69
Revista Onoba
2024, Nº 12, 69-78
ISSN: 2340-3047
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
The developmenT of byblos. In The geopolITIcal conTexT of
The elevenTh and TenTh cenTurIes bc
El desarrollo de Biblos en el contexto
geopolítico de los siglos XI-X a. C
resumen
Este artículo revisa la historia de Biblos a principios
del primer milenio a.C. a la luz de los últimos
descubrimientos en Huelva (España). En primer
lugar, analiza los cambios geopolíticos ocurridos en
el Levante durante el siglo XII a.C., que permitió
a Biblos expandirse hacia su interior manteniendo
un cierto grado de estabilidad. En segundo lugar,
examina el importante papel desempeñado por
los fenicios en el comercio del Mediterráneo a
principios de el siglo X a.C. Todo lo cual conduce a la
sugerencia lógica de que estas actividades marítimas
constituyeron una parte sustancial de los viajes
e intercambios que precedieron a la colonización
fenicia en la cuenca del Mediterráneo occidental
absTracT
This article reassesses the history of Byblos at the
beginning of the rst millennium BC in the light
of the latest discoveries in Huelva, Spain. Firstly, it
discusses the geopolitical changes that occurred in
the Levant in the course of the twelfth century BC,
which enabled Byblos to expand into its hinterland
maintaining a certain degree of stability. Secondly,
it examines the major role played by Phoenician
trade in the Mediterranean at the beginning of
the tenth century BC. All of which leads to the
logical suggestion that these seafaring activities
constituted a substantial part of the voyages and
exchanges that preceded Phoenician colonisation
in the western Mediterranean basin.
marc abou abdallah
Visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
palabras clave
Biblos; España; Mediterráneo; Sidón; Tiro;
Reino de Israel; Jerusalem; Líbano; Cedros
Key words
Byblos; Huelva; Spain, Mediterranean; Sidon;
Tyre; Kingdom of Israel; Jerusalem; Lebanon;
Cedars.
Recibido: 06/06/2024
Revisado: 05/09/2024 Aceptado: 09/09/2024
Publicado: 22/11/2024
lfsutilo@gmail.com
70 The DevelopmenT of ByBlos. in The GeopoliTical conTexT of The elevenTh anD TenTh ...
RevisTa onoBa, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
Our knowledge of Byblos’ history during the
Iron Age I and Iron Age II-A is widely accepted
as still incomplete. This is not only due to meth-
odological challenges faced by archaeological ex-
cavations in complex urban contexts (Lemaire,
2012, 291-307), but also to the dearth of direct
historical sources; and still, additional pieces from
dierent areas are constantly being added to the
incomplete jigsaw of Byblos history. Therefore, I
do believe that it is reasonable to reassess the his-
tory of Byblos at the beginning of the rst mil-
lennium BC in the light of new discoveries like
some of the latest ones in Huelva, Spain (gs. 1-4)
(González de Canales et al., 2008, 631-655; Perez,
2014, 587-600).
These discoveries are particularly interesting
since, amongst other information, they provide
ostraca on which Phoenician inscriptions were en-
graved. It is to be particularly noticed that using
paleographic methods, the aforementioned inscrip-
tions can often be dated between the eleventh and
the ninth centuries BC (González de Canales et al.,
2004, 133-135). It is worth noting, moreover, that
some of these inscriptions contain letters whose
features are similar to Byblian ones dated to the
tenth and ninth centuries BC (González de Canales
et al., 2004, 133-135, pls. XXXV and LXI) (gs. 1
and 5). Furthermore, the Huelva excavations have
yielded a large number of Phoenician amphorae
that, according to 14C dating (Nijboer, 2006, 31-
36), and compared to those from Tyre (Bikai, 1987,
67-68), can easily be dated to the ninth century
(González de Canales et al., 2008, 633).
In the light of these new archeological nds,
many questions arise. Did Byblos take advantage of
the geopolitical circumstances in order to expand
its territory over its hinterland at the end of the
second millennium BC? and, therefore, did Byblos
have the capability to build commercial ties with
the inhabitants of other areas in the Mediterranean
basin at the beginning of the rst millennium BC?
Figure 1. Ostraca with Phoenician inscription found in
the archeological excavation of Huelva (González de Ca-
nales et al., 2008: 631-655; Perez, 2014: 587-600).
Figure 2. Ostraca with Phoenician inscription found in
the archeological excavation of Huelva (González de Ca-
nales et al., 2008: 631-655; Perez, 2014: 587-600).
Figure 3. Ostraca with Phoenician inscription found in
the archeological excavation of Huelva (González de Ca-
nales et al., 2008: 631-655; Perez, 2014: 587-600).
