EKA AVALIANI                                                                                                                                                                         # 1

  “Cultural Synthesis” as Cross-cultural Interaction in Late Roman African World[1]

In the edge of two great civilizations, African and Latin, in the land of North Africa “Cultural Synthesis”, or Cross-cultural interaction become visible very evidently in Late Classical period. The Roman political domination in North Africa starts in A.D.42 year.

 The idea of Roman expansion into North Africa started with the fear and jealousy caused by the great economic power of Carthage. In the 3rd century B.C. Rome and Carthage jockeyed with each other for position and strength along the Mediterranean. The two had developed an unhealthy rivalry, which, in 264 B.C. led directly to a series of three wars, the Punic wars. By 146 B.C. Carthage was destroyed and Rome, having taken control of Spain and Africa, was soon to be undisputed ruler of the world. Rome established its firs African colony, Africa Vetus, in the most fertile part of what was formerly Carthaginian territory, and established Utica as the administration capital. The civil war between Caesar and Pompey brought North Africa into Roman spotlight once again. King Juba of Numidia was a client of Pompey and resisted the rule of Caesar. Caesar defeated Juba and all of North Africa was firmly and permanently in the control of Rome. North Africa was divided into several provinces and Romans formed several regional-administrative units: Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Caesarienes, Numidia and Africa Proconsularis. Roman consuls ruled parts of North Africa.

 Within Roman occupied Africa, the bulk of the population of was composed of three major population groups: the Berbers, native population of Africa, the Ancient Carthaginians of Phoenician origin and Roman colonists. Beside the ethnic diversity, this region provokes our interest with its religious grouping, which is reflecting on the different forms and motives of fine arts.

 As for Romanization, it is generally described as the process occurring in the provinces of the empire, which resulted in native culture more closely resembling that of Rome. On this point there seems to be relative agreement. Today, however, there is considerable disagreement on the extent to which the process was the product of an official policy, on whether it was the means or the result of Rome’s consolidation of power, whether or not it is possible to identify Roman as opposed to indigenous

Culture (that is to say, whether or not the two can actually be separated), and to what degree the indigenous populations were resistant, acquiescent or actively receptive to Roman culture.

 Though we think that it is important for now to note that Romanization as a concept is very much distinct from colonization, which more emphasis on Cultural Synthesis” as Cross-cultural Interaction, rather than purely political domination of the Roman state in the region.


 It is a commonly accepted axiom that ethnically and religiously motley regions, such as the Ancient Mediterranean, were formed by different cultures. Different cultural units were coexisting and developing independently throughout many centuries. This phenomenon is diffused everywhere in the Mediterranean world, but I limit my research to the historical evolution of the Apennines peninsula, North Africa, and the Near East, from the collapse of the Late Bronze age states until late Antiquity (Avaliani 1997:1-2).

 The Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean cultures gave the strongest impulse for the migration processes. Several migration processes affected the Western Mediterranean region from the Late Bronze Age, throughout the I mill. B.C. (Daniel 1967.)

 As it is commonly known, the Near Eastern cultures, the cradle of civilization, and especially the Anatolian and Mesopotamian civilizations, reached high levels in their social, technical - economical, political and cultural development. These communities, for greater self-determination, needed new spheres of influence because the possibilities of greater progress had already been exhausted on their native land ( Avaliani 1997: 2-3.). In this case, these cultures had to “find” a new way of self-regeneration and transformation in “space and time” (Avaliani. 1997:12.).Matured “mother civilizations” started “to plant,” in a mushroom-like, or “sporadically way,” (Avaliani 1997: 12-13.) New “embryonic communities” which in this case are in new areas (Avaliani 1997: 13.) At the same time, they started to transform themselves in their new “space and time” (Avaliani 1997: 15.).

 These processes began by colonists founding their emporiums for trade, then their colony proper. This brought also their civilized customs, religious beliefs and their own style of everyday life. In the area of their new inhabitation these communities reached high levels of development and slowly became independent cultural models. Some of their traditions were readily adopted by the indigenous populations of these historic-geographical areas, but they were also in turn influenced by these native cultures (Avaliani 1997: 18; Boardman 1980; Moscati 1988.).

