M. Francis-Allouche, N. Grimal, \"The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon)\", JEMASH, 4,...

$Page 1: M. Francis-Allouche, N. Grimal, \"The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon)\", JEMASH, 4, 2-3, 2016, p. 242‑277$
JOURNAL OF EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE STUDIES

T H E P E N N S Y L V A N I A S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S V O L . 4 N O S . 2 –3 2 0 1 6

JEMAHS

E D I TO R SAnn E. Killebrew, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park (USA)Sandra A. Scham, The Catholic University of America (USA)

A S S I S TA N T E D I TO R SHanan Charaf, University of Paris I-Sorbonne (France)Louise A. Hitchcock, University of Melbourne (Australia) Justin Lev-Tov, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (USA)

B O O K R E V I E W E D I TO RMitch Allen, Mills College (USA)

E D I TO R I A L A S S I S TA N THeather D. Heidrich, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park (USA)

J E M A H S

Salam Al-Kuntar, University of Pennsylvania (USA)Lorenzo d’Alfonso, New York University (USA)Jere L. Bacharach, University of Washington (USA)Reinhard Bernbeck, Freie Universität Berlin (Germany)Eric H. Cline, The George Washington University (USA)Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, University of Virginia (USA)Elif Denel, American Research Institute in Turkey, Ankara (Turkey)Ioannis Georganas, Independent Researcher (Greece)Joseph A. Greene, Harvard University (USA)Matthew Harpster, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Bodrum (Turkey)

Kenneth G. Holum, University of Maryland, College Park (USA) Saleh Lamei, D. G. Centre for Conservation of Islamic Architectural Heritage (Egypt)Mark Leone, University of Maryland, College Park (USA)Thomas E. Levy, University of California, San Diego (USA)Alexander Nagel, Smithsonian Institution (USA)Shelley-Anne Peleg, Israel Antiquities Authority (Israel)Susan Pollock, Freie Universität Berlin (Germany) Issa Jubrael Sarie, Al-Quds University (Jerusalem)Neil A. Silberman, University of Massachusetts Amherst (USA)Stuart Tyson Smith, University of California, Santa Barbara (USA)

Sharon R. Steadman, SUNY Cortland (USA)Margreet Steiner, Independent Scholar (The Netherlands)Christopher A. Tuttle, Council of American Overseas Research Centers (USA)James M. Weinstein, Cornell University (USA)Donald Whitcomb, The University of Chicago (USA)Naama Yahalom-Mack, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel)

E D I TO R I A L A N D A D V I S O R Y B O A R D

Front cover photo: The monastery of Deir Mar Lisha‘ (Saint Élysée) in the Qannubine Valley within the Qadisha Valley, partly built inside a natural cave, is the birthplace of monastic life for the Maronite Church. (Photo by A. Zwegers. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en].)

Journal of EastErn MEditErranEan archaEology and hEritagE studiEs

V o l . 4 n o s . 2 –3 2 0 1 6

iii From the Guest EditorHanan Charaf

f E at u r E a r t i c l E s121 The Qadisha Valley, Lebanon

Anis Chaaya

148 Syriac and Karshuni Inscriptions on Wall Paintings in the Qadisha Valley, LebanonGaby Abousamra

194 Wall Paintings in the Qadisha Valley, Lebanon: Various Styles and DatesMay Hajj

209 The Castle of Smar Jbeil—A Frankish Feudal Stronghold in LebanonAnis Chaaya

242 The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon)Martine Francis-Allouche and Nicolas Grimal

278 Deir el-Ahmar—A Roman Settlement in the Northern Bekaa Valley, LebanonLaure Salloum

the j o u r n a l of e a s t e r n m e di t e r r a n e a n a r c h a e ol o g y a n d h e r i ta g e s t u di e s (j e m a h s) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Pennsylvania State University Press. JEMAHS is devoted to traditional, anthropological, social, and applied archaeologies of the eastern Mediterranean, encompassing both prehistoric and historic periods. The journal’s geographic range spans three continents and brings together, as no academic periodical has done before, the archaeologies of Greece and the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant, Cyprus, Egypt, and North Africa.

As the journal will not be identified with any particular archaeological discipline, the editors invite articles from all varieties of professionals who work on the past cultures of the modern countries bordering the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, a broad range of topics will be covered including, but by no means limited to:

Excavation and survey field results;Landscape archaeology and GIS;Underwater archaeology;Archaeological sciences and archaeometry;Material culture studies;Ethnoarchaeology;Social archaeology;Conservation and heritage studies;Cultural heritage management;Sustainable tourism development; andNew technologies/virtual reality.

