The term ‘Phoenicians’ indicates those peoples who spoke a north-western Semitic language, lived on the Syro-Lebanese coast from 1200 bc, and later on spread throughout the Mediterranean. This was their Greek designation (Phoinikes). Locally, they were either defined as Canaanites, without any distinction from the people living in the hinterland, or even Sidonians, after the name of one of their main cities. This multiplicity of designations already indicates that the Phoenicians did not have a specific or official name for themselves. This is hardly surprising, considering the fact that the Phoenicians were never politically unified and constituted a network of cities acting as independent kingdoms.
Phoenicia was a long strip of land located between the mountains and the Mediterranean Sea. In some points, the land features some coastal plains, while in others the mountains reach the sea, or slowly turn into hills along the coast. In the Iron Age, these mountains were mainly forested areas, especially in Lebanon, which was renowned for its cedar, an excellent wood for construction works used from as early as the third millennium bc. Alternatively, the area was covered by maquis shrubland. The plains and hills were intensely cultivated with olive trees, vines, fruits and vegetables, integrating the main cultivation of cereals. The area was densely populated and divided into villages. These villages were politically and economically dependent on the main cities of the local dynasties. The main cities of Phoenicia were Arwad, Byblos, Sidon and Tyre. Among the minor cities, there were Siyannu and Usnu in the north, Sumura and Arqa between Arwad and Byblos, Beirut between Byblos and Sidon, Sarepta between Sid and Tyre, and Ushu and Acre to the south of Tyre.
The beginning of the history of the Phoenicians and their own ethnical and cultural identity is conventionally dated around 1200 bc. However, this does not indicate that they arrived in the region around then, as the Classical tradition often stated, or that they organised themselves in new ways around that time. On the contrary, the Phoenicians of the Iron Age were direct descendants of those people inhabiting the area in the Bronze Age. This aspect is particularly visible on a cultural level. In the Bronze Age, the coastal cities were part of kingdoms that included the cities in the hinterland. Around 1200 bc a process of division between the cities along the coast and the ones in the hinterland began to occur. This process was mainly caused by other populations, such as the Neo-Hittites and the Philistines, and the pastoral groups of the Aramean, Israelite and Transjordan hinterland. The change provided a new cultural climate and new forms of political organisation. Meanwhile, the Phoenicians stood as the direct descendants of the ‘Canaanite’ culture of the Late Bronze Age.
This turning point was further emphasised by the invasion of the Sea Peoples, who broke down the consolidated system promoted by the regional empires of the time. In this way, the Phoenician cities managed to regain their long lost independence. The main city in the north, Ugarit, was destroyed by the Sea Peoples. Therefore, it never became a ‘Phoenician’ city. On the contrary, the other cities in the area between Arwad and the Carmel apparently managed to survive the invasion. They separated themselves from the Southern Levant, now occupied by new populations. Moreover, by then the nomadic element had affected the hinterland, leading to substantial changes in the way in which states were organised. Meanwhile, the coastal cities, which were protected from these tribes by the Lebanese mountains, continued to maintain their division in city-states centred on royal palaces. The survival of this ancient type of organisation is also visible from the presence of an assembly alongside the king, and the return of an ideology of kingship centred on the ideals of ‘justice and fairness’.
We have various attestations on the first phase of Phoenician history (twelfth to tenth centuries bc). The Egyptian tale of Wenamun, who went to the king of Byblos Zakar-Baal to ask for cedar wood, provides the most elaborate picture of the time. While Egypt proclaims the (theological rather than political) dependence of Lebanon to the cult of Amun, Byblos shows a preference for a more pragmatic and purely commercial approach. Despite the fact that Byblos’ dependence on Egypt had now ceased to exist, the city remained a privileged commercial centre for Egyptian trade, just like it had been from its earliest phases. A series of royal inscriptions left by local kings (Ahi-ram, Abi-Baal, Eli-Baal, Shipit-Baal and Yehi-Milk) show the development of a new type of kingship. Some of them were inscribed on monuments left by Egyptian kings, confirming this interaction with Egypt (Figure 24.1).
Ms. z 0 i 'lb' l. mlk. gbl. byh[mlk. mlk. gbl] [IbJItgbl. ’dtw. t'rk.[b Itgbl]
3 [ym t 'Jtb I. wsn tw.'lfgblj
“Statue made by Eli-Baal. king of Byblos, son of Yehi-Milk, king of Byblos, for Baalat of Byblos, his lady. May Baalat of Byblos prolong the days of Eli-Baal and his years on Byblos.” (found on a statue of Osorkon I, ca. 912-874 BC)
Compare a similar inscription left by Abi-Baal: “Statue that Abi-Baal, king of Byblos, son of Yehi-Milk, king of Byblos, brought from Egypt for Baalat of Byblos, his lady. May Baalat of Byblos prolong the days of Abi-Baal and his years on Byblos.” (found on a statue of Shoshenq I, ca. 935-915 BC).