 The Punic and Etruscan cultures, which blossomed and evolved in the Western Mediterranean near Classical cultures, offer good examples of the historical processes of the type described above. The origins of these “daughter-cultures” were rooted in the traditions of the ancient Phoenician and Anatolian-Lydian cultures (Avaliani 1997: 18; Briquel 1991.). The main aspects of their cultural identity (in our opinion) one can find in their religion, language and mental systems which distinguished them from other cultures of the ancient world and especially from the Classic Greek-Roman world (Avaliani 1997a: 5.).

The cult of Tanit, the Carthaginian Goddess, can illustrate well the process epitomized above because it allows the possibility to understand better the Punic cultural model of North Africa, which includes Phoenician, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek and lately, Roman cultural elements as well. Her cult arose in the Punic world but was closely connected with the Near Eastern and Semitic religious beliefs. I would like to support the opinion that Tanit, through the above mentioned migration processes, was the Great Mother goddess of the Western Phoenician world. The main focus of my interest is the Punic cultural model of North Africa. That is why it is the subject of this research.

The Punic cultural model of North Africa suggests an unusual civilization patterns for the Classic world, showing the diversity of religious aspects, artistic forms and specific cultural developments of the society as a whole.

Concerning the Punic cultural model in the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods, there are some basic problems about cultural layers. These layers might be observed as: 1) Mediterranean (East, West) substrate; 2) Indigenous; 3) Classic (Hellenic-Roman). The ascendant cultural element must be the Eastern Mediterranean one, as I shall discuss below.

The first layer of the Punic culture was enriched first by the Eastern, and later by Western, Mediterranean elements, unlike their contemporary Greek and Roman models of antiquity. In drawing differences, contrasts or analogies between these cultural models (Western and Eastern Mediterranean) I use the following methodological tools: 1) analysis of the religious subjects of Punic fine arts; 2) explanations of the analogies and differences of these subjects with analogous examples of Punic art in Eastern and Western Mediterranean.

In the fine arts I am about to pay particular attention to the connection between the creative forms and their religious context. This is made easy due to the fact that ancient Near Eastern cultures created their art for practical, rather than aesthetic, purposes, distinguishing their art from their Classical counterparts.

The examples of Punic art which attracted my attention are outstanding not only because of their artistic features, but because also of their religious beliefs, motifs, rituals as well as its “language”. Punic art uses sacramental “languages” consisting of symbols which are very difficult “to read,” giving thus space for interpretations.

Punic state art, portraits, and votive art patterns usually have religious messages. For the Carthaginians, perhaps more than for the other people of the Classical world around whom Carthage evolved (especially the Etruscans), systematical reference to their universal religions constitute the principle binding force of unity (Brown 1991:15-18.). Also if the Carthaginians were cosmopolitan and urbanized people, yet their religion and cultic practices were very conservative and not understandable to their non-Punic contemporaries.

A large number of Punic art objects which have survived come from these particular funerary areas in sanctuaries and cemeteries, which were called ‘tophets.’ Punic religion was rooted in the religious beliefs of the ancient Near Eastern and Semitic worlds. In these cultural models the religious aspect was the most important as the irrational mythopoetical comprehension was dominant over the secular mentality (Dodds E., Robertson1951; Morris 1992.). As stated earlier, the appearance of religious themes in Phoenician art preeminently served a practical purpose and only a minor aesthetic one.

The cult of Tanit, though evidence for it outside of Carthage is sparse, was of great importance to the ‘new city.” Perhaps the legend of Dido, the Phoenician queen, drove the city to choose a female goddess as its symbol, borrowing from other Eastern societies their own protective female goddesses (Dido in LIMC 1997: 559). In Carthage, the cult of Tanit spread from the beginning of the V c. B.C.