Appearing four times a year in February, May, August, and November, the journal will engage professionals and scholars of archaeology and heritage studies as well as non-practitioners and students, both graduate and undergraduate.

In addition to combining traditional and theoretical archaeological data and interpretation, the journal’s articles may range from early prehistory to recent historical time periods. It also aims to publish accessible, jargon-free, readable, color-illustrated articles that will be informative for professional and non-professional readers. The journal does not publish unprovenanced artifacts purchased on the antiquities market or objects from private collections.

submission informationDigital submissions should be sent to: www.editorialmanager.com/JEMAHS. All correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Ann E. Killebrew ([email protected]). By submitting their work to JEMAHS, authors agree to editorial modifications of their manuscripts that are designed to help JEMAHS fulfill its mission.

Articles should be submitted as a MS Word file together with all illustrations (1200 dpi for black and white; 600 dpi for grayscale; and at least 300 dpi for color) referenced in the manuscript. Permissions to use photographs and copyrights for all illustrations are the responsibility of the authors and need to be included when the manuscript is submitted. (For more information regarding copyright issues for authors, go to: http://psupress.org/author/author_copyright.html). Papers should be limited to not more than 20–25 manuscript pages or ca. 6,000–7,000 words. Shorter papers are welcome, but authors wishing to submit a paper longer than 25 manuscript pages (including endnotes, references, and appendices) should consult with the editors in advance.

For complete author submission guidelines, please visit: http://www.psupress.org/journals/jnls_JEMAHS.html

subscrip tion informationThe Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies is published quarterly by the Pennsylvania State University Press, 820 N. University Dr., USB 1, Suite C, University Park, PA 16802. Subscriptions, claims, and changes of address should be directed to our subscription agent, the Johns Hopkins University Press, P.O. Box 19966, Baltimore, MD 21211, phone 1-800-548-1784 (outside USA and Canada: 410-516-6987), [email protected]. Subscribers are requested to notify the Johns Hopkins University Press and their local postmaster immediately of change of address. All correspondence of a business nature, including permissions and advertising, should be addressed to the Pennsylvania State University Press, [email protected].

The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of American University Presses.

rights and permissionJEMAHS is registered under its ISSN (2166-3548 [E-ISSN 2166-3556]) with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (www.copyright.com). For information about reprints or multiple copying for classroom use, contact the CCC’s Academic Permissions Service, or write to the Pennsylvania State University Press, 820 N. University Dr., USB 1, Suite C, University Park, PA 16802.

Copyright © 2016 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. No copies may be made without the written permission of the publisher.

journal of eastern mediterranean archaeology and heritage studies, vol. 4, nos. 2–3, 2016Copyright © 2016 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.

—Gibran Khalil Gibran

Between the Face of the Future and the Back of the Past

Issues 2 and 3 of Volume 4 of the Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies bring to a close the series dedicated to the archaeology and cultural heritage of Lebanon from the classical period onward. As with the previous issues, the three main geographi-cal regions of Lebanon are represented. Anis Chaaya discusses the enigmatic—yet imposing—castle of Smar Jbeil located north of Byblos within the limits of the Crusader county of Tripoli. Martine Francis-Allouche and Nicolas Grimal present the preliminary results of their large-scale underwater survey located south of the ancient mound of Byblos, where a silted-in basin is possi-bly identified as the ancient Bronze and Iron Age port of the famed city. Laure Salloum, the head of the northern Bekaa district at the Directorate General of Antiquities of Lebanon (DGA), publishes, for the first time, the results of parts of the surveys she has been conducting in the region located outside of Baalbek in the Bekaa Valley. Very few people know of the existence of a major Roman temple dedicated to Jupiter at Deir el-Ahmar in the vicinity of Baalbek, and the wine presses found in this

village nicely compliment a previous article in the series by Bettina Fisher-Genz on industrial installations (2016).

The bulk of the articles in this double issue, however, are dedicated to a fascinating region in the northern part of Mount Lebanon. The Qadisha Valley (“Sacred Valley”) was an ideal refuge for many persecuted Chris-tians communities after the Arab invasion. For hundreds of years, its remoteness and inaccessibility at the bot-tom of steep cliffs offered a nearly impregnable natural fortress, protecting Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Syri-acs, and Ethiopians. All of these communities coexisted with one another and built many historical monaster-ies, churches, and hermitages along the valley or on the cliffs overlooking it. However, out of the different reli-gious groups inhabiting the Qadisha, the Maronites are the ones whose history is most intimately linked to this valley. From the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries AD, the see of the Maronite patriarchy was located at the monastery of Qannubine, and, today, the Qadisha Valley is considered a Maronite stronghold. Here, Anis Chaaya presents a historical and archaeological over-view of this valley that contextualizes the articles by Gaby Abousamra and May Hajj. Abousamra discusses the numerous Syriac and Karshuni inscriptions found in the many churches and monasteries of the Qadisha. Hajj attempts a stylistic overview of the mural paintings adorning various religious buildings, some of which have been destroyed by vandalism, poor restoration opera-tions, or are fading due to exposure to the elements.

