Talk:Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

Untitled
should we move such inscriptions into the new "U+10900?U+1091F" range as noted in Phoenician alphabet? has anyone a link to a working font to enable this? test: ⪔⪕⪖

Hebrew v Hebrew
I haven't the patience (or the young eyes) to check letter-by-letter: Is there any difference, other than font, between the "Hebrew transcription" and the awkwardly huge "Hebrew transliteration"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tamfang Jeylime (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. —Tamfang (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eshmunazar II sarcophagus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210140836/http://www.proel.org/alfabetos/fenicio19.gif to http://www.proel.org/alfabetos/fenicio19.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308211513/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Eshmun.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Eshmun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Announcement in the JoC, and location at Aadloun
Hi Elias, regarding the removals at and, particularly re the announcement in the JoC (both the image and the sentence) and the reference to Aadloun, is this because of the lack of secondary sources? If so, I can provide. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi just pinging you in case you didn’t see this. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey I purposefully removed the image of JoC because of a date discrepancy. The journal article is dated 11 Feb 1855 while all excavation reports assert that the sarcophagus and its hypogeum were discovered 9 days later in 20 Feb 1855. I quoted however a passage from the Richmond Palladium where a correspondent of the JoC tells of the discovery. Please also note that Adloun is a town and municipality and is not the same as Magharet Abloun. Please let me know of any other concerns._Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, The quote in the April 1855 Richmond Palladium article is an exact copy of the JoC article from 11 Feb (see full text here File:February 11, 1855, Correspondence from the Journal of Commerce announcing the discovery of the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus.jpg) The report was widely syndicated, in newspapers worldwide, so I think is of great significance. The first even scholarly article on the topic , by Salisbury on 31 May 1855, quoted the same article. It also has the benefit of illustrating the excitement at the time of the discovery.
 * Separately, my read of the 20 Feb date (as first reference by de Luynes, in Dec 1855) is that it is not the date of discovery but rather the date when Peretié was first informed. (Le 20 de février 1855, M. Peretié, chancelier du consulat de France à Beyrouth, ayant entrepris des fouilles sur un terrain à vingt-cinq minutes de marche au sud de Sayda, l'ancienne Sidon, fut informé que son agent y avait déterré un cercueil de basalte noir, auprès d'un rocher auquel il était adossé.) Either way, I think it is highly likely that this 20 Feb date was a mis-print for 20 Jan (being 1 day after the 19 Jan discovery date quoted in the JoC), as it should not have taken so long to inform Peretié, the JoC article was published 9 days prior, and all of the scholarly references to the JoC article confirm that it related to the same.Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me take another look. I cannot admit a discrepancy of this magnitude, will recheck de Luynes and the other secondary sources. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You said that thescholary references to the JoC article corroborate the date; can you please send me some articles? I don't any reviewers causing an issue out of a journal misprint. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , have a look at the links in the right hand column of the table in Eshmunazar_II_sarcophagus. For example, the first one:, page 228, this was the first scholarly announcement and clearly states the 19 Jan date. And this one states 19 Jan in the title. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic buddy, done. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic buddy, done. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Location
Hi Elie, I have located these images which provide all the detail on exactly where it was found. But the pixel quality is low, so I am looking for better versions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been able to zoom in on the relevant areas, and have put them in to the article as a gallery. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the modern location of the findspot is at 33.551°N, 35.374°W, near the Lebanese University. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OMFG!!!!!! I was looking for these! Didn't occur to me they'd be in Mission de Phenicie! Also note that in the pic where it says "Pierre en bisea" is where the vault that Peretiés men destroyed, I believe, if i understood the text well, that it was decorated with friezes. The location you proposed looks about right too. You dont cease to amaze kudos 06:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, glad you like them! From reading MdP, it seems that Renan’s mission was inspired by the topic of this article. Would be a good connection we can make here if a secondary source confirms it. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Greater Sidon and its "Cities of the Dead", National Museum News] This discovery not only caused a sensation but led the the despatch in 1860 of a scientific mission to Lebanon by Napoleon III that was headed by Ernest Renan…. Renan uncovered six white anthropoid marble sarcophagi in 1861. They were sent to France where they are on display to in the Musée du Louvre.
 * It goes on to explain that Charles Gaillardot was given the responsibility to continue to the excavations there, but in 1867 several landslides occurred and the necropolis collapsed in on itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guaillardot really fu**ed it up mate. A perfect example how amateur archaeologists and laymen can destroy what has survived for thousands of years. de Luynes doesn't say it exlicitely but it was the works that Guaillardot supervised that led to the collapse of the protective vault. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ha yes. Such a shame. Could have been a tourist attraction today. Albeit that outside of Beirut and Baalbeck there just isn’t the money to keep these places maintained properly. I visited the incredible Stelae of Nahr el-Kalb a while back, and was shocked to see the place completely unprotected. PS – just realized you found that same significance paragraph two days ago and already put it in the article; I am being slow. