The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  Further evidence for close ties between Tyre and Israel is sought in the marriage of Itto-Baal’s daughter Jezebel with Ahab, king of Israel in the first half of the ninth century bce (1 Kgs 16:31–32), although, here again, the evidence is questionable (Abadie 2014). Anyhow, these ties were not close enough to persuade the king of Tyre to participate with Ahab in the Syrian coalition that Shalmaneser III had to fight at Qarqar in 853 bce.

  A worsening of the relations would be evidenced by Amos, who says, in the mid-eighth century bce, that a fire would devour Tyre because it did not observe the covenant (berît) of brotherhood and delivered a whole people to Edom (Am 1:9–10).

  It would be tempting to explain a possible reversal of Tyre’s policy by an alliance with Damascus, especially if “Edom” in the Amos text is emended to “Aram” (i.e., Damascus). In any case, the alliance between Hiram II of Tyre and Rahianu/Rezon of Damascus a short time before the Syrian city’s submission to Tiglath-pileser III in 732 bce was not dictated by hostility toward Israel or Judah, but must be seen in the context of the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war and the resistance to Assyrian invasion (Siddall 2009: 94).

  In other words, the political relations Phoenicia had with Israel/Judah remain unclear even though cultural and religious features demonstrate their existence.

  Phoenicia and the Great Powers

  Phoenicia had ambivalent relations with the great powers, which were both an attractive market and a threat to Phoenicia’s independence. It is clear, however, that they all tried—especially Assyria—to find a balance between an exacting domination and the mutually beneficial development of local economy.

  Assyria

  The expansion policy of Assyria was mainly oriented toward the west—in particular, Syria and Palestine (Bagg 2011). Three periods may be recognized in Phoenicia’s relations with Assyria.

  The first period covers most of the ninth and the early eighth centuries bce. The Phoenician city-states did not wait until the Assyrian army threatened them to pay tribute. They thus preserved their autonomy and Assyria could concentrate on its main targets. Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 bce), the first Assyrian king to have reached the Mediterranean since Tiglath-pileser I, received the tribute of most Phoenician cities (RIMA 2, A.0.101.1: 84–92, 2: 25–31, 33: 14′–18′), but Phoenicia was left unharmed. Relations must even have been peaceful. Ashurnasirpal’s gates at Balawat show at least three times the delivery of tribute by an offshore Phoenician city (Curtis and Tallis 2008: 53, 164–65, 166–67, 180–81) and delegates from Tyre and Sidon were invited to the inauguration of Ashurnasirpal’s palace in Kalhu. His successor Shalmaneser III (858–824), in a first stage, made forays in North Syria and received the tribute of the “kings of the seashore” in 858 and 856 bce. These episodes may be illustrated by two of Shalmaneser’s bronze bands from Balawat—to be dated to 850/848 (RIMA 3: 27)—which showed the tribute of the Tyrians and Sidonians (Schachner 2007, plates 3 and 14; RIMA 3, A.0.102.66, A.0.102.84) (Bagg 2011: 196). In a second stage, Shalmaneser fought a coalition led by Hamath and Damascus, which he first encountered at Qarqar in 853 bce. This coalition included Irqanatu (Arqa) and Arwad, as well as Usnatu and Siannu, and possibly, though not surely, Byblos (Tadmor 1961), but not Tyre nor Sidon (RIMA 3, A.0.102.2: ii 89–96). It is only in a third stage that Shalmaneser reached South Syria. In 843 bce, he went to a place near Tyre (Lipiński 2004: 1–6) and, without fighting, collected the tribute from Baali-manzer (RIMA 3, A.0.102.10: iv 10; cf. RIMA 3, A.0.102.16: 134’). Again, in 838 bce, he received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, also without fighting (RIMA 3, A.0.102.16: 159’–162’). After Shalmaneser III Assyria went through a period of instability. We only hear about Adad-nirari III (810–783 bce), who seems to have come into contact with Phoenicia in one occasion. He received the tribute of Tyre and Sidon and then paid a visit to Arwad (Radner 2012, lines 4–12; RIMA 3, A.0.104.7: 4–12).

  The second period, in the first half of the eighth century bce, must have been a time of development and prosperity for the Phoenician city-states, at least judging from the silence of the Assyrian sources.