The Qadisha Valley is one of five sites in Lebanon featured on the UNESCO list of World Heritage sites.1 In 1984, four sites (Tyre, Byblos, Anjar, and Baalbek) were placed on the list. While those properties (a term used by UNESCO to define cultural sites) are considered

f r o M t h E g u E s t E d i to r

hanan charaf

i V | F r o m t h e G u e s t e d i to r

cultural heritage sites, the Qadisha and the Forest of the Cedars of God, listed in 1998, are regarded as cultural landscapes. These five sites are a testimony to the rich-ness of the cultural heritage and landscape sites of a country only half the size of the state of Massachusetts.2 By comparison, the neighboring country of Syria is 19 times larger than Lebanon and has only six UNESCO World Heritage sites.

Other Lebanese sites are vying for a spot on the cov-eted UNESCO list even though the qualifying conditions are strict and the process lengthy. In 1996, the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education and the DGA placed nine candidate sites on the UNESCO Tentative List, pending the completion of their nomination applications. These sites include the archaeological and historical centers of the cities of Tripoli (Fig. 1), Sidon (Fig. 2), and Batrun

(Figs. 3–4). There is also the cultic complex dedicated to the Phoenician god Eshmun just north of Sidon (Fig. 5), the Palm Island Nature Reserve off the coast of Tripoli (Fig. 6), as well as the natural and cultural landscapes of the Orontes Valley, the Nahr Ibrahim Valley (Fig. 7), the Nahr el-Kalb Valley (Fig. 8), and the Chouf region in Mount Lebanon.3 All of these sites fulfill at least one of the ten selection criteria adopted in the revised “Opera-tional Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention” in 2004.

Lebanon does not lack candidates for World Heritage sites. There are dozens of other places that have “out-standing universal values.”4 Unfortunately, placing a site on the UNESCO cultural and natural heritage lists in Lebanon does not guarantee its perennial preserva-tion. The UNESCO-inscribed sites in Lebanon face the

f i g . 1a view of the interior of the crusader castle of tripoli, built by raymond de saint-gilles, count of toulouse. the crusaders occupied this site from ad 1102–1103 until ad 1267 when the castle fell to the Mamluk sultan Baibars. (Photo by heretique. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en].)

Journal of EastErn MEditErranEan archaEology and hEritagE studiEs | V

same challenges as any other place in the country. While they are continuously threatened by the instability prevailing in parts of the country, these sites have thank-fully escaped, so far, the massive destructions recently witnessed at similar places in Syria and Iraq. During the Lebanese civil war and subsequent major conflicts (such as the events of 2006), these sites were spared from bombings. The consistent threat of looting does not seem to have impacted them dramatically.

While hostilities did not do substantial damage to the Lebanese World Heritage sites and those on the Tentative List, a lack of funds and rampant urban development con-tinuously threaten them. For example, Tyre and Byblos occupy vast areas in prime coastal locations and are reg-ularly targeted by real-estate developers. In the summer of 2015, plans for a luxury sea resort south of the ancient mound of Byblos were leaked and exposed the inten-tion to wipe out what could be the ancient harbor of the

city (see Francis-Allouche and Grimal, this double issue). While this harbor is not included within the perimeter of the World Heritage site, its preservation would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the ancient city. Even though the UNESCO sites in Lebanon are in the pub-lic domain and cannot be built on, developers work tire-lessly to encroach on the surrounding lands, thus doing irreparable damage to the cohesive environment of the ancient or natural sites. The tall modern buildings that sur-round Al-Bass in Tyre are an eyesore and distract from the full appreciation of the ancient hippodrome and necropo-lis. The advertising marquees on the walls of the promon-tory of Nahr el-Kalb defile a place that has witnessed the passage of many ancient armies, who left commemora-tive plaques and steles. The pristine and picturesque Nahr Ibrahim Valley is threatened by the construction of a dam that will have catastrophic consequences on the ecosystem and the historical remains therein.

f i g . 2the old city of sidon dates to the Mamluk and ottoman periods. it is located between the sea castle and the land castle (known as saint louis castle). (Photo by h. Charaf.)

f i g . 3a view of one of the streets in the old city of Batrun (ancient Batruna or Botrys). some of the buildings have been renovated in the past few years. (Photo by h. Charaf.)

