rian Peninsula and other areas of the Mediterranean and that can be associated with this group

as we shall see below.

Practically all of the possible combinations are represented and when not, as is the case ofthe combinations between [mitre + Egyptian posture] or [mitre + ritual posture], their absence

can be traced to the scarceness of a particular trait in the global assemblage. For instance, we

have only 2 mitres associated with known postures and both correspond to distinct patterns.

This disinterest in iconographic fixation appears to be a fundamental character of thisgroup of Phoenician figurines, and lies in contrast with the rigour observed, for example, in Egyp-tian imagery in which the identification of the dierent deities according to their formal attributesconstitutes an almost automatic inference. This characteristic is much more alike to the Syrian-Palestinian representations of the Second Millennium and to the Phoenician production itself of

the First Millennium, in which many deities whose specific traits enabled their identification intheir original pantheons underwent a process of iconographic transformation which prevents

their clear identification when they are found in Phoenician contexts.Notwithstanding, and despite these aliations, the truly Phoenician figurines, that are

those of the First Millennium, are generally dierentiated from the earlier forms through theincrease of Egyptian traits and a greater frequency of figures in pacific attitudes.

It is also impossible to conclude as to whether the Phoenician deomorphs represent any

particular deity. There are some very specific iconographic formulae, as for example the tripartitebeard of one of the figurines from Cdiz, of which a surprisingly similar correlate can be foundon a Eastern ivory head from Samos (Freyer Schauenburg, 1966), that suggest that we are facedwith representations of the same mythological figures. But the lack of iconographic fixation mustwithout doubt be added to the diculties of identifying specific deities and which have marked

the study of these figurines since their earliest recovery.


6/14

765

The Mediterranean Group

The presence of this ample group of representations along the coastline of southern Spain

suggests the existence of a wider craftsmanship which could have spread throughout the whole

of the Phoenician Mediterranean. In order to locate it, it is necessary to review some of the known

sculptures that have been the subject of diverse assessments in the territories of Phoenician

presence: the Palestinian coast, Cyprus, the Aegean and Central Mediterranean.

It has become usual for studies of Phoenician crafts to underline the paucity of evidence

from the Phoenician territory itself, that is, the current Lebanese coast. In the case of the bronze

figurines, it is all the more surprising given the abundant records of bronze ex-votos belonging tothe Second Millennium BC. The collections from sites such as Ugarit, and especially Biblos, formcatalogues of several thousands of pieces (Negbi, 1976; Seeden, 1980).

In contrast to this abundance, examples of bronze male figurines from the First Millenniumand documented in this area are extremely rare. Published examples are practically reduced to

the one described by G. Falsone (1988) which is held in a private collection in Paris (France) and

which presents a white crown in a ritual posture (Fig. 3).

Fig. 1. Phoenician Bronze Male Deities. Correlation Between the dierent types of postures and crowns


J J


7/14

A,

66


The evidence is becoming a little more solid in Cyprus where the existence of similar

representations is suggested by the presence of some sculptures which, whilst undoubtedly of

local production, can be related to our series. However, for the purpose of the present study,

the mention of a bronze torso held in the Museum of Nicosia and identified as number 1449 is of

more interest. This figure, of unknown provenance, was published in the 1950s by P. Dikaios whorelated it to the period of Egyptian inuence in the island during the Saite period (Dikaios, 1953).Although incomplete, its main distinguishing traits are quite visible, such as its ritual posture and

the advancing of the left foot. In the light of the finds of the Iberian Peninsula, this torso canbe considered as a Phoenician sculpture belonging to the same series as the Iberian examples

and thus with a date prior to the 6thcentury, as had been suggested. The identification of thissculpture as a Phoenician production of the 8thor 7thcenturies BC could explain the imitationsmentioned above that appear across the island and it could even be that the production of these

bronze figures may have played some role in the development of the grand stone sculptures thatare so characteristic of the Cypriot art of the following centuries.

In this same line of figures belonging to the Phoenician group, we also find a bronze figurerecovered from the ruins of the Heraion of Samos and catalogued by U. Jantzen among the