  The last and most aggressive period began in the mid-eighth century bce. The Assyrian kings, who had subdued most of Syria-Palestine, wanted to tighten their control over Phoenicia and started exerting military pressure on the cities of the Lebanese coast. From 738 bce onward, Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 bce) submitted the cities of the Syrian coast, as well as of northern Phoenicia—notably Simirra and Arqa—and placed them under the authority of a governor installed in Simirra (Bagg 2011: 216), while Hiram II of Tyre and Sibitti-Biʾil of Byblos were paying tribute (RINAP, Text 14: 11, Text 27:3, Text 32: 2). Hiram II, who had taken sides with Rahianu (Biblical Rezon) of Damascus in 733/732 bce, was besieged in his island and forced to surrender and pay tribute (RINAP 1, Text 49 [+50]: rev. 5–6). A badly preserved letter of Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, governor of Simirra, may refer to the overthrow of Hiram by a person whose name is lost (SAA 19, No. 23, rev. 1–5). When Tiglath-pileser collected again the tribute of Tyre, its king was Metenna (RINAP, 1, Text 47: rev. 16′). A third king, Tubaʾil (PNA 3/II, 1328), is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser, but his exact place in the sequence of royal names is unclear.

  A direct assault on Phoenicia by Shalmaneser V (726–722 bce) may be recorded by Josephus, after Menander of Ephesus (AJ 9.283–87), although, according to Josette Elayi and Antoine Cavigneaux (1979: 66–68), these events should rather be dated to the time of Sargon II.

  Sargon II (721–705 bce) had to crush a rebellion of Hamath in which Simirra participated in 720, but his relations with Tyre seem to have been good, as is shown by his victory over Ionian pirates threatening Que and Tyre.

  In 701 bce, moreover, Sennacherib (704–681) marched against Lulî, said to be king of Sidon, who fled to Cyprus where he died (the main reports are RINAP 3/1, Text 4: 32–38, Text 15: iii 1–19, Text 16: ii 76–iii 26, Text 17: ii 58–86, Text 22: ii 37–60, Text 23: ii 35–57; RINAP 3/2, Text 46: 18–19, Text 140: obv. 15′–rev. 2). Sennacherib replaced him with Tu-Baʾlu, but failed to capture Tyre itself and the kingdom remained, at least nominally, independent. Tu-Baʾlu, together with Abdi-liʾti of Arwad, Uru-Milki of Byblos and other kings, paid homage to the Assyrian king. Tyrian, Sidonian, and possibly Ionian craftsmen built ships for Sennacherib in Nineveh (RINAP 3/1, Text 20: i′ 1–11; RINAP 3/2, Text 46: 57–62).

  At the time of Esarhaddon (680–669 bce), Tyre and Sidon had both their own king. In 677, Esarhaddon captured and razed Sidon, seized his king Abdi-Milkutti, who had fled to the “midst of the sea” (Cyprus?), built a new city that he called Kar-Esarhaddon, and created a new province placed under the authority of a governor (RINAP 4, Text 1: ii 65–iii 38, Text 2: i 14–56, Text 6: ii 10′–49′). Esarhaddon also imposed a loyalty oath (adē) on Baalu, according to which the king of Tyre was placed under the control of an Assyrian official (qēpu) and the Tyrians were given access to harbors and roads under Assyrian control (SAA 2, No. 5). Baalu of Tyre, Milki-ashapa of Byblos, Mattan-Baʾal of Arwad, and others participated in the construction of Esarhaddon’s palace in Nineveh (RINAP 4, Text 1: v 54–vi 1, Text 5: vi 6–15). However, in 671, Baalu made an alliance with Pharaoh Taharqa and, after a siege by the Assyrians, submitted again (RINAP 4, Text 30: rev, 1′–11′, Text 34: 12′–18′).

  The last powerful king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668–631 bce), maintained a strong pressure on the countries situated on the road to Egypt. In 667, he requested the assistance of twenty-two kings, which included Baalu of Tyre, Milki-ashapa of Byblos, and Yakin-Lu of Arwad (Borger 1996: 212). Around 662, however, he laid siege to Tyre and Baalu submitted once more (Borger 1996: 216). It may be at the same time that Yakin-Lu of Arwad brought his daughter with a large dowry to the Assyrian king in Nineveh (Borger 1996: 216). When Yakin-Lu died, ca. 662 bce, Ashurbanipal appointed Azi-Baʾal as his successor (Borger 1996: 217). Lastly, ca. 645, Ashurbanipal captured Ushu (continental Tyre) which had not paid its tribute (Borger 1996: 249). Phoenicia ha
d submitted but, nonetheless, preserved a certain autonomy.