71
Marc abou abdallah
revista onoba, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
Geopolitical Context
As an Ausgangspunkt, I am inclined to propose
that, between the eleventh and the tenth centuries
BC, Byblos enjoyed relative stability, as informed
by (a), the tale of Wenamun (Eyre, 1996, 415-433),
which was written after Wenamun’s journey to By-
blos in May 1075 BC (Lichtheim, 2003, 89), and in
which the Egyptian emissary stated that there were
twenty boats in the port of Byblos (Wenamun 1: 59),
(b), the Assyrian annals (Grayson, 1991), which do
not mention any military expeditions against the
city of Byblos, and (c), the royal Byblian inscrip-
tions (KAI3 1; 4; 5; 6), which mention a peaceful
transition and transfer of power between several of
its kings. This relative stability could have resulted
from the emergence of a new geopolitical landscape
on the eastern Mediterranean coastline after the in-
vasions of the Sea Peoples that took place between
1204 and 1170, and which, based on archaeological
evidence (Liverani, 2014, 387; Lipiński, 2015, 4), did
not aect Byblos (Klengel, 2000, 21) nor the oth-
er Phoenician cities such as Sarepta and Tyre (Yas-
ur-Landeau, 2014, 168).
More importantly, this stability that prevailed
in Byblos was certainly due to overlapping geo-
political reasons. In the rst place, the conict that
had pitted Egypt against the Hittite Empire in the
ancient Levantine world came to an end when Hat-
tusa, the capital of the Hittite Empire, was burnt to
the ground by the Assyrian army of Tukulti-Ninur-
ta I sometime around 1180 BC (Bryce, 1998, 378).
Secondly, Egypt was not able to consolidate its
position throughout the ancient Levant since the
reign of Ramses X (1108-1098 BC) (Brandi, 1982,
371-405), as it suered from several political and
economic challenges (Niwiński, 1995, 329-360), in-
cluding the ceaseless struggle for power (Bonhême,
1987, 26), and the forays of semi-nomadic peoples
into the southern region of the Levant and Pales-
tine (Klengel, 2000, 22). Thirdly, Byblos was not a
target in the campaign launched by Tiglath-Pileser
I (1114-1076), since it was aimed to punish the Ara-
means (Grayson, 1991, 20) and limited to the region
of Arwad (Elayi, 1984, 77). And, nally, Byblos
was not threatened by the Aramean raids which
took place, between the eleventh and the ninth
centuries BC, in the Middle Assyrian territory (La-
font et al., 2017, 593), Karkemish (Bachelot and
Joannès, 2001, 444-447), and Palistin/Walistin in
the north-west of the Levant (according to the In-
scription ALEPPO 6, describing Taita “Hero and
King of Palistin,” from the Temple of the Storm
God at Aleppo (Hawkins 2011: 42 g. 5; Galil,
2014, 85) (g. 6).
In view of the foregoing, it is feasible to propose
that Byblos enjoyed its independence between the
eleventh and tenth centuries BC and that, there-
fore, it could have exploited the advantages of its
hinterland at its will since the latter was endowed
with many natural resources, like its thickly for-
ested mountains, which made it a notorious and
valuable timber-producing region.
Evidence for Byblos as a Polity
The independence of Byblos and the exploita-
tion of its hinterland, Mount Lebanon, can be
validated by several sources. According to the tale
of Wenamun, Zakarba’al, king of Byblos boasted
about being the only master of Lebanon. He af-
rmed to the Theban envoy, “If I should say(?)
aloud to Lebanon, the sky opens and the logs
lie here on the shore of the sea!” (Wenamun 2:
14-24). However, in the present state of documen-
Figure 4. Ostraca with Phoenician inscription found in
the archeological excavation of Huelva (González de Ca-
nales et al., 2008: 631-655; Perez, 2014: 587-600).
72 The DevelopmenT of ByBlos. in The GeopoliTical conTexT of The elevenTh anD TenTh ...
RevisTa onoBa, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
tation, the sources from this period do not aord
a clear picture of how the Byblos carried out the
exploitation of its hinterland.
It is to be particularly noticed that the inde-
pendence of Byblos as well as the exploitation
of its hinterland, played a prominent role in the
stability of Byblian urban areas. On this matter, I
would like to think that such stability could have
allowed Byblos kingship to create or develop an ad-
ministrative substructure that might have included
a scribal “school” (Abou Abdallah, 2018, 18), and a
sort of and archival system (Wenamun 2: 8) (Galán,
2005, 162). The existence of a scribal school, dat-
ing from the eleventh to tenth centuries BC, can
be corroborated by an inscription from Byblos
(Dunand, 1932, 28, n. 1125), dated to the tenth cen-
tury BC (Lemaire, 1981, 88, note 21), written by
an apprentice scribe (Amadasi-Guzzo, 2014, 74).