Egyptian products of this Greek sanctuary (Jantzen, 1972). The figure represents a male deity in thesmiting posture and with an atefcrown (Fig. 3). From an iconographic point of view, it is dicultto identify this figure with any of the divinities of the Egyptian pantheon: whilst the atefcrown isthe head dress of Osiris par excellence, this figure certainly does not represent Osiris. The smitingposition is in Egypt characteristic of the Assyrian god Reshef, but neither does this figure display thetypical characters of Reshef in Egypt, such as the rear infulaeor the gazelle protomes of its WhiteCrown. It thus proves dicult to identify this figure through the application of the semiologicalcriteria of Egyptian production. On the contrary, from the perspective of a Phoenician product,

this deiform sculpture is much more understandable, given that we have already established the

lack of iconographic fixation as one of the basic characteristics of this group.The figure from Samos is of particular importance in establishing the chronology of these

products since it appears in a well which became sealed at the end of the 7thcentury, thus provided

an ante quemdate for the existence of the group. In this Well G, a series of bronze figurines relatedto the Phoenician group were recovered, although generally of smaller size, alongside the famous

ivory combs with incised decoration similar to those produced in the Phoenician workshops of

the Iberian Peninsula and also dated to the 7thcentury BC (Walter and Vierneisel, 1959).Finally, and in the light of these news finds, the controversial figure known as Melqart of

Sciacca or Reshef of Selinumte (Fig. 3), recovered from the Sicilian Sea and held in the Museumof Palermo, must also be included in the Phoenician group. The cultural and chronological

assessments derived from this famous figurine are broad and span from the Second Millennium

up until the Phoenician period (Chiappisi, 1961; Bisi, 1967; Tusa 1973; Seeden, 1980; Falsone, 1988;Jimnez vila, 2002). In fact, there are few elements to suggest that this figurine correspondsto the Bronze Age series. The Egyptian-style outfit is a poorly represented characteristic of theproducts of Biblos and Ugarit (for example, the atefcrown only appears on 0.3% of the BronzeAge figures recorded by H. Seeden), as are the large size and proportions of the figure, which arecloser to those of the Spanish finds. A distinguishing trait of this figurine is the hollow workingof the eyes in order to inlay a substance that would generate an impression of wealth or realism,

and which is common for Second Millennium representations. While it is true that none of theother figurines of this series possess these facial applications, it is also so that a good part of thefemale deities dated to the Phoenician period (Qualat-Faqra, Ginebra, Samos...) display hollow

eyes, thus showing that this technical resource was still used commonly in the First Millennium(Jimnez vila, 2002).


8/14

767

Local imitations

In all of the areas in which the existence of these Phoenician male figurines has beendocumented, the presence of imitations of these figures presenting similar traits and postures,

although with specific characteristics which lead us to consider them as local products, has beendetected. In Cyprus, for instance, some of the figurines from the sanctuary of Idalion stand out(Fig. 2.1), given that they show a transformation of the anatomical canon, as well as being moreroughly shaped as is typical of some of the islands own products (Karageorghis, 1967). Thepresence of Egyptian elements on these figures breaks with the local traditions of the bronzefigures of the Bronze Age, illustrated by figurines such as those of Enkomi (Seeden, 1980, 124 ss.),and can thus be considered as a Phoenician inuence.

In the Central Mediterranean, there are some figures that, on the basis of their aspect,could equally be related to these local products, such as the Sardinian bronzes of Flumenlonghu

or Galtelli, contrary to the way in which they have generally been defined as oriental products(Bisi 1977, 1980, 1986; Tore, 1981; 1983; Lo Schiavo, 1983). However, in the case of Sardinia, the

issue is not so easy, since the figures stray from the habitual traits of the nuragic figurines, andtheir condition of local imitations can therefore only be suggested as a hypothesis.

Finally, a number of recent finds, such as the Bronze of Entrerros (Badajoz) (Fig. 2.2) or arecently published figurine of the Gmez Moreno Collection, can be added to the list of figurinesfrom the Iberian Peninsula recorded by M. Almagro in 1980 and which included the votive bronzesof the Iberian period (Jimnez vila, 2002; Garca Alfonso, 1998). Both of these new finds presentsucient similarities with the Phoenician group and sucient elements of dierentiation forthem to be considered as imitations of those produced in the local sphere, although that of the

Gmez Moreno Collection was initially considered as a Phoenician product. Indeed the generaltreatment of the figurine, its size (only 6 inches), the independent working of the head dress, thevolute decoration of the robe, etc are unusual elements in figurative Phoenician bronzes. Thesepeninsular imitations also appear to be later in date.


J J

Fig. 2. Regional imitations. 1. Cyprus (s. Karageorghis 1967); 2. Entrerros (Spain) (s. Jimnez vila 2002)


9/14

A,

68


Conclusions

In the Mediterranean, there is a group of bronze figurines representing male deities thatcan be considered as the work of Phoenician craftsmen and can be related to the Semitic colonial

expansion of the 8thand 7thcenturies BC. This group has thus led us to the study of its geographi-cal distribution throughout all of the areas of Phoenician presence and of its iconographic charac-teristics. Among the latter, the lack of fixation of the formal traits is remarkable. Moreover, thesetraits often appear combined in such a way that it is dicult to recognise particular figures, unlikethe case of the distinguishing attributes of other iconographic traditions such as that of Egypt.