For example, the little monument of Thinissut was discovered in the ruins of a sanctuary dedicated to Tanit. In the dedication of the neo-Punic temple of Bir-bou-Rekba, which is noteworthy because of its antiquity, the name Tanit is followed by the name of the god Baal, the male supreme deity of the Carthaginians, suggesting, perhaps, a holy connection between the two( Lancel 1995:199.) In the ex-votos in Carthage’s tophet, thousands of dedicated texts were found dated over two or three centuries. The sanctuary at Sarepta dedicated to Tanit-Ashtart (Astarte) (Pritchard 1982: 83-92.) A precinct on Malta contains engraved ceramic fragments dedicated to the goddesses Tanit and to Astarte (Moscati 1968:65.). Incredibly, the name of Tanit appeared in Minoan text as Ti-ni-ta, in recording offerings to various gods (Gordon 1967: 36; see Hagia Triada 27: a: 1.).

In Carthage, in the IV c. B.C., Tanit was mentioned either alone or before Ba’al Hammon in the sacrificial dedications which show her prominence. She was depicted as a robed human figure. The symbol is shown on cippi as well as stele from Carthage and on sacrificial monuments from southern Italian sites. She was also a common figure in other iconographical themes, so much so that she is generally regarded as a symbol of the city of Carthage itself (Picard 1968a: 87.).

 Tanit, because of her prominence, was a great mother goddess of this state, who gave to it a living force and protected its population. Parallels can be easily found in the emblems of the mythopoetical interpretation of reality of the Western and Eastern Semitic worlds. In these cultural models, an irrational mythopoetical understanding was dominant over a more secular one. That comprehension is why divine forces determined and ruled the everyday lives of these communities. For example, Gatumdag was the ‘Mother of Lagas,’ Ninsina, the ‘Lady of Isin,’ Ninmah, the ‘Lady of Kes.’ Ninhusagen, the ‘Magnae Matres,’ Arurua, Nintu, the ‘Mothers of Land,’ were the ladies who both gave birth and protected those states (Black 1995: 86-132.). In the ancient traditions of these areas, these ‘Mothers’ were also associated with kingships (Neumann 1974: 99; Black, Green, 1995; Vermaseren 1977.).

The goddess Asherat was a main supreme deity of Tyre, the state from which the migration processes started in Northern Africa. She protected this town and was the ‘great lady of the sea.’ Punic Tanit, as Egyptian Isis, seemed to have been a ‘sea goddess’ too; boats were offered to her as ex-votos.

Elath was worshipped in Sidon as the ‘great Mother of Sidon,’ in the same way as Astarte-Baalat, ‘the great goddess of Byblos.’ They were both ‘Magnae Matres’ (James 1958:1-5.). In this case, Tanit could be associated with the great mother of Carthage; the theonyme ‘TNT’ was derived from the Phoenician ‘itn’ which means ‘donor’ and ‘to give,’ which we can interpret as the ‘lady who gives the living force’ (LIMC 1183-1184.). Tanit seems to be a syncretic goddess in the Near Eastern setting.


Since ancient times (IV-III mill. B.C.), the archetype of the Oriental primordial mother goddess was the matrilineal supreme deity associated with various aspects of worship. She was the goddess of fertility, reproduction, nature and animals as well as of mortuary rituals. Later, during the II mill. B.C., the goddesses of the ‘younger generations’ adopted these aspects of worship. It often happens in the history of pantheons, that younger gods, whose cults evolved during the historical times, eclipse the older ones as referents of adoration. In these cases, Tanit was one of the international goddesses of the ‘younger generation.’