  Actually, the Assyrian rule should not be conceived as an absolutely oppressive and exhausting occupation. Letters of Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, the already mentioned governor of Simirra (SAA 19, Nos. 22–26), show that his main concerns were to enforce the king’s policy and to favor economic activities. For instance, although he advised the Sidonians not to trade with the Philistines and the Egyptians, he also made sure that the king of Tyre could operate in the ports of trade (karānu) and had free access to the timber of Mount Lebanon (SAA 19, No. 22).

  Toward the end of Esarhaddon’s reign, an official wrote to the king to complain about the intrigues of Ikki-Lu, assuredly the king of Arwad Yakin-Lu, who interrupted the circulation of Assyrian boats and had bought the complicity of members of the king’s entourage (SAA 16, No. 127). A few years later, Ashurbanipal consulted the gods to know whether he should send a messenger to Yakin-Lu and whether Yakin-Lu would comply with his message (SAA 4, No. 89). Obviously, the all-mighty sovereign of Assur was conscious that his power had limitations.

  Babylonia

  We do not know to what extent Phoenicia was involved in the demise of the Assyrian empire, completed in 605 bce by Nebuchadnezzar II’s victory over an Assyrian-Egyptian coalition at Carchemish.

  In his first years, Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 bce) regularly campaigned in Syria (Grayson 1975: Chronicle 5; Glassner 1993: Chronicle 24). Although Babylonian sources say nothing of Phoenicia specifically, Josephus reports that Phoenicians were deported in Babylonia (Ap. 1.137; AJ 10.222–23), a piece of information that can be put in parallel with the presence of Phoenicians in Babylonia (Zadok 1978: 59–61) and with place names such as Bīt Ṣurāya (Zadok 1985: 104). The place name Ṣurru, formerly looked for in the vicinity of Nippur (Zadok 1985: 280–81), might actually refer to Tyre in Phoenicia (Kleber 2008: 141–45).

  The Babylonian domination was not easily accepted (Peckham 2014: 369–73). Tyre and Sidon participated in a conference convened in Jerusalem by King Zedekiah in the early sixth century bce, according to Jeremiah 27:1–3, obviously to organize an unsuccessful opposition to Nebuchadnezzar (Kahn 2008: 143–44). The reasons and exact dates of the thirteen-year siege of Tyre are unknown (585–572 bce?) (Ap. 1.156, 159). At any rate, it does not seem to have been successful (Ezek 29:18), and a second siege of Tyre is not impossible (Kleber 2008: 153–54). Whatever actually happened, the royal family was deported and Tyre was ruled by judges until a legitimate king was reinstalled (Jos., Ap. 1.157–58). However, relations were not always hostile. The so-called Hofkalender, written after 589 bce, lists the kings of Tyre, Sidon, and Arwad among officials involved in the construction of a palace in Babylon (Da Riva 2013: 217). Nebuchadnezzar could have several rock inscriptions carved at the Nahr el-Kelb and in North Lebanon (Da Riva 2015). Nabonidus (556–539 bce) used cedar wood from Lebanon in a building project (Schaudig 2001: 359, 361, 442, 444) and a Phoenician craftsman may have carved a Tanit symbol on the base of one of his stelae (Schaudig 2008: 533–36).

  The circumstances of the end of Babylonian rule over Phoenicia are still unclear. The famous Cyrus Cylinder reports that all the kings of the world—this must include the kings of Phoenicia—freely submitted to Persian hegemony and came to Babylon in 539 bce to pay homage to their new lord (Schaudig 2001: 553, 556) (For Phoenicia under the Achaemenid empire, see also chapter 7, this volume).

  Egypt

  Relations between Phoenicia and Egypt go back to a remote past and were still intense in the first millennium (Leclant 1968; Scandone 1984; Mumford 2007). Stylistic and artistic influence on Phoenician culture show how close the links were. Written evidence is unfortunately scarce. Here I list some of the historical data we do have.

