DOI Heft:
Nr. 1-2
DOI Artikel:Hall, Harry R.: Does Fenkhu = Phoinix?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12745#0046
36
DOES FENKHU - *oÊvi$?
the soimd p-h (pehe). It was not till the third century B. C. that <p came to resemble
in pronunciation the Latin/1, and *oiv^ was used to designate a Phœnician as early
as the composition of the Odyssey4 : in the fifth century, when it was commonly used
in this sensé3, cp was still pronounced p-h. Apart from the translitération Ph, the
Latin Poenus shews how <ï>oîvilj or *o!vo; originally sounded. The éléments of the sup-
posed Semitic original of <ï>o(vi£-Wvoî must then have been p-h-n-h(k), or (if we elimi-
nate the final of #oîvi£ as a mere suffix, like the -oc of <ï><nvoç) p-h-n. Then v\
cannot be an Egyptian représentation of it. Were the Egyptian word □ $ Y>
n,wwvi -fv©,! TiiT^e a © jt m
or \> the case would be dînèrent.
ra
I do not therefore agrée with Prof. Sethe that both Fnhw (Fenkhu) and *oîvi$
are reproductions of the same original, and I do not see that we are bound to suppose
that *oîvi| (= Phœnician) is a reproduction of such an original at ail. It seems to be a
Greek name meaning simply the "Red", as has often been pointed out4 : the #otW.£;
are the "Red Men" of the East, *o!vt^ in tins scnse being a purely Greek word (*o(voç
= deep red), and used to describe the "purple" dye of the murex. Fenkhu may or
may not have had a Semitic original. But we cannot translate the word. as " Phœni-
cians", as we cannot shew that it had anything to do with the sea-coast " Canaanites "
(as they called themselves) whom theGreeks called Pehoinik-es, "the Red Men", and
we " Phœnicians " (Fenici, as the logical Italians write it). The explanation of Fen-
khu given by W. M. Mùller in Asien und Europa, p. 208 ff., seems to me to be
perfectly correct. This is that the word is a poetical (and no doubt very old) Egyp-
tian name for Asiatic foreigners, perhaps originally fekhu, ^^^K*^5. It was not
© _zi i i i
originally an ethnie name at ail, but a contemptuous adjective applied to the lands
of the foreigners rather than to them themselves.
1. In the Classical Reoiew, XVIII (1904), p. 3, I pointed out that Egyptian sources provide interesting évi-
dence as to the date of the change in the pronunciation of cp. The name of Philip Arrhid;eus in the fourth
century is written ((j ^> ( ( ^ □ ^| ^ <tne letters (( eally iu, being a simple transcription
of the Demotic group J|| which was always used to represent i (as J\, ( àu, was used to represent e),
and the sign 4o | (originally va) having in Ptolemaic times the sound o). Here cp is deflnitely given the value
p-h. Had it been pronounced /, the Egyptians would have transcribed it as *— . But on an ostrakon of the
reign of Philadelphos, only a few years later (Wilcken, Grieefnst'.he Ostraka, 336, Berlin No 4345), we find the
name of an Egyptian woman, NocpEps-r, the Egyptian ^ ^fj, in which the Egyptian is transcribed
as cp. So that it is évident that at any rate the vulgar pronunciation of cp already in the Illrd cent. B. C. re-
sembled/. In the Roman period we find both and cp transliterated in Latin by/ : cf. the name Neferos
(= Necpepwç, ^ J^'' ^n ^atin military r0'l °* tne l'n(l cent. A. D. frou Kom Ushim (Grenfell and
Hunt, Fayoum Towns, No. 105, p. 256).
2. CW.', XV, 419.
3. Hdt., I. 1-8, 90; Thuk., I, 100; VIII, 81, 87; Eur., Troadcs, 221; At., Birds, 504.
4. E. g., by Eduard Meyer, in the Eneyclopœdia Bibtica, art. " Phœnicia ".
5. The meaning of the word is given by Maspero as " les Soumis ", i. e. the prisoners, " the bound ones " J
"les pays soumis" or ''ravagés" : by Muller as " the loosed ", i. e. plundered or ravaged lands (later,
folk). We only know by the determinative "^"^ that the word had something to do either with tying or
untying, but its rough signification is clear. That it was in use under the Vth Dynasty is shewn by Sethe,
Àg. Zts., XIV, 140: it occurs in an inscription of Ne-user-ra at Abusir, as an adjective, khaskhut neb
fen[khv.....], " ail the fenkh (foreign-) lands " (not, I think, as Prof. Sethe translates, " aile Fremdlànder, die
Fn[hw]").