An inscription from a shrine at Sarepta, which consists of a dedication and statue to Tanit-Ashtart, is the first clear example of her name in an eastern context (Pritchard 1982:82.). The absence of eastern evidence for Tanit is remarkable. A stele from the II c. B.C. was found above a tomb shaft on the hill of St. Monique at Carthage, which was erected in honor of Astarte and Tanit Libanon (Picard 1968: 20.). ‘Tanit Libanon’ means ‘the white mountain.’ The epithet reveals that she was the great mother of Oriental origin, whose cult was associated with the mountains, the pillars and the stones (Pfiffig 1972: 11; Farnell 1907. 299; Von Soden1985: 87; Levy 1946: 223.).[2]

 As stated earlier, TNT was connected with the root ITN, which means ‘to give.’ The text number 347 of the Proto-Canaanite inscriptions of Sinai used the name TNT as an epithet to qualify Asherat, ‘the lady of the sea monster of dragon.’ From this, one could conclude that Asherat (Astarte) became the supreme deity of Carthage with the name Tanit, in other words, she became the Lady of Carthage (Picard 1968:152.).

 In my opinion, from the evidence above, the Phoenician colonists, in their new founded emporium, began to worship with a special cult, the mother goddess who was one of the goddesses of the ‘younger generation’ arising from the Eastern primordial great mother.


 The Language of Religious Symbols

  The Lady of Carthage was closely related to funerary and fertility deities. In the votive steles from plot-Toffets dedicated to Tanit there are different symbols connected with her cult. The cult’s sculptures and emblems of the goddess Tanit were made according to Punic plastic norms. In these vaguely anthropomorphic representations, Tanit’s motif was composite, unifying symbols from the Near East and Mesopotamia into a new motif or emblem, which becomes sacred in Carthage. The symbols which I will discuss as emblematic of Tanit are: the raised-arm figure, the triangle, the circle, the breast-motif, the united crescent and disk, and, finally, the hand motif and etc.

 The most common symbol of the goddess Tanit, spreading in North Africa and the Western Mediterranean, was a figure with its arms raised in blessing (Raphael 1947:140.). The origin and parallels to this gesture one can find in ancient Near Eastern and Mesopotamian art, where goddesses were represented with their arms raised in blessing. Interesting parallels to our findings can be found in representations of goddess’ symbols from the island of Mochlos (Crete, Late Minoan I). There, a schematic figure of a female appears, whose arms are raised in blessing and whose wings are in the shape of a double ax (Gimbutas1974: fig. 187.).

 The ‘sign of Tanit’ is the name of this symbol found on thousands of stelae. Her symbols are simple geometric designs of the triangle, circle, schematic representations of the breast-motif, and crescents and horns.[3] These female figures appear also on the stelae cippi, holding their breasts. We cannot be certain, but it seems likely, since the holding of the breasts was a common symbol of the mother goddess from the ‘older generation,’ that this gesture was adopted by Tanit as a goddess of fertility in the ‘newer generation’ in the Punic world, which is how one could conclude that these are also images of Tanit. A terra cotta plaque from Carthage showing a woman with a disk could also be a representation of Tanit (Moscati 1965, fig. 64-65.).[4]

 The symbol of the triangle takes its origin from the Neolithic times. We find triangles in Ubaid (IV mill. B.C.), they are considered to be the schematic representations of the uterus. We connect these examples too with the fertility cult of the Great mother. In Egypt, the symbol of the triangle connects to the cult of the Great Mother Goddess (James 1960:53.). The triangle also appears in as a symbol of female fertility in Cyprus in the Eneolithic times as well as in sculptures from Phoenicia (Neumann 1974: fig.14.).

 Another symbol of Tanit is the sign of the bottle, which could be the symbolic representation of a child to whom she gives birth. The birth motif connects the goddess with the natural cycle of birth, death and rebirth which relates not only to the cyclical seasons but also to the ancient belief in an afterlife. As evidence of this strong belief in Punic society there were existed the ritual sacrifice of the first born to Tanit, so as to insure the success of future children and generations. This one ritual alone neatly relates her to the archetype of the great mother goddess. She gives life to her children and takes them back as victims into her womb. According to Egyptian believes, unborn child was considered a living being and the newborn was named at birth (Feucht 1995: 94; .Hornung 1992:178.). Both the umbilical cord and placenta were thought to have magical potency and were bored in special placenta burials and the materials associated with birth (Bruyĕre: 1937, 11; 81p.). Some kind of evidence for these rituals and burial rites comes from Babylonian context; According to Th. Jacobsen in the chapel of Nigar was the special cemetery for still-born or premature babies and depository for afterbirths (Stol, 2000:112.)