It is worth noting, that the importance of writing
in Byblos at this time can be considered as strong
evidence for the existence of a scribal school. Wena-
mun informs us in his tale that he paid ve hun-
dred papyrus scrolls to Zakarba’al, and this clearly
testies to the great demand of writing materials
in the royal court (Katzenstein, 1973, 72). The im-
portance of writing can also be conrmed by many
inscriptions found in Byblos and dated to this peri-
od: (a), the Azarba’al spatula, describing a contract
between two persons (KAI3 3), (b), Ahiram grato
(KAI3 2), engraved on the south wall of tomb V
with the clear intention of being seen and read, and
(c), and several inscriptions on clay cones on which
personal names are incised (TSSI3 2, 3, 10).
As far as the maritime industry is concerned,
it had been prevalent in Byblos since at least the
middle of the third millennium BC, as conrmed
by some Egyptian texts, datable to both the Old
Kingdom (2686-2134) and the New Kingdom
(1570-1069) (Urk 1: 141; 109; 107). Furthermore, ac-
cording to a Ugaritic text (CAT 4. 338; RS 18.025),
Byblos leased ships with their equipment (and/or
crew) for six hundred shekels of silver to the (last?)
King of Ugarit to help him to reinforce his eet in
order to face the threat of the Sea Peoples between
1203-1201 BC or slightly later (Wiener, 2014, 52).
Moreover, the relative stability enjoyed in Byblos
between the twelfth and eleventh centuries BC un-
doubtedly had a relevant impact on the maritime
industry, as can be certied in the tale of Wena-
mun, dated to 1075 BC (Lichtheim, 2003, 89), in
which Wenamun, an Egyptian emissary, stated
that there were twenty boats in the port of Byblos
(Wenamun 1: 59).
Figure 6. The new geopolitical landscape at the begin-
ning of the 10th century BC.
Figure 5. Ostraca with Phoenician inscription found in
the archeological excavation of Huelva (González de Ca-
nales et al., 2008: 631-655; Perez, 2014: 587-600).
73
Marc abou abdallah
revista onoba, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
That being said, it is reasonable to suggest that
between the end of the second millennium and the
beginning of the rst millennium Byblos used the
cedar beams exploited in its hinterland to develop
its shipbuilding and maritime industry (Klengel,
2000, 24). Likewise, we can conclude that, given
the Byblian royal inscriptions and the absence of
military threats posed to Byblos, it can be pro-
posed that Byblos had both a continued admin-
istrative substructure and maritime industry, as
from the Late Bronze Age, which could have al-
lowed the city to develop its mercantile activities
through the Mediterranean Sea at the turn of the
tenth century BC.
Reasons for Byblian development
The reasons that galvanised Byblos to chal-
lenge its hinterland, as well as it did afterward in
the Mediterranean should now be examined. Giv-
en the lack of data and considering the inherent
limitations of both archaeological and written
sources, it is dicult to investigate these subjects
with precision. However, it should be noted that
during the Late Bronze Age, Byblos was the main
Egyptian port of call in Lebanon (Stieglitz, 1990,
9), and within this period it was not just a source
and arrival point for products and resources, but
also an intermediary hub where goods were redis-
tributed to other parts of the regional network (EA
126: 4-6; 77: 6-15; Kilani, 2020, 208). Therefore,
based on the analytical evidence, it is cogently ar-
gued that Byblos could have been hastened to ll
the vacuum that had been left following the crisis
of the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
Owing to the latter, this interregional trade
came to an end, and the Egyptian colonial network
in Canaan collapsed sometime during the second
half of the twelfth century BC (Koch, 2021, 72).
It is relevant to remind that the Mycenaeans had
already disappeared from the international po-
litical scene (Liverani, 2014, 423) in the late thir-
teenth and early twelfth centuries (Weinstein, 1998,
190); that Ugarit was totally destroyed around 1185
(Freu, 2006, 217-255); the local states and towns in
the south-eastern part of the Hittite empire had also
been devastated between 1180 and 1070 BC (Livera-
ni, 2012, 343); the city of Arwad was destroyed as
well by the Sea Peoples (Elayi, 2021, 4); the Canaan-
ite city-states in the Sharon plain, along the Carmel
coast, and in the Akko and Jezreel valleys were also
totally ruined at the end of the twelfth century BC
(Stern, 2012, 506); and the Egyptian local clients
south-west of Canaan, left with no protection, were
hit by internal clashes (Koch, 2021, 72-73), such as
attacks by ‘habiru’ bandits, Shasu raiders, pirates
along the coast, and, not least, intraregional rivalry
among competing local groups (Millek, 2017, 113-
140). Worthy of mention is also the fact that at that
time Egypt did not have the ability to control this
region, where they had been struggling since the
days of Ramses III (1187-1156) (Kahn, 2012, 268).
