Talk:Sign of Tanit

Can we be certain the 'Sign' is genuinely associated with Tanit?

It is important to realise that we cannot be absolutely certain that the ‘sign’ is directly associated with Tanit. That is often assumed – even by me. Some writers such as Quinn have cautioned against such an assumption. SimonJKyte (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The sign of Tanit is associated to her by peer reviewed publications and genuine authors. Secondary authors of less importance are not taken seriously for Wikipedia articles, if you believe Quinn is a worthy author of mention you can quote him in the body of the text specifically by name and his opinion. 105.109.157.159 (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Quinn is Josephine Quinn . I think she just keeps an open mind on whether / to what extent the Sign is associated with Tanit. I do not think she would appreciate being called a ‘secondary author of less importance’. I would especially recommend / In Search of the Phoenicians

Kraay in The archaic coinage of Himera, Naples (1984), with his focus on numismatics, argues exactly the position that the Sign does not represent a specific deity.

What you see on Sicily – especially on the western fringes in Marsala and Kapara / Solous, long after the fall of Carthage is the continued use of the Sign on funerary monuments. That does suggest that the Sign was capable of having transformed associations.

I am not categorically saying that the Sign is not [at least over some period of time] associated with Tanit; I think it is. All I am saying is that we have to keep an open mind to other possibilities. SimonJKyte (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article should emphasise this uncertainty for exactly the reasons you state (although the evidence from Sicily is capable of taking the opposite interpretation - it could be a sign of continued vitality of Phoenician cultural elements into the Imperial period). Furius (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ashkelon and other sites in Israel

The article shows images of amulets from Ashkelon – which may well be Signs of Tanit. But have also been argued to be developments of the Ankh symbol or something else. According to Wolff, Stern & Erlich most of the Signs found in Israel probably date to the fifth century BCE or later with one exception: Tel Megiddo. The Tel Megiddo Sign looks to have been eleventh century – which would completely up-end research on the Sign of Tanit (if this is what it is). In my book, ‘Tanit: lost goddess of the Central Mediterranean’ Amazon link here I incorporated discussion of the Cypriot coins of Kition under Pumayyaton, using the work of Markou and the University of Edinburgh Cyprus Numismatics Project. A particular type of coin previously considered to have been issued by Evagoras II of Salamis is now known to have been issued by Pumayyaton. On the reverse of this coin is a horse, an eight pointed star - the symbol of Ashtart-Astarte - and what is claimed to be the Sign of Tanit. These symbols are obviously small and, especially in the case of poorly preserved coins, easily confused with one another but would merit some discussion in this Wiki article. SimonJKyte (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

the discoveries of "the sign of tanit" in Israel are not certain even by the author and are dismissed, they are also not recognized as the sign of tanit by any peer reviewed publications either in Israel or outside of it. The concensus is that the discoveries are just the ankh symbol 105.109.157.159 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is up for debate. I am not saying that they definitely are Signs of Tanit. SimonJKyte (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Chronological context of the explosion of the Sign of Tanit

The article also does not give much context in terms of historical time periods. It is now generally agreed that the Sign of Tanit started showing up on markers at the end of the fifth century or even marginally earlier, although this was not the consensus in the immediate period following Cintas’ excavations at Carthage. As a control group, we have Whitaker’s collection of stele markers from Motya, a small island off the far west coast of Sicily, dating from the last years of the sixth century and the first years of the fifth - and it is a very significant sample. There is a complete absence of the imagery of the Sign of Tanit and she was also absent from the inscriptions - which are very formulaic. However, Ba’al Hammon, far from being absent, seems to have been universal at Motya. SimonJKyte (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to see the article expanded to include more chronological information. At the moment, it is a very perfunctory piece. Furius (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)