Byblus, Berytus, and Sidon

CHAPTER IV

The Kings of Byblus, Berytus, and Sidon, from the Royal Inscriptions and the Amarna Letters

The chronicles of Tyre, preserved by Menander and Josephus, are the most complete king‑list of any Phœnician city. But Tyre was only one of the great metropolises of the coast. Byblus, Berytus, and Sidon each had their own dynasties, their own temples, and their own records. The royal inscriptions of these cities survive only in fragments, but those fragments are enough to reconstruct something of their history and to correct the Egyptian and Hebrew accounts that have obscured it.

The Kings of Byblus

Byblus — the oldest of the cities, the first foundation of Cronus — has yielded the most important Phœnician royal inscription ever discovered: the sarcophagus of King Ahiram (KAI 1). Found in Tomb V of the royal necropolis at Byblus in 1923 by the French archaeologist Pierre Montet, the sarcophagus bears a dedication in a fully developed alphabetic script:

"Coffin which Ittobaal, son of Ahiram, king of Byblus, made for Ahiram, his father, when he placed him in the 'house of eternity.' And if any king among kings, or any governor among governors, or any commander of an army should come against Byblus and uncover this coffin, may the sceptre of his rule be broken, may the throne of his kingdom be overturned, and may peace flee from Byblus. And as for him, may his inscription be effaced."

This is the earliest known example of the fully developed Phœnician alphabet. The magnificent sarcophagus, carved with scenes of tribute‑bearing and mourning, demonstrates that by the date of its carving Byblus possessed a mature scribal tradition, a royal court with the resources to commission monumental art, and a conception of kingship that included both filial piety and the fierce protection of the royal tomb through divine curse.

The date of Ahiram is disputed. The majority of scholars place it around 1000 BCE, but the paleographer Edward M. Cook has argued, on linguistic grounds, for a date as early as the thirteenth century BCE. The tomb contained alabaster vases bearing the cartouche of Ramesses II (r. 1279–1213 BCE), which may support the earlier dating. If the earlier date is correct, the Ahiram sarcophagus would be not only the earliest alphabetic inscription but one of the most important documents of the ancient world — proof that the alphabet was already in full use in Phœnicia while Egypt still wrote in hieroglyphs and Mesopotamia in cuneiform.

From Ahiram, a partial king‑list emerges:

· Ahiram (c. 1000 BCE, or earlier, possibly 13th century)

· Ittobaal (son of Ahiram, dedicated the sarcophagus, otherwise unknown)

· Yehimilk (c. 10th–9th centuries BCE; his inscription records the restoration of the temple of Baalat Gebal)

· Abibaal (c. 10th–9th centuries; dedicated a statue to Baalat Gebal)

· Elibaal (c. 10th–9th centuries; also dedicated a statue)

· Shipitbaal I (c. 9th century; inscribed on a stone stele)

The principal deity of Byblus was Baalat Gebal — the "Lady of Byblus." Her temple, which stood at the heart of the city for millennia, has been excavated by Maurice Dunand. The Egyptians equated Baalat Gebal with their goddess Hathor, and Egyptian pharaohs from the Old Kingdom onward sent offerings to her sanctuary.

Correction of the Egyptian Account: It has been claimed, on the basis of Egyptian objects found at Byblus, that Byblus was an Egyptian dependency during the Middle Kingdom (c. 1938–1756 BCE). This claim is incorrect. The presence of Egyptian artifacts at Byblus — statues, alabaster vases, scarabs — reflects trade and diplomatic gift‑exchange, not conquest. Byblus supplied Egypt with cedar wood, resin, and linen; Egypt sent gold, alabaster, and luxury goods in return. The Egyptian kings who sent offerings to Baalat Gebal were acknowledging her as a foreign goddess worthy of respect, not claiming her temple as an Egyptian possession. There is no evidence of an Egyptian governor at Byblus, no Egyptian garrison, no Phœnician tribute recorded in Egyptian annals as imperial revenue. The relationship was between equals. To call Byblus an Egyptian dependency is to mistake commerce for empire — a common error of those who view the ancient world through the lens of later imperial powers.

The later kings of Byblus are known from Assyrian records. Esarhaddon's prism inscription (7th century BCE) lists Milkiashapa, king of Byblus among the twelve kings of the seacoast who supplied building materials for the palace at Nineveh.

The Kings of Berytus

Berytus — the city of Sanchuniathon — is the least well‑documented of the great Phœnician cities, largely because the modern city of Beirut stands directly upon the ancient site. But the Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BCE preserve the correspondence of Ammunira, king of Berytus (then called Biruta), with Pharaoh Akhenaten. Ammunira writes as a vassal, but his letters also reveal that Berytus controlled a substantial territory and maintained its own military forces.

Three letters survive (EA 141–143). In them, Ammunira reports on the political situation in the region, assures the pharaoh of his loyalty, and requests Egyptian military support against the expanding kingdom of Amurru. Ammunira's letters are notable for their diplomatic language and for the glimpse they provide of a Phœnician king navigating the dangerous waters between the great powers — Egypt to the south, the Hittites to the north, and the rising power of Amurru in the interior.