These figurines can be distinguished from there Second Millennium ancestors by theirmore careful manufacture, their regular size and the increase of Egyptian traits which appear

in the clothing that they bear: crowns, pectorals and robes. In this aspect they are also die-rent from the other artistic groups that developed in the East during the First Millennium, such

as those documented in Israel which follow the giblite tradition, or the Neohitite and Aramaic

sculptures which reproduce the roughness of the local stone sculptures (Moorey & Fleming 1984;

Spycket, 1981).The most numerous group is that recovered from Cdiz, associated with the temple of

Melqart. Other parts of the Iberian Peninsula such as Huelva or the lower Guadalquivir have alsoyielded figurines of this same group.

On the basis of the characteristics of the Spanish figurines, examples belonging to thesame series can be identified in Lebanon, Cyprus, East Greece and the Central Mediterranean.Despite the small number of figurines currently individualised, it can be hoped that future findsand bibliographic or museographic inspections will soon add to this list.

In the areas of Phoenician presence these representations were the object of local

imitations which display specific characteristics in each region.Although in this paper I have limited my discussion to the definition of this craft group and

its extension throughout the Mediterranean, it has proved necessary to present some indica-tions regarding their origin and their historical and cultural significance. The dierences thatare established between the original group and the local imitations thus suggest the oriental

production of these figurines. In the Iberian Peninsula, we can observe how these figurines arefound in the areas of Phoenician presence. This in turn contrasts with the patterns displayed by

the set of Western-Phoenician bronze production, composed of jugs, bowls, incense burners etc.,that tend to be consumed by part of the local inland aristocracies. These imported figurines arethus dierentiated from the purely colonial products and their phenomenology.


10/14

769

Fig. 3. Phoenician Bronze Male Deities Group in Mediterranean (s. Falsone 1988, Dikaios 1953,Jantzen 1972, Seeden 1980, Jimnez vila 2002 and Saez et al. 2005). Unequal Scales


J J


11/14

A,

70


Bb

A, E. (1988) - I Bronzi. I Fenici. Milano: Bompiani. pp. 472-490.

A, M. (1980) - Un tipo de exvoto de bronce ibrico de origen orientalizante. Trabajos de

Prehistoria.37. pp. 247-308.B, A.M. (1967) - Fenici o Micenei in Sicilia nella seconda met del II millennio a.C. (In margine alcosiddetto Melquart di Sciacca).Atti e Memorie del I Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia. Rome.pp. 1156-1168.

B, A.M. (1977) - Lapport phnicien aux bronzes nouragiques de Sardeigne.Latomus.XXXVI. pp. 909-932.

B, A.M. (1980) - La diusion du Smiting God syro-palestinien dans le milieu phnicien dOccident.Karthago.XIX. pp. 5-14.

B, A.M. (1986) - Le Smiting God dans les milieux phniciens dOccident: un reexamen de la question.Religio Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia.IV. Namur. pp. 169-187.

C, S. (1961) - Il Melqart de Sciacca e la questione fenicia in Sicilia. Rome.

C, D. (1972) - The Smiting God. A Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Collection.Levant.IV. pp.111-134.

D, P. (1953) -A Guide of the Cyprus Museum.Cyprus Museum: Nicosia.

F, G. (1988) - Phoenicia as a Bronzeworking Centre in the Iron Age. In C, J. (ed.)Bronze-working Centres of Western Asia c. 1000-539 B.C.London: Kegan Paul International Limited. pp. 227-250.

F-M, M. (1986) - Huelva ciudad de los tartesios. In O, G. & A, M.E. (eds.) LosFenicios en la Pennsula IbricaII . Sabadell: Ausa. pp. 227-261.

F-S, B. (1966) - Elfenbeine aus dem Samischen Heraion.Hamburg.

G-W, I. (1982) - Zwei Statuetten Syrio-giptischer Gottheiten von der Barra de Huelva.Madrider Mitteilungen.23. pp. 46-61.

G A, E. (1998) - Figurilla fenicia de bronce del Museo Instituto Gmez-Moreno deGranada. Spal. 7. Sevilla. pp. 183-192.

J, U. (1972) - gyptische und Orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos. Samos. VIII.Bonn.

J , J. (2002) - La Torutica Orientalizante en la Pennsula Ibrica. Bibliotheca ArchaeologicaHispana 16. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.