, placenta and umbilical cord could also be buried there. According to the Hymn Ninsina, Goddess of medicine says to have a power “to establish fertility for thousands of girls; to deal rightly with the pot of the deposited afterbirth, to cut the (umbilical) cord by a reed, to determine the fate; to put the hands on the door of the (chapel) Nigar, to …a malformed birth”( Stol 2000:112) One cuneiform tablet from Puzrish-Dagan (c. 8 km southeast of Nippur) again mentions about Ur-Nigar, as for special place used for perished animals; it occurs that the dead animals were transferred from Lu-digira to Ur-Nigar.[5] Following the context, we could make some additional speculation: it could be that, the animals, which expected to be involved in sacrificial ceremony, and probably, had died before the ritual practice, were transported to the chapel of Ur-Nigar for burying. This chapel was the sacred cemetery, depository for afterbirths , but it could also be the burial for dead animals. We propose that the chapel/cemetery region could be associated to the Mother goddess‘s area of influence since, stressing her negative aspect of the Terrible Mother of underworld, she was mistress of the gates, the gate of death, the engulfing entrance to underworld. Traditionally, gate, door, gully, ravine, abyss were the symbols of the feminine earth-womb (Neumann 1983,170; Stol 2000,9. 54n.). That is way “to put the hands on the door of the (chapel) Nigar,” could be associated with the entrance to the underworld.

 From that evidence we assume that, Punic goddess Tanit , who was related to funerary and fertility deities (Avaliani1999,25-38), borrowed some ritual practice from Babylonian context in later times. Tanit was associated with sacred sector, or tophet, where archaeologists have found remains of young children and animals. The Carthaginian tophet has long been the subject of controversy; debate persists over the significance of these burials. Do they offer grim testimony to the ritual practice of child sacrifice, or more likely to have been burials of still-born children and young infants deceased from natural causes? The great rarity of infant burials in adult Punic cemeteries suggests that children were interred separately (Markoe, 2000, 133-34). We suppose that this special cemetery for still-born children was also depository for afterbirths in Punic world. In our opinion, this sacred place with its burials was under the protection of goddess Tanit, who was a great mother goddess of her state, gave living force to it and protected population. In conclusion, the earth was observed as the womb of goddess, and the ancient population of the Near East had common attitude to her general functions;

 In addition of the plastic symbol of the bottle, which connects Tanit to the cycle of life, the etymology of the words to describe this bottle also shows this connection. In Semitic language and Old Hebrew, R-H-M, which is phonetically connected to Ugaritic R-h-b, means ‘the wide vessel for liquid,’ such as the bottle motif described above. In Hebrew, R-H-M meant ‘pity, compassion and womb’ as well, thus unifying the themes of the bottle and the womb.[6]

 The crescent and disk were early motifs in tophet iconography. I identified the crescent as the moon, symbolizing Tanit and the disk as the sun symbolizing Baal Hamon. In the ‘lunar religions’, the cult of the mother goddess was associated with the moon.[7] The belief in the generative power of the great mother was thus extended to embrace the seasonal movement of the stars and the cycles of death and rebirth of the moon, an important aspect of both agriculture and ritual. The numerous goddess figurines found in Crete with raised arms, imitating the form of the horns of consecration, were no doubt a representation of the gesture used at sacred ceremonies (Cameron 1981:9.).

 The hand motif has been particularly difficult to interpret. It may be viewed as a sign of the goddess’ benediction, or of her ownership of the sacred land (Nouget 1983.). This gesture is a Near Eastern one for which there are parallels from Levant and Mesopotamia. The gesture of raising the arms, especially the angle at which the arms are held and the clear emphasis of the palm of the hands, are common in the Eastern and Western Phoenician world.