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * do you think your friend Dr. Badawi might be able to help connect us to someone in Sidon who could take photos of the necropolis site? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For the fun of it, I matched quite precisely the French map with a modern Google map (a bit of rotation and sizing are necessay to match the features perfectly). The triangle marked "36" on the French map is exactly the triangle of ruins at this location (33.55031°N, 35.37616°W, Google satellite). Hope someone can get a photograph! पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The empty lot looks like it has some kind of vestiges. I will try to pass by the next time I'm in the area. I am going to add this set to the coordinates field. If that's not okay please feel free to revert. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have overlaid the two maps (the zoomed in one plus the wider area) in the image on the right; the centre of the red circle should pinpoint the location of the sarcophagus find spot. It is a little to the northwest of the location of the 36 triangle. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Very clear indeed. Looking at Google Maps, it seems that the 36 triangle remains unconstructed, but I am afraid the area of the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus you are pointing to has been largely built over. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * are these the coords 33.551°N 35.374°E? If so please update, I checked the map. I thought the necropolis was built over, but it seems most of the area is covered by a park. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For the other sarcophagi discovered in this area: Commons:Category:Sidon Necropolis (covering two locations: the Ayaa Necropolis, and the Phoenician Necropolis). पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Dates
Hi Elie. Just a note about the dates: Tabnit according to his article ruled circa 490 BC, which seems quite late compared to the dates of his successor Eshmunazar II. Any idea how to sort this out? Thanks for your great work on these articles! पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes recent dating based on updated numismatic, archaeological and epigraphic data place the Eshmunazar dynasty in the 6th century BC. Tabnit's article needs a major overhall after I finish with that of his heir. I will fix the dates for now until I have the time to review the entire thing. Thank you so much for pointing this out, if you identify any other discrepancies please let me know.  08:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Body?
Hi have either of you come across details of whether a body was found within the sarcophagus? We have that clearly stated at Tabnit sarcophagus but are silent here. This was all a long time before radiocarbon dating or DNA testing so I imagine Durighello didn’t see the point of trying to preserve it. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Only a piece of a jaw and teeth were found in the rubble _Elias Z. (talkallam) 04:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have just read the De Luynes explanation: Ce rocher s'élève en masse circulaire; son diamètre est d'environ vingt-cinq pas. Taillé verticalement à l'extérieur, il est creusé à l'intérieur en forme de voûte que recouvre une sorte de ciment dont l'antiquité ne paraît pas très-reculée. D'un côté, il contient quatre niches creusées dans son épaisseur au niveau du sol. L'une d'elles, la plus grande de toutes, a deux mètres au moins de largeur sur autant de profondeur : en face de ces niches s'en trouvent deux autres de petites dimensions; auprès d'elles est l'entrée de la grotte. Deux marches sont pratiquées dans le rocher; elles aboutissaient au point où devait être la tête du cercueil principal. Le sarcophage de basalte noir fut découvert à deux mètres de profondeur en dehors de ce tombeau. Sa place était creusée dans le roc vif; mais il devait être protégé par un caveau vouté dont on retrouve encore quelques pierres. Une dent, un morceau d'ossement et, plus tard, une mâchoire humaine furent trouvés dans les déblais.
 * My French is not good enough to understand some of the nuances in what he is saying:
 * What is he implying with the statement "recouvre une sorte de ciment dont l'antiquité ne paraît pas très-reculée" - perhaps that the tomb was broken in to and then resealed?
 * When he says "Deux marches sont pratiquées dans le rocher; elles aboutissaient au point où devait être la tête du cercueil principal. Le sarcophage de basalte noir fut découvert à deux mètres de profondeur en dehors de ce tombeau." is he saying the sarcophagus was moved?
 * And with the statement "Sa place était creusée dans le roc vif; mais il devait être protégé par un caveau vouté dont on retrouve encore quelques pierres. Une dent, un morceau d'ossement et, plus tard, une mâchoire humaine furent trouvés dans les déblais." is he saying that this rubble is the rubble of the broken vault structure, so the rubble was outside the sarcophagus on the floor, and the sarcophagus was therefore empty?:Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey de Luynes was a duc with no archeology background. His observations are not authoritative. I'll go through your inquiries one by one:
 * The mortar was among the rubble; He only assumed the mortar was of recent times. The vault had collapsed, only a few stones, including an angled one suggested that the sarco was protected by a vaulted arch. The fact that the king's bones (but are they conclusively his bones and teeth) were among the rubble suggests that the resting place was vandalized but it is unknown when that happened. It is unlikely the tomb was resealed._Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Deux marches sont pratiquées dans le rocher; elles aboutissaient au point où devait être la tête du cercueil principal. [Two steps were cut in the rock, they lead to the point where the main "casket" was] "Le sarcophage de basalte noir fut découvert à deux mètres de profondeur en dehors de ce tombeau." [The black basalt (it's not made of basalt) sarcophagus was discovered at a depth of 2 meters outside of "this" tomb] Okay so if you look at the pics from MdP you can see that the sarco of Esh II lay outside of the "cavern" or rock-cut chamber in it's own rock cut pit, covered by vault (this does not suggest that it was moved);  you can also see the steps he referred to and the four niches where caskets or sarcophagi used to be; the main casket he refers to is the one that would have occupied the first and largest of the niches.
 * Any interpretation of the third passage is a conjecture. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any interpretation of the third passage is a conjecture. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Lining up the pieces
It seemed to me self-evident that using the interlinear template was a good idea.