  Explicit testimonies are found at Byblos for the tenth century bce. According to the very plausible interpretation of André Lemaire (2006), the statues of Sheshonq I (945–924 bce) and Osorkon I (924–889 bce), which were carved with inscriptions of the Byblian kings Abi-Baal for the first and Eli-Baal for the second, were not reused at a later date (contra Sass 2005: 48–49) but they were made at the request of the two Byblian kings soon after these pharaohs had ascended the throne. It was a token of good relations, but not, strictly speaking, of subordination.

  Otherwise, the evidence is most often indirect and vague. For instance, among the booty that Esarhaddon took from Sidon was a jar with an inscription of Pharaoh Takelot III when he was still the crown prince (RINAP 4, Text 71) and in 671, Baalu of Tyre allied himself with Pharaoh Taharqa, a circumstance that prompted the siege of Tyre by Esarhaddon. Psammetichus I (664–610 bce) may have had some control over Lebanon from where cedar was imported (Łipiński 2006: 156–57). At the same time there existed a camp (στρατόπεδον) of the Tyrians at Memphis (Hdt. 2.112), either a camp for Tyrian soldiers or a merchant colony. Necho II (610–595 bce), Psammetichus’s son, asked Phoenicians to undertake the circumnavigation of Africa (Hdt. 4.42). Psammetichus II (595–589 bce) may have campaigned in Phoenicia (Kahn 2008: 148–52) and, on his expedition to Nubia, he had a Phoenician contingent with him, which left graffiti at Abu Simbel (Schmitz 2010). Lastly, Apries (589–570 bce) is said to have launched a maritime expedition against Phoenicia, seizing Sidon, fighting the king of Tyre at sea, and dominating all the other cities (Hdt. 2.161; Diod. 1.68.1). This is surprising because we would rather expect that the Egyptians would have come to the rescue of the Phoenicians against the Babylonians (Lipiński 2006: 198).

  There results from this poor evidence that Egypt does not seem to have ever been able to effectively challenge the power of Assyria and Babylonia but could manage to have generally peaceful relations with Phoenician city-states.

  Conclusion

  Phoenician city-states were probably unique in ancient western Asia in that most of them managed to preserve their autonomy, personified by a local ruler, throughout the Iron Age and beyond, no matter the foreign power to which they submitted. Mount Lebanon protected them. They were only exceptionally the main target of foreign invaders. In turn, an accommodating policy allowed them to act as middlemen between all parts of the Near East, as well as large parts of the Mediterranean.

  References

  Abadie, P. 2014. “Jézabel: une reine de fiction?” In Phéniciens d’Orient et d’Occident: Mélanges Josette Elayi, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Dufour, and F. Pfizmann, 63–77. Paris: Maisonneuve.

  Aubet, M. E. 1993. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Bagg, A. 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 1: Die Levante. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 7/1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

  Bagg, A. 2011. Die Assyrer und das Westland: Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1 Jt. v.u.Z. Leuven: Peeters.

  Beitzel, B. J. 2010. “Was There a Joint Nautical Venture on the Mediterranean Sea by Tyrian Phoenicians and Early Israelites?” BASOR 360: 37–66.

  Borger, R. 1996. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  Boyes, P. J. 2012. “‘The King of the Sidonians’: Phoenician Ideologies and the Myth of the Kingdom of Tyre-Sidon.” BASOR 365: 33–44.

  Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1992. Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. Studia Phoenicia XII. Leuven: Peeters.

  Bunnens, G. 1976. “Commerce et diplomatie phéniciens au temps de Hiram Ier de Tyr.” JESHO 19: 1–31.

  Bunnens, G. 1979. L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée: Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires. Brussels and Rome: Institut historique belge de Rome.

  Curtis, J. E., and Tallis, N. 2008. The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II. London: Bristish Museum Press.

  Da Riva, R. 2013. “Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EŞ 7834): A New Edition.” Zeitschrift für Assyrologie und Vo
rderasiatische Archäologie 103: 196–229.

  Da Riva, R. 2015. “Enduring Images of an Ephemeral Empire: Neo-Babylonian Inscriptions and Representations on the Western Periphery.” In Mesopotamia in the Ancient World: Impact, Continuities, Parallels, edited by E. Rollinger and E. van Dongen, 603–60. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

  Dochhorn, J. 2001. “Die auf Menander von Ephesus zurückgehende Liste der Könige von Tyrus in C 1:116–126: Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik des Josephus und des Menander sowie zur absoluten Chronologie der Könige von Tyrus.” In Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Amsterdam 2000, edited by J. U. Kalms, 77–102. Münster: Ugarit.