 In addition to the surviving motifs of Tanit, there exist cult sculptures of her made according to Punic plastic norms, even during Hellenic and Late Antiquity periods. These sculptures were made either in relief or as freestanding figures. However, unlike their contemporary Hellenic-Roman sculptures, these were non-graceful in their graphic style and the free standing figures were not meant to be viewed in the round. Tanit’s sculptural figures varied. Some of them recall the mother goddess from the Near East, ‘Dea Nutrix’ Tanit, who appears nursing a child with her milk. This theme of the nursing mother was common in Mesopotamian, Near Eastern, Syrian, Egyptian, and later in Etruscan art. For example, the Etruscan cinerary stature from Chiusi of a seated mother holding her child, the mother Matuta, is very similar to the Punic mother goddess figure, as are the votive statuettes of mothers holding their children from Veii.

 The image of the Near Eastern and Western Mediterranean Kourotrophos, the figure of a goddess holding a baby, rooted in much more ancient religious cult beliefs and rituals, is frequent in Punic and Etruscan art. In one sculpture, the great mother goddess Tanit is represented seated on a throne. It is not an accident that the greatest mother goddess of the early cults was named Isis, meaning ‘the seat’ or ‘throne.’ The throne becomes the sacred symbol of the Great Mother, who has receded into the background and it is on this throne that the king sits (Neumann 1974). The mother goddess, by sitting on a throne, ‘takes her possession’ of the earth (Hocart 1927:97.). In early times the throne was associated with the mountain as a symbol of power (Neumann 1974:98.).Tanit, as a great mother, had her own throne, decorated with a sphinx motif, underlying Tanit’s magic power over nature and humans. I propose that Tanit, through her motherhood, was the prototype of the woman who gave a living force to her stock.

 In Mesopotamian and Egyptian arts, the mother goddess protected kings, who took their power from her. Images of the goddess feeding the ‘king infant’ with her milk represent symbolically the goddess’ power. In still another sculpture, Tanit was represented as a gloomy woman with the face of a lion holding a disk in her hands. Perhaps this represents her warrior aspect. Both the image of the lion and the warrior appear on other goddess images. The Phoenician Astarte would sometimes appear as a warrior.[8] The lion image surfaced in the Egyptian goddess Sekhet who was generally depicted in the form of a woman with the head of a lioness. In the representations of Sekhet-Bast-Ra, she appears with the head of a lioness and wings (Budge 1904:519, 516, 518.).

 Carthaginian funerary sculptures are the result of this tradition. The tradition of sarcophagi decorated with figures survived in the Punic capital through the Hellenistic era and older ones were preserved by the depths of underground tombs. In the cemetery known as Sainte Monique north of the town, two marble sarcophagi were discovered which reveal the modifications that had been made to the oriental mode. One of them is a very deep relief of a woman whose figure shows a singular syncretism of Egyptian and Hellenistic features. Egyptian elements of Isis are superimposed on representations of Egyptian style, but the treatment of the face is in the Hellenistic manner. The falcon and the crossed wings are peculiar to the iconography of Isis. She becomes a winged goddess version of Tanit (Lancel 1995. ).

 A Few Words in Conclusion:

 In North Africa, Romanization was a slow process. At the end of this period Tanit has been associated with Hera for the Greeks and with Juno Caelestic for the Romans (LIMC 1997:1183-1184.). She was also identified with Athena, Demeter and Artemis (LIMC 1997:1183-1184.). Some parallels can also be found with Egyptian Sekhet, Neith and Isis.

 Tanit, the lady of Carthage, was an international goddess spread over the whole Western Mediterranean (Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa). With her spouse, Baal Hamman, they were young gods of the younger generation who out shined the older Phoenician Baal and Anath in the mythopoetical comprehension of Punic religious beliefs. The Phoenician colonists, in their new founded emporiums, started to worship their own special gods who were associated with their power. Tanit was the bearer of the traits of the primordial ancient mothers, but in the new lands of Northern Africa, she became the sincretical goddess - the ‘goddess of many names.’