DOES FENKHU - *oÊvi$?
the soimd p-h (pehe). It was not till the third century B. C. that <p came to resemble
in pronunciation the Latin/1, and *oiv^ was used to designate a Phœnician as early
as the composition of the Odyssey4 : in the fifth century, when it was commonly used
in this sensé3, cp was still pronounced p-h. Apart from the translitération Ph, the
Latin Poenus shews how <ï>oîvilj or *o!vo; originally sounded. The éléments of the sup-
posed Semitic original of <ï>o(vi£-Wvoî must then have been p-h-n-h(k), or (if we elimi-
nate the final of #oîvi£ as a mere suffix, like the -oc of <ï><nvoç) p-h-n. Then v\
cannot be an Egyptian représentation of it. Were the Egyptian word □ $ Y>
n,wwvi -fv©,! TiiT^e a © jt m
or \> the case would be dînèrent.
ra
I do not therefore agrée with Prof. Sethe that both Fnhw (Fenkhu) and *oîvi$
are reproductions of the same original, and I do not see that we are bound to suppose
that *oîvi| (= Phœnician) is a reproduction of such an original at ail. It seems to be a
Greek name meaning simply the "Red", as has often been pointed out4 : the #otW.£;
are the "Red Men" of the East, *o!vt^ in tins scnse being a purely Greek word (*o(voç
= deep red), and used to describe the "purple" dye of the murex. Fenkhu may or
may not have had a Semitic original. But we cannot translate the word. as " Phœni-
cians", as we cannot shew that it had anything to do with the sea-coast " Canaanites "
(as they called themselves) whom theGreeks called Pehoinik-es, "the Red Men", and
we " Phœnicians " (Fenici, as the logical Italians write it). The explanation of Fen-
khu given by W. M. Mùller in Asien und Europa, p. 208 ff., seems to me to be
perfectly correct. This is that the word is a poetical (and no doubt very old) Egyp-
tian name for Asiatic foreigners, perhaps originally fekhu, ^^^K*^5. It was not
© _zi i i i
originally an ethnie name at ail, but a contemptuous adjective applied to the lands
of the foreigners rather than to them themselves.
1. In the Classical Reoiew, XVIII (1904), p. 3, I pointed out that Egyptian sources provide interesting évi-
dence as to the date of the change in the pronunciation of cp. The name of Philip Arrhid;eus in the fourth
century is written ((j ^> ( ( ^ □ ^| ^ <tne letters (( eally iu, being a simple transcription
of the Demotic group J|| which was always used to represent i (as J\, ( àu, was used to represent e),
and the sign 4o | (originally va) having in Ptolemaic times the sound o). Here cp is deflnitely given the value
p-h. Had it been pronounced /, the Egyptians would have transcribed it as *— . But on an ostrakon of the
reign of Philadelphos, only a few years later (Wilcken, Grieefnst'.he Ostraka, 336, Berlin No 4345), we find the
name of an Egyptian woman, NocpEps-r, the Egyptian ^ ^fj, in which the Egyptian is transcribed
as cp. So that it is évident that at any rate the vulgar pronunciation of cp already in the Illrd cent. B. C. re-
sembled/. In the Roman period we find both and cp transliterated in Latin by/ : cf. the name Neferos
(= Necpepwç, ^ J^'' ^n ^atin military r0'l °* tne l'n(l cent. A. D. frou Kom Ushim (Grenfell and
Hunt, Fayoum Towns, No. 105, p. 256).
2. CW.', XV, 419.
3. Hdt., I. 1-8, 90; Thuk., I, 100; VIII, 81, 87; Eur., Troadcs, 221; At., Birds, 504.
4. E. g., by Eduard Meyer, in the Eneyclopœdia Bibtica, art. " Phœnicia ".
5. The meaning of the word is given by Maspero as " les Soumis ", i. e. the prisoners, " the bound ones " J
"les pays soumis" or ''ravagés" : by Muller as " the loosed ", i. e. plundered or ravaged lands (later,
folk). We only know by the determinative "^"^ that the word had something to do either with tying or
untying, but its rough signification is clear. That it was in use under the Vth Dynasty is shewn by Sethe,
Àg. Zts., XIV, 140: it occurs in an inscription of Ne-user-ra at Abusir, as an adjective, khaskhut neb
fen[khv.....], " ail the fenkh (foreign-) lands " (not, I think, as Prof. Sethe translates, " aile Fremdlànder, die
Fn[hw]").