Figure 24.1 Inscription of Eli-Baal, king of Byblos, ca. 900 bc.
Regarding the northernmost cities of Phoenicia, king Tiglath-pileser I (ca. 1100 bc) informs us that he had travelled to Arwad for wood. Moreover, some sources attest that an ancient supremacy of Sidon ceased around 1000 bc in favour of Tyre. The Old Testament provides some information on Tyre. The king of Tyre, Hiram, provided wood and specialised workers for the construction of the temple of Jerusalem during the reigns of David and Solomon. He also participated in some commercial endeavours in the Red Sea. The overall picture is fragmentary, but still fairly coherent. A series of independent cities in the Levant were active in terms of trade and production. They were also involved in reciprocal relations with the states in the hinterland, as well as the more distant and powerful kingdoms of Assyria and Egypt.
Even at the beginning of the first millennium bc, there is little historical evidence about the Phoenician cities, due to an almost total lack of local attestations. In the case of Tyre, the abstracts of the city’s ‘Annals’ recorded by Josephus Flavius, who claimed that they derived from Menander of Ephesus, only provide the name of its kings. However, these attestations are unreliable. This is partly because they coincide with those of the Old Testament (which were known to Josephus), but not with the information provided by the Assyrian annals, which were unknown to him. The Bible also attests the inter-dynastic marriage arranged between the royal family of Tyre at the time of king Itto-Baal with the royal family of Samaria. It also attests the commercial, cultural and religious influence of Tyre on the kingdom of Israel.
For the other Phoenician cities, the available evidence is mainly Assyrian, and is more concerned with their relations with Assyria, rather than their history. Admittedly, the continuation of the Assyrian expansion from the ninth to the seventh centuries bc became the central issue of the history of the region. If the isolated expeditions of Tiglath-pileser I and Ashurnasirpal II were mainly commercial and peaceful, this Assyrian attitude completely changed with Shalmaneser III (mid-ninth century bc). The new expansionis-tic ambitions of the Assyrians meant that the Phoenician cities were forced to pay heavy tributes, in order to avoid any Assyrian attack. There were cases in which the Phoenician cities resisted the invasion. This is the case of the battle of Qarqar (852 bc), fought by the northern Phoenician cities (Siyannu, Usnu, Sumura and Arqa), which were more directly affected by the invasion. In general, however, the Phoenician cities preferred to pay the tributes to keep away the Assyrians and any threat of war.
Almost a century later, in the mid-eighth century bc, the Assyrian threat returned in a more concrete form with Tiglath-pileser III. The Assyrian king directly annexed the area to his empire. In 743 bc, the entire northern coast, reaching as far as Byblos, was turned into an Assyrian province, whose capital was Sumura. Being an island, Arwad managed to remain independent, while Byblos and the southernmost cities continued to pay tributes. However, the rivalry among the Phoenician cities, especially between Sidon and Tyre, facilitated Assyrian expansion. In 700 bc, Sennacherib managed to expel from Sidon Luli, king of Tyre, who at the time also ruled over Sidon. The Assyrian king then appointed a new king chosen by him. In 677 bc, Esarhaddon conquered Sidon with the support of Tyre, captured its last king, Abdi-Milkutti, and turned it into a province. He also made Tyre and its king Baal his vassal. A few years later (671 bc), however, Tyre, supported by the Egyptians, managed to rebel. The reaction of the Assyrian was ruthless, and Tyre lost a portion of its territories. The mainland was turned into an Assyrian province whose capital was Ushu, while Tyre remained independent on its own little island.
At the time of Ashurbanipal, further conflicts with Tyre and Arwad took place, the former being continuously supported by the Egyptians. On several occasions, the kings of Tyre and Arwad had to formally submit to the Assyrians, although they still managed to keep their independence. By the end of the Assyrian empire (612 bc), Phoenicia was divided into the three provinces of Sumura in the north, Sidon in the centre and Ushu in the south. Meanwhile, Arwad, Byblos and Tyre continued to be autonomous states forced to pay tributes to the Assyrians.
During the final collapse of the Assyrian empire, Tyre tried to regain its commercial and political position, taking advantage of the power vacuum existing between the Babylonians and the Egyptians. However, soon enough, the expansion of Babylonia over the entire Levantine coast also affected the Phoenician coast. Tyre was besieged for a long time and eventually collapsed in 573 bc, although the city continued to
Have its local dynasty. The latter ruled alongside a Babylonian governor, except for a period in which the king of Tyre was exiled to Babylonia, and several ‘judges’ ruled the city.
It is probable that the Babylonian empire also conquered Arwad and Byblos. Eventually, the whole area would become part of the Persian empire, but even then it would maintain (as in the case of Tyre) or re-establish (as in the case of Sidon) its local dynasties. However, they remained strongly dependent on the Achaemenid ruler. The inscriptions of these later rulers clearly imitated some of the motifs of the former political independence of Phoenicia, though re-adapted in the context of their political dependence within a new imperial system.
World History