 The historical phenomena of the symbiosis of cultures and religions consist in this case of interactions and cross influences between different cultural elements. These historical events embraced the Eastern and Western Mediterranean during the Orientalizing period and became more remarkable, after a long period, in the Hellenistic age and in Late Antiquity. As I have also stressed, this synthesis of cultures embraced Asia Minor, North Africa and the Apennines peninsula during the I mill. B.C. This synthesis of culture can be followed in Carthage from the Punic times until the Hellenistic, Roman and finally until the Christian times. By following the migration of the symbols and images of the mother goddess Tanit, one can see the symbiosis and cultural exchange between the ancient and the new world of Europe


1. “Roman” culture was by definition a cosmopolitan fusion of influences from diverse origins rather than purely the native culture of Rome itself. We must thus see Romanization as a process of dialectical change, rather than the influence of one 'purer culture upon others. Roman culture interacted with native cultures to produce the synthesis that we cal1 “Romanized." Millett, M. The Romanization of Britain: An essay in Archaeological interpretation, Cambridge, 1990.1.

2. See: Stele with sign Tanit and other symbols from Carthage, Musee National, Bardo.

3. See: Musee national Carthage. Musee National Bardo.

 4. For the stelae and their symbols see: Barteloni, P le “stele” Arcaiche del Tofet di Carthagine, Rome (1976). Body-> vessel-> world-> Woman as body; body-vessel is the natural expression of the human experience of woman bearing the child “within” her. p. 42 also A significant symbolic feature of some of the primitive “woman jars” is common for the primordial Goddess. See the illustrations from Troy, Austria, Cyprus, and Italy...etc. in Hoernes M., Urgeschichte der Bildenden Kunst in Europe, Vienna (1925) pp. 198, 361, 451, 497.

5. Clark Collection of Ancient art, Cuneiform Tablets, Ripon College. Tablet EC.74.3. See on-line http:// www.ripon.edu/academics/art/clarc/Cuneiform.htmlTranslations and transliterations ©Markus Hilgert Adjunct Scholar Institute of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures:
Assyriology and Hilprecht-Sammlung of Near Eastern Antiquities,
Friedrich-Schiller Universities Jena, Germany.

6. See: Statue Nabeul, Mus. 1238 de Thinissut; Merlin, A., Bull Arch CIH. 1909, 11-73.

7. This image was surmounted by a lunar disk encircled by the symbol of uraeus.

 8. see: Lancel, S., 1995. Fig. 194. From the cemetery known as Sainte-Monique, Musee national de Carthage, p.325. ;H. de Villefosse, Monuments Piot, XII, 1905, 4e-3e.


 Alexandropoulos 1987: Alexandropoulos J. Traces du culte de Tanit sur les Monnaics de la proconsoure, Karthage 21.

 Avaliani 1997: Avaliani E. The phenomenon of Cultural Transformation in Time and Space, Tbilisi: Logos, Tbilisi State University Press.

 Avaliani 1999: Avaliani E. The Cult of Tanit In the Context of the Punic Cultural Model of North Africa, Numismatica E Antichita Classische,XXVIII, Quaderni Ticinesi, Lugano.

 Avaliani 1997a: Avaliani E. For a Conceptual Interpretation of Culture and Civilization. Tbilisi: Logos, Tbilisi State University Press.

 Baldus1988: Baldus H. R. Eine Hannibalische Tanit. Chiron 18.

 Bonnet 1991: Bonnet C. Tinnitsoeur Cadelte de Astarta, Die Welt des Orien 22, 13-84.r

 Boardman1980:Boardman J., The Greeks Overseas; Their early colonies and trade. London.

 Braudel: 2001, Braudel, F. The Mediterranean in the Ancient World. Penguin.

 Bordreuil 1987: Bordreuil P. Tanit du Liban, dans Phoenicia and East Mediterranean in the first Millenium B.C., Studia Phoenica 5.

 Black….1995: Black J., Green A. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, Texas University Press.

 Briquel 1991: Briquel D. L’origine Lydienne des Etrusques, Rome.

 Brown 1991: Brown S. Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context, Sheffield.