Then, following the brief reign of Ramses X, Ram-
ses XI ascended to the throne and ruled for a rela-
tively long period (ca 1115-1086 BCE), known for
internal problems and strife among high ocials,
who divided the kingdom into several sub-territo-
ries (Koch, 2021, 71)
Consequently, interregional commercial ac-
tivities ceased (Lafont et al., 2017, 590) and it is
speculated that this new geopolitical landscape
jeopardized the interests of Byblos and the other
Phoenician city-states; yet it is plausible that in
spite of this situation, Byblos might still have had
the opportunity to launch some initiatives in hopes
of achieving its economic interests.
The new interregional commercial system
The exploitation of its hinterland allowed
Byblos to resume its commercial activities with
Egypt (Bunnens, 1979, 51), which, in the eyes of
the Phoenicians, was considered at that time an
equal trading partner (Katzenstein, 1973, 73). In
the same vein, and in order to proliferate their
commercial activities, the Phoenicians established
themselves, via trade, in the Philistine cities in
the southern part of the Levant (Gitin, 2010, 304).
This region witnessed a fair economic develop-
ment within the Iron Age I (Koch, 2021, 92),
where the Philistines, who held a trade monop-
oly (Bunimovitz and Lederman, 2014, 252-265),
strengthened their relationship with the Egyp-
tians (Weinstein, 1998, 192).
It is worth noting, moreover, that with the still
precarious situation of the Aramaic kingdoms in
Syria, and the immobility of the Neo-Assyrian
Empire in the East (Aubet, 1993, 35), the popula-
tions in the Levant seemed to have established a
new socio-political network. Consequently, the
Levantines went through a period of reconstruc-
tion and innovation (Liverani, 1987, 66-73) during
74 The DevelopmenT of ByBlos. in The GeopoliTical conTexT of The elevenTh anD TenTh ...
RevisTa onoBa, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
which each population began to develop an indi-
vidual identity and, perhaps, a distinct ‘nationali-
ty’ of their own (Liverani, 2014, 397) and, for this
reason, the Secondary State (Smith, 2008, 253-
254) appeared in the southern part of the Levant.
In this regard, according to the new archaeolog-
ical evidence dated to the Iron Age IIA from the
city Khirbet Qeiyafa, the process of state forma-
tion and urbanisation started in the biblical king-
dom of Judah as early as the late eleventh century
BC (Garnkel et al., 2012, 174). In part owing to
their interactions with the Philistines (Na‘aman,
2017, 11, 17 y 25), the Israelites dened themselves
in a distinct way (Faust, 2012, 121-135), so that
their Early State Module could have taken place
sometime around the early tenth century BC, as
indicated by some textual (Melville, 2006, 291-293,
305-307 y 311-316), epigraphic (Puech, 2010, 183-
184) documents and archaeological materials (Esse,
1989, 81-96).
Subsequently, a new urban-based interregion-
al trade system was built (Anderson, 1990, 35-54)
from Karkemish (Klengel, 2000, 23) in the north
to Gaza in the south, including the Phoenician
city-states and Cyprus (Gilboa et al., 2008, 190).
Interestingly enough, it is persuasive to argue that
the Phoenicians played a pivotal role in this new
interregional network since their city-states were
relatively more secure than those of the northern
and the southern parts of the Levant, which suf-
fered from insecurity caused in the north by the
raids of semi-nomadic groups and in the south by
the conict between the Israelites and the Phil-
istines. Given these circumstances, the caravans,
able to cross the Syrian desert following more
southerly routes, with camels as the new means
of transportation, now arrived at the Phoenician
harbours. The main routes between Mesopotamia,
the Gulf area or South Arabia, and the Mediterra-
nean Sea now ended in Phoenicia, i.e. the central
and southern coastal areas (Klengel, 2000, 24). On
a parallel track, it can be speculated that Byblos
could have taken advantage of these conditions.
Also, since the commercial activities took place
in the manner of a “joint-venture” (1 Kings 10:
22; Ezekiel 27: 12), the inhabitants of Byblos, as
the Bible indicates (1 Kings 1-10; 1 Kings 5: 32),
could have participated in the construction of the
Temple of Jerusalem during the days of Solomon
(Galil, 2012, 137-148).
Byblian and Levantine craftsmanship across
the Mediterranean Basin
Considering that the palatial economies (Klen-
gel, 2000, 26) relied on craftsmanship and trade
(Bondi, 1995, 269), the aforementioned geopolit-
ical dimensions and the new archaeological nds
unearthed at Huelva (González de Canales et al.,
2008, 631-655; Perez, 2014, 587-600), it is proba-
ble that the Byblian kings, at the beginning of the
tenth century BC, may have instructed their eets
to sail to the Iberian Peninsula in either competi-
tion or partnership with Tyrian ships.