f i g . 4one of the old ottoman houses inside the old city of Batrun. (Photo by h. Charaf.)

f i g . 5the throne of ashtarte in the temple of Eshmun. this vast cultic complex located 2 km north of sidon is dedicated to Eshmun, the Phoenician god of healing. it was continuously used between the seventh century Bc and the eighth century ad. (Photo by eli+. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.)

f i g . 6Palm island (Jazirat al-araneb [“island of the rabbits” in arabic]) is the largest of the three islands of the Palm island nature reserve, located 5 km off the coast of tripoli. it is an important sanctuary for turtles, seals, and migratory birds. (Photo by J. Ziade. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNu_Free_documentation_License,_version_1.2].)

V i i i | F r o m t h e G u e s t e d i to r

f i g . 7the nahr ibrahim is a picturesque valley located south of Byblos. the ibrahim river is also known as the adonis river after the Phoenician god of love and beauty. according to mythology, adonis was killed by a wild boar in this valley and his blood turned the river red. the valley is dotted with temples and shrines dedicated to adonis and his lover, ashtarte. (Photo by oadrienvalentineG. Courtesy of Wiki Commons [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en].)

In summary, the majority of the Lebanese population repeatedly fails to comprehend that it is they who should adapt to the cultural and natural heritage sites, not the other way around. The relationships between the sites and local inhabitants have to be synergetic in order to bring about sustainable development that benefits both parties.

Since a lack of governmental funds for cultural and natural centers is endemic in Lebanon, the preservation

of these and other sites relies on the generosity of the international community, which regularly bankrolls restoration operations or gives loans to the Lebanese government at very low interest rates to carry out such activity. Tyre, Byblos, and Baalbek have all benefitted from loans given by the World Bank.

While the official position of Lebanon in matters of cultural heritage has long been that of a resigned cry-baby defeatist or David fighting a lost battle

Journal of EastErn MEditErranEan archaEology and hEritagE studiEs | ix

against Goliath, the money giant (a position that was acceptable during the many wars and armed conflicts that the country has faced), it can no longer afford the luxury of burying its head in the sand in order to avoid dealing with the challenges and threats loom-ing over its cultural and natural sites. Western-style makeovers of old towns and cities, such as the down-town area of Beirut, has stripped these places of their souls, and the cultural and natural sites in the country have been flooded with a generic type of phagocytic modernism. These two irresponsible trends have been frenetically adopted by the Lebanese since the end of the civil war. The issue is not development per se—that is an acknowledged reality and should not be foolishly

demonized—but the lack of a visionary development that is sustainable and moves beyond the usual ad hoc bandage responses to crisis. Enhancing what is (as the native Lebanese writer, poet, and philosopher, Gibran Khalil Gibran, once said) does not lead to progress, but rather advancing with a concrete and cohesive national vision of proper management of the country’s cultural and natural resources does. Such a plan will not only preserve these priceless remains for future generations but will consolidate their narrative importance for the current one. What Lebanon needs to recognize now is that its present policy of idling indefinitely—with its back turned to the past and its gaze poorly focused toward the future—is no longer a viable option.

f i g . 8an engraving of the inscriptions and steles at nahr el-Kalb by french architect and painter louis-françois cassas dated to 1799. this promontory contains 20 inscriptions and rock reliefs commemorating the different armies, who passed here. in 2005, the steles were listed in the unEsco Memory of the World Program, an initiative aimed at safeguarding world cultural heritage (from cassas 1799–1800: no. 77).

x | F r o m t h e G u e s t e d i to r

notes1. For the Lebanese sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List,

go to: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/lb.2. Out of 234 countries in the world, Lebanon is only the 168th

largest in area (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/countries_by_area.htm).

3. For the description and location of the Lebanese sites on the UNESCO Tentative List, go to: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/lb.

4. Per UNESCO’s definition of a World Heritage site. For the list of criteria, go to: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria.

referencesCassas, J.-F. 1800. Voyage pittoresque de la Syrie, de la Phœnicie, de la

Palæstine et de la Basse Ægypte: Ouvrage divisé en trois volumes contenant environ trois cent trente planches, Vol. 2. Paris: Impremiere de la République.