H, V.A. (e.p.) - A Phoenician Bronze from Western Spain.VIII Symposium Internacional de PrehistoriaPeninsular.Crdoba 1976.

K, V. (1967) - Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes archologiques Chypre en 1966.Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique.91. pp. 275-370.

LS, F. (1983) - Un bronzetto da Galtelli. ICongresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici.Rome.pp. 463-469.

M, P.R.S. & F, S. (1984) - Problems in the Study of the antropomorphic Metal Statuary

from Syro-Palestine before 330 B.C. Levant.XVI. pp. 67-90.N, O. (1976) - Canaanite Gods in Metal.Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

P, L. (1991) - Hallazgos recientes en torno al santuario de Melkart en la isla de Sancti Petri(Cdiz). II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Rome. pp. 1119-1132.

S, A.M.; M, A.I. D R, J.J. (2005) - Nuevos vestigios en el santuario gadirita deMelqart en Sancti Petri (San Fernando, Cdiz). In C, S. & J , J. (eds.) El PerodoOrientalizante. Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Mrida. Anejos de AEspA XXXV. Madrid. pp. 873-878.

S, H. (1980) - The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant. Prhistorische Bronzefunde I.1B.Munich.

S, H. (1982) - Peace Figurines from the Levant.Archologie au Levant. Recueil la mmoire deRoger Saidah. Lyon: Boccard. pp. 107-121.


12/14

771

S, A. (1981) - La statuaire au Proche Orient Ancien.Leiden.

T, G. (1983) - I bronzi figurati fenicio-punici in Sardegna. I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici ePunici.Rome. pp. 449-461.

T, V. (1973) - La statuetta fenicia del Museo Nazionale di Palermo.Rivista di Stdi Fenici.I. pp. 173-179.

W, H. & V, K. (1959) - gyptische und orientalische funde aus Brunnen G und demBothros. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Institutes. Athenische Abteilung.74. pp. 35-42.


J J


13/14

estudos & memriasSrie de publicaes da UNIARQ (Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa)Direco e orientao grfica: Victor S. Gonalves

6.Fencios e Pnicos, por terra e mar. 2. Actas do VI Congresso Internacional de Estudos Fencio Pnicos.Edio (preparao, reviso e correco de contedos): Ana Margarida Arruda.

3.VIEGAS, C. (2011) A ocupao romana do Algarve. Estudo do povoamento e economia do Algarve central

e oriental no perodo romano. Lisboa: UNIARQ.

Design grfico e composio: Rui Roberto de Almeida

Capa: Prtomo de leo, de bronze. Santurio da Rua do Rato, Alccer do Sal. Sc. 6 a.n.e.Foto: Victor S. Gonalves.Dimenses reais: comprimento 75,70 mm; dimetro da extremidade proximal (encaixe) 35,16 mm.

Impresso: Europress, Lisboa, 2014, 500 exemplares.

Volumes anteriores de esta srie:1.LEISNER, G. e LEISNER, V. (1985) Antas do Concelho de Reguengos de Monsaraz. Reimpresso dovolume de 1951. Lisboa: UNIARQ.

2.GONALVES, V. S. (1989) Megalitismo e metalurgia no Alto Algarve Oriental. Uma aproximaointegrada. 2 vols. Lisboa: UNIARQ.

4.QUARESMA, J. C. (2012) Economia antiga a partir de um centro de consumo lusitano. Terra sigillata ecermica africana de cozinha em Chos Salgados (Mirbriga). Lisboa: UNIARQ.

ISBN: 978-989-95653-9-5Depsito Legal: 365184/13

Copyright Autores

Toda e qualquer reproduo de texto e imagem interdita, sem a expressa autorizao dos autores,nos termos da lei vigente, nomeadamente o DL 63/85, de 14 de Maro, com as alteraes subsequentes.

PARA INTERCMBIO (ON PRIE LCHANGE, EXCHANGE ACCEPTED):CENTRO DE ARQUEOLOGIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOAA/C PROF. VICTOR S. GONALVESFACULDADE DE LETRAS P-1600-214 LISBOA PORTUGAL

5.ARRUDA, A. M., ed. (2013) - Fencios e Pnicos, por terra e mar. 1. Actas do VI Congresso Internacional deEstudos fencio-pnicos. Lisboa: UNIARQ.


14/14

Fencios e Pnicos, por terra e mar

Actas do VI Congresso Internacionalde Estudos Fencios e Pnicos

Vol.2

Ana Margarida Arruda (Ed.)

6. Congresso Internacional EFP,

Fencios e Pnicos, por terra e mar, Lisboa

Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa

25 de Setembro a 1 de Outubro de 2005

phoenician figures

Documents