This visually aligns each word of the original text with the transliteration and the word with vowels. The layperson who's not very familiar with Phoenician can't/won't read any of the first 3 lines alone, and being able to visually see the connection between the lines makes the whole thing much more intelligible.

It does mean that the right-to-left nature of Phoenician is messed with. If someone thought it was really important not to, that one line could be left out but the transcription and vowel line could still be aligned, like this:

bn mlk tbnt mlk ṣdnm dbr mlk ʾšmnʿzr mlk ṣdnm lʾmr ngzlt

bin milk tabnīt milk ṣīdōnīm dabar milk ʾèšmūnʿazar milk ṣīdōnīm līʾmōr nagzaltī

son of king Tabnit, king of the Sidonians, king Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians, said as follows: I was carried away

This just seems obviously less confusing to me. Could the person who thinks it's more confusing explain how? Eievie (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, the current small-caps format is terrible because it's not consistent, since there is no small caps letter for ḥ, so you get patchy stuff like: . Eievie (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Phoenician, like all Semitic languages, is (well, was) written right-to-left. In method 1, you reversed the order of the text itself – that's a big no-no, without exception. In method 2, you preserve the writing direction, but in doing so you also scrunch up the actual text itself while giving the transliteration a lot of breathing room. In that case it's actually a bit distracting – so since you can't have it both ways, why fix what isn't broken? Like I said in my edit summaries – these are good faith edits, but the ultimate result just isn't worth the change itself. That's my two cents, anyway. Emolu (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I'm hearing is that you're conceptually on board with the idea of highlighting the relationship between lines, if the formatting friction can be worked out?
 * What if the OG, normally formatted line was up top? And then after that it's it broken down word-by-word?


 * Eievie (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here’s a somewhat stupid idea: what if you reversed the order of all of the retranscription and transliteration, but keep the translation as it is now, that way the right-to-left order will be preserved and the translation would still be readable. Emolu (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That crossed my mind as well. I didn't immediately peruse it because it would require editing the fs interlinear template in some complicated ways. But if that is agreed to be the best option, I could work on that. Eievie (talk) Eievie (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Emolu This isn't set up with the template yet, just a demo with HTML. But is this what you were imagining?