Fisher-Genz, B. 2016. Ancient Wine and Oil Presses from the Bekaa Valley. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 4:57–71.

journal of eastern mediterranean archaeology and heritage studies, vol. 4, nos. 2–3, 2016Copyright © 2016 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

The MariTiMe approaches To ancienT ByBlos (leBanon) Martine

Francis-allouche

and nicolas Grimal

Research of Maritime Byblos

The Byblos and the Sea Project is the continuation of a long-term marine survey program that started in Byblos in the 1960s (and continued until the beginning of the Lebanese civil war) by Honor Frost, a pioneer in marine archaeology in Lebanon and the eastern Mediterranean. Frost began her study of coastal and maritime issues at a time when all archaeological investigations were exclu-sively land-based (Dunand 1939; Renan 1864; Montet 1962; Lauffray 2008). After the end of the civil war, Frost resumed her marine research in 1998 and continued until 2006. After her death in 2010, the marine research program resumed within the framework of the new Byblos and the Sea Project, under the joint director-ship of Nicolas Grimal and Martine Francis-Allouche, who assisted Frost in her surveys of Byblos, beginning in 1998.

Since 2011, the Byblos and the Sea Project has conducted a multi-disciplinary field investigation in collaboration with foreign specialists and the Lebanese Directorate General of Antiquities. The main objectives of this investigation were: (a) to understand the archaeo-logical man-made features of coastal Byblos; (b) to link the ancient city to its shore (which had remained terra incognita before Frost’s survey); (c) to understand the near-shore maritime approaches to the city; and finally (d) to eventually locate the well-attested Bronze Age

Maritime trade between Levantine coastal cities over the millennia is attested in numerous ancient sources. Information from these textual and iconographic works often describes the timber trade between Byblos and Egypt. However, no physical trace of a Bronze Age har-bor has been discovered around ancient Byblos. After 17 years of field investigation, a harbor basin has finally been located at the southern foot of the ancient city. In 2011, the geo-archaeological research program Byblos and the Sea was launched to shed new light on the mari-time approaches to Byblos. Several indications confirm the location of a silted-in harbor basin, most probably the harbor, which is so vividly described in the Report of Wenamun.

key words: maritime timber trade, Lebanon, Byblos, Egypt, ancient sources, underwater archaeology, ancient harbors

abstract

Journal oF easTern MediTerranean archaeoloGy and heriTaGe sTudies | 243

harbor of Byblos, which was responsible for the economic growth of the city during antiquity.

Historical Sources

The ancient city of Byblos1 ranks as one of the oldest settlements in the world and has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site since 1984. Located on the Lebanese seafront north of Beirut, the ancient city prides itself on its long exceptional history.

Around 6,000 BC, fishermen settled on the Byblian headland and lived in circular domestic houses. As a result of the economic growth from the trade and exchange of goods between Byblos and every part of the Mediterranean, a prosperous and rich Bronze Age city rose on the foundations of the older Neolithic settlement by the middle of the fourth millennium BC.

Toward the end of the third millennium BC, and more specifically in the second millennium BC, Byblos played an important role in the trade network of ancient Egypt (Breyer 2010: 67–100). Archaeological artifacts found in the excavations of Byblos provide evidence of the com-mercial connection the two shared: objects originat-ing from the Nile Valley, local copies of Egyptian-style objects, and inscribed diplomatic gifts from the pha-raohs, dated to the 4th Dynasty onward, to the Byblian kings (Grimal 2009).

Ancient Egyptians, unfamiliar with high-sea navi-gation, adopted Levantine ship building techniques in the third millennium BC. Archaeological excavations of ‘Ayn al-Soukhna on the Red Sea yielded an entire harbor installation with ships described by ancient Egyptians as kpny “giblite,” originating from Gbl-Jbayl (Tallet and Marouard 2012: 42). A second harbor installation, recently discovered at Wadi el-Jarf on the Red Sea, has also been described in ancient annals as “giblite” (Tallet 2012: 150). Both installations, discovered in Egypt, are models of what one may expect to have existed at ancient Byblos.

Textual and iconographic testimonies from Egypt, dated to the second millennium BC, are even more abun-dant. These sources attest to the exploits and conquests of the ruling powers over the Levant. Many describe the ancient sea trade, the ships, the traded goods, and, more

particularly, the exploitation of forests of the hinterland and the export of timber from the Levant to the south, be it ancient Egypt, the kingdom of Israel, or the East, specifically the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires.

Early Egyptian indicators prove the important role played by the Levant in antiquity. Indeed, pharaohs of the Old and Middle Kingdoms imported wood from the region (mainly from the area of modern Lebanon) to use in the building of ships and furniture. Cedar was particu-larly prized for the construction of sacred vessels, and cedar resin was highly sought after for embalming in mummification.