It can be seen, moreover, that according to the
countless number of Tyrian ceramics discovered at
Huelva, in the light of the more than likely identi-
cation of Tarshish (1 Kings 10: 22; 1 Kings 22: 48;
2 Chronicles 9: 21) with the site of Huelva and the
wider region of Tartessos (González de Canales et
al., 2009, 10), it is very possible that the Byblians
might have come to Huelva with Tyrians and Is-
raelite traders (Muhly, 1998, 315).This statement
dovetails acceptably with the geopolitical circum-
stances: the nature of the commercial activities in
the new interregional network, now based on the
“joint-venture” system, the geographical proximi-
ty between Byblos, Tyre, and Israel, and the cor-
dial ties built between the Israelites and the Phoe-
nicians. These Levantine traders could have arrived
in Huelva shortly before the reign of Hiram I in
Tyre (969-936), and Solomon in Jerusalem (970-
931 BC; 1 Kings 10: 22). It can be argued that these
Levantines traders, according to mémoire des
lieux (Bonnet and Niehr, 2014, 99) followed routes
already known in the Late Bronze Age (Amada-
si-Guzzo, 2012, 117), and which were followed by
the craftsmen of this period (Niemeyer, 1995, 252)
(g. 7).
Worthy of notice is the fact that Huelva was not
a Terra Incognita, actually, according to archaeo-
logical evidence, the Levantines had known about
Huelva and its mineral ores since the Bronze Age
(Niemeyer, 1984, 8-9). However, it is clear that By-
blians and their Levantine partners came to Huelva
in order to meet their demand for copper (Bou-
loumié, 1989, 213-221), silver (Hernández, 2013, 17-
24), gold (2 Chronicles 8: 18), gemstones (2 Chron-
icles 9: 10), and tin for bronze (Lipiński, 2004, 217,
220 and 225-265), which were extremely rare in
the ancient Levantine world.
It would be tenable to argue, since we do not
have any rm evidence, that these Levantine trad-
75
Marc abou abdallah
revista onoba, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
ers did not settle in Huelva at the beginning of the
tenth century BC. During that period, it is most
probably that the maritime movement and the
commercial expansion at that time aimed exclu-
sively at seeking raw materials rather than estab-
lishing permanent settlements (Aubet, 1993, 173).
The impact of these maritime activities on
Byblos
Based on the evidence now available, it can be
argued that Byblos could have practiced a self-suf-
cient economy and that it might have maintained
a long-term presence in the expansion of Phoeni-
cian trade across the Mediterranean. Furthermore,
Byblos certainly experienced relative economic
growth during the tenth century BC, as indicat-
ed by the restoration of the temples shortly after
the beginning of the reign of Yeḥimilk (KAI3 4) in
970 BC, and the wall of the temple of the Ba’alat
shortly after the beginning of the Šipitba’al’s reign
in 900 BC. Moreover, the raw materials obtained
from Huelva were more likely used by the Byblians
as a tribute paid to the Neo-Assyrian invaders in
order to protect Byblos’s autonomy between 744
and 627 (Abou Abdallah, 2018, 143-173).
Nonetheless, having kept privileged ties with
Egypt during the Bronze Age, these facts un-
doubtedly had to have an impact on Byblos. I con-
cur with Aimé-Giron (1943, 283-338) that Egypt
might have played a certain role in the coup-d’État
and in the ascension of Yeḥimilk to the throne of
Byblos around 970 BC. All of this led to enhanced
relations between Egypt and Byblos in the course
of the tenth and the rst part of the ninth cen-
turies BC, as indicated by the Egyptian statues of
Shoshenq I (945-924 BC), Osorkon I (924-890 BC),
and Osorkon II (874-850 BC) discovered at Byblos.
It can also be argued that the extension of
Egyptian inuence in the Levant, and more accu-
rately in Byblos, between the rst half of the tenth
and the middle of the ninth centuries, is due inter
alia to the punitive campaigns led by the Neo-As-
syrian rulers against the Arameans in Upper Mes-
opotamia (Liverani, 2014, 475). So, given those
circumstances, Byblos was caught between the
Egyptian-Assyrian rivalry, and consequently, this
conict put an end to that city’s role in maritime
commercial activity.
conclusIon
In essence, this article addresses the geopolitical
changes that occurred in the Levant in the course of
the twelfth century BC, which enabled Byblos to
expand into its hinterland and to maintain a kind
of relative stability. It also implies that the belief of
some scholars in the sense that Byblos, unlike Sidon
and Tyre, did not play a fundamental role in Phoe-
nician trade activities, would have to be reassessed
in the light of the new archaeological ndings from
Huelva and the reinterpretation of other sources.
The evidence shows that Byblos did play a
greater part than that for which it is usually cred-
ited, highlighting its participation in Phoenician
commercial activities in the Mediterranean at the
beginning of the tenth century BC. Notwithstand-
ing, it should be noted that had the external geo-
political circumstances not been advantageous for
Byblos, it could certainly not have been able to
play such a role.