2 𐤁𐤍 bn bin 𐤌𐤋𐤊 mlk milk  𐤕𐤁𐤍𐤕 tbnt tabnīt  𐤌𐤋𐤊 mlk milk  𐤑𐤃𐤍𐤌 ṣdnm ṣīdōnīm  𐤃𐤁𐤓 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">dbr <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">dabar  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤌𐤋𐤊 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">mlk <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">milk  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤀𐤔𐤌𐤍𐤏𐤆𐤓 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">ʾšmnʿzr <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">ʾèšmūnʿazar  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤌𐤋𐤊 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">mlk <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">milk  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤑𐤃𐤍𐤌 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">ṣdnm <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">ṣīdōnīm  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤋𐤀𐤌𐤓 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">lʾmr <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">līʾmōr  <p lang="phn" style="margin: 0px;">𐤍𐤂𐤆𐤋𐤕 <p lang="phn-Latn" style="margin: 0px;">ngzlt <p style="margin: 0px;font-style: italic;">nagzaltī  <p style="display: none;">𐤁𐤍 𐤌𐤋𐤊 𐤕𐤁𐤍𐤕 𐤌𐤋𐤊 𐤑𐤃𐤍𐤌 𐤃𐤁𐤓 𐤌𐤋𐤊 𐤀𐤔𐤌𐤍𐤏𐤆𐤓 𐤌𐤋𐤊 𐤑𐤃𐤍𐤌 𐤋𐤀𐤌𐤓 𐤍𐤂𐤆𐤋𐤕 <p style="display: none;">bn mlk tbnt mlk ṣdnm dbr mlk ʾšmnʿzr mlk ṣdnm lʾmr ngzlt <p style="display: none;">bin milk tabnīt milk ṣīdōnīm dabar milk ʾèšmūnʿazar milk ṣīdōnīm līʾmōr nagzaltī <p style="clear: left;">son of king Tabnit, king of the Sidonians, king Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians, said as follows: I was carried away
 * Eievie (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I was imagining! Emolu (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice. That's simpler on the code end that I was expecting, this should be very doable. Eievie (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I second @Emolu. @Eievie You clearly have no idea what you are doing. You don't get to unilaterally decide to mess up an incredibly well-written article just because you don't like how it looks?! Tables work perfectly fine thank you. Kyle 79080 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle79080 (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't make a unilateral decision; I made an edit. Making edits on wikipedia is allowed. You don't have to like the edit, and we can talk about its merits. But just making one edit — even one controversial edit — is not breaking the rules or anything, so I'd appreciate a little less hostility right off the bat.
 * And no, I did not make an edit just to change how it looks. I made an edit to highlight the relationship between the different renditions of the text. Eievie (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support your goal, and thank you for your efforts. Perhaps the way to take the heat out of the situation would be a present the full version here and we can discuss improvements.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile I still don't see any added value in changing the current table format. It has been tried and tested and works very well for this kind of side to side comparison. We have to bear in mind other editors who don't have a lot of experience with these new templates. Additionally, when the line breaks, especially on smaller screens, the result is unsightly and confusing, not to mention the writing direction issue that @Emolu highlighted. Tables offer the advantage of WYSIWYG in the newer live wikitext editors. I do not support changing the format. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just looked at it on my phone, and I'm deeply confused at what argument is being made here. On my small phone screen, the current table setup needs cuts off after the "transliteration" column. That seems terrible to me, both inconvenient and unsightly. How is that a good thing in your view?
 * As for new editors, the current version uses 4 templates (lang, transliterationx2, sc) and 1  per line. The idea that that all that is less confusing than a single fs interlinear template does not add up to me. Eievie (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for opening this discussion. has several problems which would need to be sorted out before it is used here:
 * The original-text line does not apply css to highlight the foreign language text as the lang templates do. I think this is essential and it is one of the points I raised during FAC.
 * While it works well for left-to-right scripts such as Greek or Russian, it fails badly for right-to-left scripts such as the Phoenician here. Although the word order is reversed, the glyph order within each word is unchanged, so the original and transliterated glyphs still do not line up. This looks like a failure to consider right-to-left scripts when designing the template.
 * While it will be OK to display a helpfully-wrong original line (in this case, all glyphs in reverse order, spaces between what we consider separate words), we would also need a helpfully-right original line (original order, added spaces, which is the input to the template). If the template generates this, it can be right-aligned to the width of the template display rather than the page width as in the example above.
 * My suggestion is that you fix the bugs in the template, which would potentially benefit lots of articles, then come back and propose using the corrected template here. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile @Mirokado I think I've got the technical side figured out, and I've started a thread about it here. I've got it working in a sandbox, and I'm ready to get it approved and move it to the template's main version. If you want to contribute to that conversation, now's the time. Eievie (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Other two sarcophagi
I have reworded the sentence in the lead in line with note 7, which says the owner of the female sarcophagus is unknown. Probably, my wording could be improved and the information should also be included in the body of the article. TSventon (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @TSventon It's an improvement. Thank you. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)