The annals of Thutmose III (1490–1436 BC) contain, for example, a description of the land, as well as of the goods imported to Egypt, their shipping, and the mis-sions to fetch them (Bardinet 2008: 120). The shipping and nature of the goods traded in the second millennium BC are represented on iconographic sources, such as those in the Qenamun Tomb, dated to the 18th Dynasty and depicting seagoing ships with Syro-Canaanite merchants unloading goods on Egyptian land (Davies 1963: pl. XV; Briquel-Chatonnet 2001) (Fig. 1).

Another important iconographic source is the bas-relief (dated to 1294–1279 BC) on the façade of the Temple of Seti I on the north wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak. This wall relief shows dignitaries from Lebanon cutting wood to be offered to Seti I (Wreszinski 1934: 86–87, figs. 34–35; Briquel-Chatonnet 2001: 43) (Fig. 2). These iconographic representations testify to the com-mercial transactions between the Levant and Egypt.

The Voyage of Wenamun

The first-millennium BC Report of Wenamun is the most important text to confirm the existence of a harbor in ancient Byblos. Pushkin Papyrus 120 tells the story of Wenamun, an Egyptian high dignitary, who was sent to Byblos by Ramesses XI to buy wood to repair Amun’s sacred vessel in the temple of Thebes (Lefebvre 1976: 234–64). This expedition, dated to 1076/1075 BC (Gardiner 1932: 138–69; Kees 1936: 3–4), is the most explicit and vivid piece of evidence in relation to the exis-tence of a harbor installation in Byblos. More generally, it provides precise information on Levantine seamanship and sea trade during the second millennium BC.

F i G . 1syro-canaanite merchants unloading goods in egypt, as depicted on the Tomb of Qenamun from the mid-second millennium Bc. (Courtesy of N. Grimal.)

F i G . 2The “chiefs of lebanon” cutting trees for seti i, as depicted on a bas-relief on the outer northern façade of the hypostyle room at the Temple of amun in Karnak. (Photo by N. Grimal.)


After a difficult sea journey that led Wenamun from Tanis to Dor, then to Tyre, and finally to Byblos, the Egyptian envoy faced difficult negotiations with Tjekerbaal, the prince of Byblos, who eventually granted him an audience. The prince agreed to cut down trees and transport them to the harbor at Byblos, where ships would be loaded with the timber for transport back to Egypt.

Transportation Methods of Felled Cedar and Pine Logs: The two major tree species sought after by Egyptians (Bardinet 2008: 23, 121–34) are pine trees (pinus pinea or pinus halepensis) and cedar trees (cedrus libani), both of which still grow today in the hinterland of Byblos at different altitudes. Pine trees grow from the shoreline up to about 1,000 m in altitude, whereas the cedar tree needs higher elevations of no less than a 1,000 m and ideally 1,500 m. Two major areas in the hinterland areas closer to Byblos could have provided these species: the high plateau

of Jaj (or Arz Jaj) and the Jabal Mar Moussa Forest, where an inscription by the Roman emperor Hadrian confirms this hypothesis (Fig. 3). This engraved inscription aimed to protect four species of evergreens, which still grow in these altitudes (Mouterde 1957: 230–34; Breton 1970: 69–72, 130–41; Abdul-Nour 2001: 66).

Timber exceeding 30 m in length could not be trans-ported by land,2 so logs were most likely moved by men and oxen from the felling areas to the river banks and thereon floated down the river to the sea. A survey con-ducted by Anne-Sophie Dalix and Anis Chaaya in 2004 in the upper course of the El-Fidar River, south of Byblos, identified man-made grooves cut into the river banks, which may have served to slow down the logs as they floated down (Dalix 2005: 37, 42–43).

Two modes of transportation are likely to have coex-isted: The first method is known as “à bûches perdues” (Elayi 1988: 30–31), that is, the floating of loose timbers down the river. The second method is tying logs into rafts

F i G . 3The main rivers that flow into the hinterland of Byblos, some of which were perfect for floating logs down to the sea. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

246 | T h e M a r i T i M e a P P r o a C h e S To a N C i e N T B y B l o S (l e B a N o N )

that are then steered down the river, as depicted in the bas-relief of the Palace of Sargon II, dated to 721–705 BC (Linder 1986: 271–74; Fontan 2001) (Fig. 4).

According to the “transportation” scenes, both meth-ods may have been used simultaneously, either on rivers or at sea (Dalix and Chaaya 2007–2008: 244–48). It would have been easier for ships to tow floating rafts rather than loose logs once they reached the sea; however, the export of large quantities of timber from Byblos to the Egyptian Delta could only have happened by loading the wood onto ships.