It must be stressed, however, that this study
does not suggest a pattern of migration nor colo-
nisation (even less, a precolonisation), but, rather, a
restricted movement, mostly of craftsmen, towards
a land already well-known through traders’ and
seafarers’ tales about the abundance of metal ores in
the far west. Thus, it seems logical to suggest that
these maritime commercial activities constituted a
major part of the period of journeys and exchanges
preceding Phoenician colonisation in the western
Mediterranean basin.
Finally, since the geopolitical conditions were
no longer favourable in the ninth century BC, the
Figure 7. The maritime route used by the Levantine cra-
ftsmen at the beginning of the 10th century BC.
76 The DevelopmenT of ByBlos. in The GeopoliTical conTexT of The elevenTh anD TenTh ...
RevisTa onoBa, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
outcome for Byblos was that its role diminished to
decline ‘vis-à-vis’ Tyre’s hegemony.
acKnowledgmenTs
This study has benetted greatly from discus-
sions with Diego Ruiz Mata. I am indebted to Josué
Justel for his constant help. I wish to express my
gratitude to Fernando González de Canales and
Aurelio Montaño for their valuable comments, and
their constructive feedback. I am grateful as well to
Brett Kaufman for reading a previous draft of the
article and for his advice and insight.
research fundIng
This research was not funded.
references
Abou-Abdallah, M. (2018), L’histoire du royau-
me de Byblos à l’âge du fer, 1080-333, Studia
Phoenicia 22, Leuven.
Aimé-Giron, N. (1943), Essai sur l’âge et la succes-
sion des rois de Byblos d’après leurs inscriptions,
BIFAO, 42, 283-338.
Amadasi-Guzzo, M .G. (2012), Phoenician and Pu-
nic in Sicily, Language and Linguistic Con-
tact in Ancient Sicily (Tribulato, O., Ed.), Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Classical Studies, 115-131.
Amadasi-Guzzo, M. G. (2014), Alphabet insaisis-
sable’ Quelques notes concernant la diusion
de l’écriture consonantique, Bible et Proche-
-Orient, mélanges André Lemaire I. (Elayi, J.,
and Durand, J.-M., Eds.), Paris, Transeuphratè-
ne, 44, 67-86.
Anderson, W. P. (1990), The Beginning of Phoe-
nician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and Ceramic
Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoeni-
cian Iron Age, BASOR, 279, 35-54.
Aubet, E. M. (1993), The Phoenicians and the
West: Politics, Colonies and Trade, Cambrid-
ge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachelot, L., and Joannès, F. (2001), Karkemish,
DCM, Paris: Robert Laont, 444-447.
Bikai, P.-M. (1987), The Phoenician Pottery of
Cyprus, Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Bondi, S. F. (1995), Le commerce, les échanges,
l’économie, La civilisation phénicienne et pu-
nique, manuel de recherche (Krings, V., Ed.),
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 268-281.
Bonhême, M.-A (1987), Les Noms royaux dans
l’Égypte de la Troisième Période Intermé-
diaire, BIFAO 98, Le Caire.
Bonnet, C., and Niehr, H. (2014), La religion des
Phéniciens et des Araméens, dans le contexte
de l’Ancien Testament, Genève: Labor et Fides.
Bouloumié, B. (1989), Les sources complémentai-
res d’approvisionnement en métaux de l’écriture
orientalisante et archaïque, Minería y metalur-
gia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterrá-
neas y europeas I (Domergue, C., Ed.), Madrid:
Ministerio de Cultura, 213-221.
Brandi, B. (1982), The Tel Masos Scarab: a Sugges-
tion for a New Method for the Interpretation of
Royal Scarabs, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28,
371-405.
Bryce, T. (1998), The Kingdom of the Hittite, Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press.
Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. (2014), Migra-
tion, Hybridization, and Resistance: Identity
Dynamics in the Early Iron Age Southern Le-
vant, The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bron-
ze and Iron Age Mediterranean (Knapp, A. B.,
and Van Dommelen, P., Eds.), Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 252-265.
Bunnens, G. (1979), L’expansion phénicienne en
Méditerranée; essai d’interprétation fondé
sur une analyse des traditions littéraires,
Rome: Institut historique belge de Rome.
Dunand, M. (1932), Fouilles de Byblos I 1926-
1932, Paris: Geuthner.
Elayi, J. (1984), Terminologie de la mer Méditer-
ranée dans les Annales assyriennes, OA, 23, 75-
92.
Elayi, J. (2021), L’histoire d’Arwad au Ier millénaire
avant notre ère, La Revue Phénicienne, 100,
4-10.
Esse, D. L. (1989), Secondary State Formation and
Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine, L’ur-
banisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze
ancien, bilan et perspectives des recherches
actuelles (Thalmann J.-P., Ed.), Oxford, BAR
International Series 527 i, 81-96.
Eyre, C. J. (1996), Is Egyptian Historical Literature
“Historical” or “Literary”?, Ancient Egyptian
Literature (Loprieno, A., Ed.), Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 415-433.