Sanchuniathon himself, writing perhaps half a millennium after Ammunira, dedicated his history to Abibalus, king of Berytus. No inscription of Abibalus survives, but his name — meaning "My father is Baal" or "Baal is my father" — is a typical Phœnician theophoric. The dedication of Sanchuniathon's work to Abibalus suggests that the king of Berytus, in the time before the Trojan War, was a patron of learning and the custodian of the temple records that Hierombalus the priest had transmitted to Sanchuniathon.

The later kings of Berytus appear in Assyrian and Persian records only sporadically. The city was, for much of its history, overshadowed by its more powerful neighbours — Byblus to the north, Sidon and Tyre to the south. But its strategic position at the mouth of the Beirut River, its fine harbour, and its fertile hinterland ensured its continuous occupation from the Bronze Age to the present.

The Kings of Sidon

Sidon — the city that invented the hymn — produced the most magnificent royal inscriptions of any Phœnician city. The royal necropolis at Sidon, discovered in 1855, yielded a series of anthropoid sarcophagi carved in imported Egyptian style and bearing Phœnician funerary inscriptions. The sarcophagi of Kings Tabnit and Eshmunazar II, now in the Musée du Louvre and the Istanbul Archaeology Museums respectively, are the longest Phœnician inscriptions ever found in Lebanon.

Tabnit (late 6th century BCE), son of Eshmunazar I, was "priest of Astarte, king of Sidon." His sarcophagus is Egyptian, having originally belonged to an Egyptian general named Peneptah, whose inscription was partially overwritten with the Phœnician text. The reuse of an Egyptian sarcophagus demonstrates both Sidon's wealth and its participation in the international trade in luxury goods.

Eshmunazar II (5th century BCE), son of Tabnit, ruled Sidon under Persian suzerainty and left the longest Phœnician inscription known from the Levant. The text records that Eshmunazar and his mother, the queen Am‑Ashtart, built temples to Astarte, Eshmun, and Baal at Sidon, and that the Persian king — probably Xerxes I — rewarded Sidon's loyalty by granting the city "Dor and Joppa, the mighty lands of Dagon, which are in the plain of Sharon."

Correction of the Hebrew Account: The Hebrew scriptures claim the plain of Sharon as Israelite territory. The tribe of Dan was allotted Joppa (Joshua 19:46). Solomon's kingdom was said to extend over the coastal plain. But the Eshmunazar inscription proves that in the fifth century BCE — the very period when the Hebrew scribes were compiling their history in Babylon and Jerusalem — the Persian king gave these territories not to the Hebrews, who had no kingdom, but to the Phœnicians, whose ships and sailors the Persians needed. The Phœnician kings of Sidon held Joppa and Dor as fiefs of the Persian Empire while the Hebrews could do nothing but remember a glory that had never belonged to them.

The patron deities of Sidon were Eshmun, a healing god equated by the Greeks with Asclepius, and Astarte, the consort of Melqart and the goddess of love, war, and fertility. The temple of Eshmun near Sidon, built on a hillside overlooking the city, has been excavated and is one of the best‑preserved Phœnician sanctuaries. Its construction, begun in the 6th century BCE and expanded over the following centuries, reflects the wealth and piety of the Sidonian kings.

A fragmentary Sidonian king‑list is known from a damaged inscription:

· Eshmunazar I (5th century BCE), priest of Astarte

· Tabnit (late 6th–early 5th century), son of Eshmunazar I

· Eshmunazar II (5th century), son of Tabnit

· Bodashtart (5th–4th century), grandson of Eshmunazar I, builder of the temple of Eshmun

· Straton I (4th century), known from Greek sources as a participant in the revolt against Persia and a patron of Greek culture

Sidon, more than any other Phœnician city except Tyre, maintained close relations with the Greek world. The Sidonian kings adopted Greek artistic styles, employed Greek mercenaries, and in the case of Straton I, entertained Greek exiles at their court. This was not cultural submission but strategic calculation: a strong relationship with the Greek cities provided Sidon with allies against the Persian‑backed dominance of Tyre. The rivalry between Sidon and Tyre was a constant feature of Phœnician politics, and it would prove fatal to both cities in the end.

Note on the Amarna Period: The Amarna letters reveal that in the fourteenth century BCE, the king of Sidon was Zimredda, who appears in the correspondence as an ally of Abdi‑Ashirta of Amurru and an enemy of Rib‑Hadda of Byblus. Zimredda's shifting allegiances — at times supporting Egypt, at times Amurru — reflect the political fragmentation of the Phœnician coast and the inability of the Egyptian Empire, already in decline, to impose order on its Canaanite vassals. The Amarna period thus foreshadows the entire subsequent history of Phœnicia: independent cities, each pursuing its own interests, caught between the rival empires of the Nile, the Euphrates, and eventually the Aegean.

Sources for Chapter IV: Ahiram sarcophagus (KAI 1), National Museum of Beirut; Eshmunazar sarcophagus (KAI 14), Musée du Louvre; Tabnit sarcophagus (KAI 13), Istanbul Archaeology Museums; Amarna letters EA 141–143 (Ammunira of Berytus), EA 144–145 (Zimredda of Sidon); Maurice Dunand, Fouilles de Byblos; Edward M. Cook, "On the Linguistic Dating of the Phoenician Ahiram Inscription (KAI 1)," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 53 (1994); Rolf A. Stucky, Das Eschmun‑Heiligtum von Sidon (1993); Josette Elayi, The History of Phoenicia (2013).