The two main rivers reaching the high plateaus of the hinterland of Byblos are the seasonal river in the El-Fidar

Valley and the Nahr Ibrahim River (see Fig. 3). Both have the two required attributes: (a) an elevation where cedar trees or other evergreens are prevalent; and (b) a depth and width of the riverbed to accommodate logs from the felling source to the sea. Of course, all rivers and streams in the area may have been used for the transport of differ-ent goods from the hinterland to the coast. However, only the streams south of ancient Byblos have been taken into consideration in the present study because the predomi-nately southwestern sea currents allowed for the success-ful transport of the logs from the mouth of the river to the harbor facility, supposedly located in the direct vicinity of ancient Byblos (according to the Report of Wenamun).

F i G . 4a bas-relief from the palace of the assyrian king sargon ii at dur sharrukin (modern Khorsabad, iraq), dating to ca. 716–713 Bc and showing how logs were towed from the mouth of the river and then loaded onto ships. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/legalcode].)


Forest Exploitation Processes in the Report of Wenamun: The Wenamun account gives a detailed description of different episodes of forest exploita-tion and the export of timber. The trade of timber was seasonal. The cutting of trees took place in winter (at least in 1075 BC) when growth was at a minimum. Timber was then kept on the ground over the winter, from December until February (ỉw⸗w ỉr pr ỉm ḫȝ ʿ ỉr ȝbd ȝ šmw) (2.44).3 Transport of cut timber to the shore took place in spring when rivers were flooded from melting snow (precisely between the fifth of March and the sixth of April of the year 1074 BC [ỉw⸗w ỉtḥ w <ḥr> spt <n> pȝ ywm] [2.243–44]), but the episode of transportation from the river mouth to the harbor facility is not described in the Report of Wenamun. Finally, timber was loaded onto ships and ready for export when sea conditions were conve-nient and predictable, usually at the end of summer.

In fact, the messenger of Ramesses XI returned with the sum demanded by Tjekerbaal between the sixth of September and the fifth of October in 1075 BC (Year VI, Part I [Egberts 1991: 61]); however, the order was prob-ably only shipped in 1076 BC.

Wenamun’s account hints at the location where the timber was stored before it was loaded onto the ships: “I went to the seaside, where the timber logs had been piled up, and I saw 11 boats” (ỉw⸗ỉ šỉ n⸗ỉ <ḥr> spr <n> pȝ ywm r pȝ nty nȝ ḫt ỉm wȝḥ, ỉw⸗ỉ nw r 11 n br) (2.62–63). The storage area seems to have been close to an important mooring basin, since Wenamun sees 11 boats (br).

Another conclusive indication of a harbor facility in the Report of Wenamun is the recurrent references to the word mrỉt, meaning “harbor” (Fig. 5)—that is, a space where ships are moored—which is differentiated from the word spt, which means “seashore,” for example: “the

F i G . 5The use of the word mrỉt for “harbor” (marked in green) in the Report of Wenamun. (Photo and translation by N. Grimal.)


harbor of the sea (n pȝ ywm)” (2.74); “ … the seashore of the harbor of Byblos” (1.33); and “Are there not 20 ships (mnš) here, in my harbor” (1.58–59). The terms are the same for the city of Dor, where the location of the har-bor has been clearly identified (Carayon 2008: 1022–23). Wenamun mentions the harbor of Dor: “I was robbed in your harbor” (1.13); “I spent 9 days moored in your har-bor” (1.21–22); and “[Wait until you have left] the harbor” (1.27). Thus, it is very clear that Byblos had a built harbor in the eleventh century BC with a dock, where at least 20 cargo ships could be moored simultaneously.

According to Wenamun’s report, this harbor installa-tion seems to have been located in the immediate vicin-ity of Byblos, itself nested on a 25 m-high promontory. When he reached Byblos, Wenamun set up a tent on the seashore of the harbor—probably meaning outside the mooring basin—waiting for the prince of Byblos to give him audience.

When the morning came, he [the prince] sent some-one to escort me to the top [to the city which laid on top of the promontory], leaving the statue of the God Amon in the tent where he had been at seashore. I found him [the prince] sitting at his desk, his back to the window: the waves of the large Syrian Sea were unfolding up to his neck [probably an optical illusion]. I tell him: “may Amon bless you!” He tells me: “How long has it been till today that you left the place of Amon’s residence?” I tell him: “Five full months till today.” (1.13–16)

The Wenamun report has been analyzed by many researchers. French Egyptologist Pierre Montet placed the Bronze Age harbor to the north of the archaeologi-cal tell of Byblos at the location of the medieval harbor, the actual fishermen’s harbor of Byblos (Montet 1962). But was the medieval harbor basin really installed on the older Bronze Age harbor basin of Byblos? What does the field investigation reveal?