Faust, A. (2012), Between Israel and Philistia,
Ethnic Negotiations in the South During Iron
Age I, The Ancient Near East in the 12th – 10th
77
Marc abou abdallah
revista onoba, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
Centuries BCE, Culture and History (Galil,
G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D., Eds.),
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 121-135.
Freu, J. (2006), Histoire politique du royaume
d’Ugarit, Paris: Kubaba.
Galán, J. M. (2005), Four Journeys in Ancient
Egyptian Literature, LingAeg monographica
5, Göttingen.
Galil, G. (2012), Solomon’s Temple, Fiction or Reali-
ty?, The Ancient Near East in the 12th – 10th
Centuries BCE, Culture and History (Galil,
G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D., Eds.),
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 137-148.
Galil, G. (2014), A Concise History of Palistin/Pa-
tin/Unqi/‘mq in the 11th – 9th Centuries BC, Se-
mitica, 56, 75-104.
Garnkel, Y., Ganor, S., and Hasel, M. G. (2012),
The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa After
Four Seasons Excavations, The Ancient Near
East in the 12th – 10th Centuries BCE, Cultu-
re and History (Galil, G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A.
M., and Kahn, D., Eds.), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
149-174.
Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., and Boaretto, E. (2008), Tel
Dor and the Chronology of Phoenician ‘Pre-
-Colonization’ Stages, Beyond the Homeland:
Makers in Phoenician Chronology (Sagona,
C., Ed.), Leuven, ANES sup. 28, 113-204.
Gitin, S. (2010), Philistines in the Books of Kings,
The Book of Kings, Sources, Composition,
Historiography and Reception. (Lemaire, A.,
and Halpern, B. Eds.), Leiden: E. J. Brill, 301-
364.
González de Canales, F., Serrano, L., and Llompart,
J. (2004), El Emporio Fenicio Precolonial de
Huelva, ca. 900-770 B.C., Madrid: Editorial
Biblioteca Nueva.
González de Canales, F., Serrano, L., and Llompart,
J. (2008), The Emporium of Huelva and Phoe-
nician Chronology: Present and Future Possibi-
lities, Beyond the Homeland: Makers in Phoe-
nician Chronology (Sagona, C., Ed.), Leuven,
ANES sup. 28, 631-655.
González de Canales F., Serrano, L., and Llompart,
J. (2009), The Two Phases of Western Phoeni-
cian Expansion Beyond the Huelva Finds: an In-
terpretation, AWE, 8, 1-20.
Grayson, A. K. (1991), Assyrian rulers of the Ear-
ly First Millennium BC, I (1114-859), Toron-
to: University of Toronto Press.
Hawkins, J.D. (2011), The Inscriptions of the Alep-
po Temple, Anatolian Studies 61, 35-54.
Hernández, C. M. (2013), Phoenician Trade of Raw
Materials and Changes in Metal Production Pat-
terns in SW Iberia During the Orientalizing Pe-
riod, Metalla, 20/2, 17-24.
Kahn, D. (2012), A Geo-political and Historical
Perspective of Merneptah’s Policy in Canaan,
The Ancient Near East in the 12th – 10th
Centuries BCE, Culture and History (Galil,
G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D., Eds.),
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag Münster, 255-268.
Katzenstein, H. J. (1973), The History of Tyre,
from the beginning of the second millenium
B.C.E. until the fall of the Neo-Babylonian
empire in 538 B.C.E., Jerusalem: Schocken Ins-
titute for Jewish Research of the Jewish Theolo-
gical Seminary of America.
Kilani, M. (2020), Byblos in the Late Bronze
Age, Interactions between the Levantine and
Egyptian Worlds, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Klengel, H. (2000), The ‘Crisis Years’ and the New
Political System in Early Iron Age Syria: Some
Introductory Remarks, Essays on Syria in the
Iron Age (Bunnens, G., Ed.), Leuven, ANES
sup. 7, 21-30.
Koch, I. (2021), Colonial Encounters in Sou-
thwest Canaan during the Late Bronze Age
and the Early Iron Age, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Lafont, B., Tenu, A.; Joannès, F., and Clancier, Ph.
(2017), La Mésopotamie, de Gilgamesh à Ar-
taban 3300-120 av. J.-C., Paris: Belin.
Lemaire, A. (1981), Les écoles et la formation de la
Bible dans l’ancien Israël, Fribourg, OBO 39.
Lemaire, A. (2012), West Semitic Epigraphy and the
History of the Levant During the 12th – 10th Cen-
turies BCE, The Ancient Near East in the 12th
– 10th Centuries BCE, Culture and History
(Galil, G., Gilboa, A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D.,
Eds.), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 291-307.