 Bruyĕre1937: Bruyĕre B.Rapport les Fouilles de deir el Mėdineh (1934-1935), Deuxiėme Partie FIFAO 15.Cairo: Imprimerie de I’Institut Francais d’Archĕologie Orientale.

 Budge1904: Budge W. Gods of Ancient Egyptians, London.

 Cameron 1981: Cameron D.O. Symbols of Birth and Death in the Neolithic Era, London.

 Daniel… 1967: Daniel G., Litt and Evans J.D. The Western Mediterranean. Vol.2. Cambridge.

 Dussoud 1903: Dussoud R. Notes de Mythologic Syrienne, Revue Archaeologique, (4 serie), Paris.

 Farnell 1907: Farnell L. Cults of the Greek States, Vol. 3, Oxford.

 Fantar 1997: Fantar M.Hamad. ”TANIT”, in LIMC,8, 1997.

 Feucht 1995: Feucht E. Das kind im altem Agypten, Frankfurt and New York, Campus Verlag.

 Gimbutas1974: Gimbutas M. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, London.

 Goff 1963: Goff B.C. Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia, New Haven and London.

 Gordon 1967: Gordon C.H. Ugarit and Minoan Crete, New York.

 Gsell 1920: Gsell S. Histoire Ancienne de Afrique du Nord, 4 (vol. 8) Paris.

 Hocart 1927: Hocart A. Kingship, Oxford University Press. London: Humphrey Milford.

 Hornung1992: Hornung E. Idea into Image: Essays in Ancient Egyptian thought. New York, Timken,

 James 1960: James E.O. The Ancient Gods; The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean,   London.

 James1958, James E.O., Myth and Ritual in Ancient Near East, London: Oxford University Press.

 Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologihe Classical (LIMC) 1997: vol. VIII, p. 559, Zurich and Dusseldorf.

 Lancel 1995: Lancel S. Carthage; A History, Oxford.

 Levy 1946: Levy R.C. The Gate of Horn, London.

 Markoe 2000: Markoe G. Phoenicians, People of the Past, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

 Millett 1990: Millett M. The Romanization of Britain: an essay in archaeological interpretation, Cambridge.

 Morris 1992: Morris S. Daidalus and the Origins of Greek Art; Princeton University Press.

 Moscati 1965: Moscati S. The World of the Phoenicians, 1, London:

 Moscati1988: Moscati S. The Phoenicians, Venice.

 Neumann 1974: Neumann E., The Great Mother, Princeton University Press.

 Nouget1983: Nouget R. Prehistoric Art. Turin.

 Picard 1968a: Picard C., Genese et Evolution des Signes de la Bouteille et de Tanit in Carthage Studi Magrbini, 2.77-87, Naples.

 Picard 1964: Picard C., Tanit Courotrophe, dan Hommages A.M. Renard 3.

 Picard …1968: Picard G.C., Picard, C., The Life and Death of Carthage, London.

 Pritchard 1982: Pritchard J.B., The Tanit Inscription from Sarepta Inphoenizier in West, ed. by H.G. Niemeyer.

 Pfiffig1972: Pfiffig A.J., Einfuhrung in die Etruscologie, Damstardt .

 Raphael 1947: Raphael M. Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Egypt; trans. by Norbert Guterman. New York .

 Robertson 1951: Robertson Dodds E. The Greeks and the Irrational; California Press.

 Tlatli1978: Salah-Eddine Tlatli, La Carthage Punique, Paris.

 Soren 1990: Soren D., Aicha Ben Abed, Ben Khader and Hedi Slim, Carthage, New York.

 Soden1985: Wolfam von Soden. The Ancient Orient; An Introduction to the Study of Ancient East, Darmstadt.

 Stol 2000: Stol M., Birth in Babylonia and the Bible its Mediterranean Setting, Cuneiform Monographs 14, STYX Publications Groningen.

 Vermaseren 1977: Vermaseren M. J. Cybele and Attis, the myth and the cult. London: Oxford University Press.




 Volume 3, issue 1


Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature

Georgian Electronic Journal of Literature