Lichtheim, M. (2003), The Report of Wenamun
(1.41), The Context of Scripture I. Canonical
compositions from the Biblical World (Hallo,
W. W., and K. L. Younger Eds.), Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 89-93.
Lipiński, E. (2004), Itineraria Phoenicia, Leuven,
Studia Phoenicia 18.
Lipiński, E. (2015), Peuples de la mer, Phéniciens,
puniques, études d’épigraphies et d’histoire
méditerranéenne, Leuven, OLA 237.
78 The DevelopmenT of ByBlos. in The GeopoliTical conTexT of The elevenTh anD TenTh ...
RevisTa onoBa, 2024, Nº 12
https://doi.org/10.33776/onoba.vi12.8305
Liverani, M. (1987), The Collapse of the Near Eas-
tern Regional System at the End of the Bron-
ze Age, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient
World (Rowlands, M., Larsen, M., and Kristian-
sen, K. Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 66-73.
Liverani, M. (2012), Melid in the Early and Midd-
le Iron Age, Archeology and History, The An-
cient Near East in the 12th – 10th Centuries
BCE, Culture and History (Galil, G., Gilboa,
A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D., Eds.), Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 327-344.
Liverani, M. (2014), The Ancient Near East, His-
tory, Society and Economy, London: Routle-
dge.
Melville, S. C., Strawn, B. A., Schmidt, S. S., and
Noegel, S. (2006), Neo-Assyrian and Syro-Pa-
lestinian Texts I, Historical Sources in Trans-
lation, the Ancient Near East (Chavals, M. W.,
Ed.), Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 280-330.
Millek, J. M. (2017), Sea Peoples, Philistines, and
the Destruction of the Cities: A Critical Exami-
nation of Destruction Layers ‘Caused’ by the Sea
Peoples,“Sea Peoples” Up-to-Date: New Re-
search on Transformation in the Eastern Me-
diterranean in the 13th -11th Centuries BCE
(Fischer, P. M., and Bürge, T. Eds.), Vienna,
Verlag der Österreichisen Akadamie der Wis-
senschaften, 113-140.
Muhly, J. D. (1998), Copper, Tin, Silver and Iron:
the Search for Metallic Ores as an Incentive for
Foreign Expansion, Mediterranean Peoples
in Transition, Thirteenth to the Early Tenth
Centuries BCE (Gitin, S., Mazar, A., and Stern,
E., Eds.) Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
314-329.
Na‘aman, N. (2017), Was Khirbet Qeiyafa a Judahi-
te City? The Case against it, Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures, 17 (Article 7), 1-40.
Niemeyer, H. G. (1984), Die Phönizier und die Mi-
ttelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers, JRGZ, 31,
3-94.
Niemeyer, H. G. (1995), Expansion et colonisation,
La civilisation phénicienne et punique, ma-
nuel de recherch. (Krings, V., Ed.), Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 247-267.
Nijboer A. J., and Van der Plicht J. (2006), An In-
terpretation of the radiocarbon determinations
of the oldest indigenous-Phoenician stratum
thus far, excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-
-west Spain), Babesch, 81, 31-36.
Niwiński, A. (1995), Le passage de la XXe à la XXIIe
dynastie: Chronologie et histoire politique, BI-
FAO, 95, 329-360.
Perez, C. S. (2014), Los primeros fenicios en Tar-
tessos, Phéniciens d’Orient et d’Occident, mé-
langes Josette Elayi (Lemaire, A., Ed.), Paris,
Cahiers de l’Institut du Proche-Orient ancien du
Collège de France II, 587-600.
Puech, E. (2010), L’ostracon de Khirbet Qeyafa et
les débuts de la royauté en Israël, RB, 117, 162-
184.
Smith, J. S. (2008), Cyprus, the Phoenicians and
Kition, Beyond the Homeland. Markers in
Phoenician Chronology (Sagona, C., Ed.), Leu-
ven, ANES Sup. 28, 261-304.
Stern, E. (2012), Archeological Remains of the Nor-
thern Sea Peoples along the Sharon and Carmel
Coasts and ‘Akko and Jezreel Valleys, The An-
cient Near East in the 12th – 10th Centuries
BCE, Culture and History (Galil, G., Gilboa,
A., Maeir, A. M., and Kahn, D., Eds.), Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 473-507.
Stieglitz, R. R. (1990), The Geopolitics of the Phoe-
nician Littoral in the Early Iron Age, BASOR,
279, 9-12.
Weinstein, J. M. (1998), Egyptian Relations with
the Eastern Mediterranean World at the End of
the Second Millennium BCE, Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, thirteenth to the Early
Tenth Centuries BCE (Gitin, S., Mazar, A., and
Stern, E., Eds.), Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 188-196.
Wiener, M. H. (2014), Dating the Emergence of His-
torical Israel in Light of Recent Developments in
Egyptian Chronology, Tel Aviv, 41/1, 50-54.
Yasur-Landau, A. (2014), The Philistines and Ae-
gean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze
Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