Field Investigation

Since 2011, in the framework of the Byblos and the Sea Project, all data from previous scientific research was gath-ered in an attempt to synthesize the different approaches

of the past. The field study covered the entire rocky coastal strip of Byblos, from its northern part to its southern end (Fig. 6). The main aim of this investigation was to confirm or invalidate the five options previously suggested as possi-ble locations for the Bronze Age harbor of Byblos: (1) the Saquiet Zaidane Bay; (2) the area of the medieval harbor; (3) the Chamiyeh Bay; (4) the open El-Skhyneh Bay; and (5) the Dahret Martine, Dahret Jbeil, and Al-Chakfi offshore anchorages, located at 2 km at large (Fig. 7).

The first field mission conducted in 2011 by the Byblos and the Sea Project completed a topographical survey of the coastal strip of Byblos, linking the archaeological tell to the sea. Ancient remains and archaeological instal-lations found on the coast, such as a maritime quarry, a necropolis, and a series of reservoirs, were studied. Different zones of the coastal area were established, a much-needed basis to understand the functionality of the exploited areas, as well as potential harbor configu-rations. This first step resulted in an overall master plan of the land, which was later enlarged to cover the sea. A bathymetric mapping of the maritime area of Byblos was conducted in 2014 (see below) (see Fig. 7).

Re-Investigating the Potential Harbors in the Northern Part of Byblos

Five areas were contenders for the location of the ancient harbor.

1. The northerly Saquiet Zaidane Bay presents an open and straight pebble stretch, bordered by steep cliffs and exposed to major sea currents. This location was ruled out by Frost as a shelter for mooring boats, adding that it was also located outside the medieval city walls (Frost and Morhange 2000: 102).

2. The medieval harbor of Byblos was also rejected by Frost’s investigation as it does not seem to have been used in antiquity, at least not for bigger cargo ships on which 26–30 m-long cedar logs were exported to the Egyptian Delta. In 2000, two auger core drillings in the harbor dock, performed in the framework of Project CEDRE, showed a shallow basin with very coarse sediments, which translate into an unprotected basin from the open-sea current (Stefaniuk et al. 2005: 23).

F i G . 6an aerial view of the southern maritime approaches to Byblos. (Photo by C. Tannouri.)

F i G . 7Topographical plan of the coastal area of Byblos and bathymetric survey of the near shore area. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


In 2011, the medieval basin was reinvestigated from the sea. Originally, the area was a much smaller size, which can be seen in a 1930s black-and-white photograph (Fig. 8). Since 1968, the basin has been deepened and enlarged to accommodate larger boats. Prior to these modern modifications, the medieval harbor basin presented rocky outcrops and erosion trottoirs, which are geological terraces at mean sea level inside the basin. The medieval basin seems to have been inserted between these geological terraces from the seaward side and a narrow talweg (the intersection line of two lateral slopes within a valley) on the eastern side, which must have had steep walls down to the cove. Today, rock-cut shaft tombs are present in the back of a restaurant bordering the harbor basin. The entrance of these tombs is 3 m above mean sea level (Figs. 9–10), suggesting an extremely steep

and narrow topographical configuration prior to the 1968 excavations of the geological terraces and rocky outcrops. A dock was built all around the natural cove, as well as a jetty, which narrowed the entrance of the harbor mouth.

In 2014, an underwater bathymetric survey conducted within the framework of the Byblos and the Sea Project has revealed an unsuitable underwater configuration for mooring boats in the medieval harbor basin, confirming the auger coring results performed by Frost in 2000. Moreover, the bathymetric map showed a rocky and shallow maritime approach at the harbor mouth (Figs. 11–12). Frost’s mention of the Jean de Palerne wreckage (dated to AD 1581) against the rocky outcrops at the entrance of the medieval harbor illustrates this well (Aurenche 1978; Frost and Morhange 2000: 102). It further confirms that larger vessels had to moor elsewhere.

F i G . 8The medieval harbor of Byblos in the 1930s: a natural and shallow cove presenting geological outcrops (erosion trottoirs) at mean sea level inside the basin. (Courtesy of the Max Van Berchem Foundation.)

F i G . 9an aerial view of the medieval harbor basin of Byblos. (Photo by C. Tannouri.)


Finally, a mooring basin for smaller ships may have been possible in the medieval harbor basin. The existence of fresh water wells around the harbor cove suggests that water was available for moored ships (Carayon 2012–2013: 22). However, no harbor installation prior to the medieval one can be confirmed to date at this northern location despite the fact that the northern city-gate of ancient Byblos was installed in the direction of a talweg, which leads to the harbor cove (Dunand 1939: 11–12, 423).

3. The Chamiyeh Bay, located south of the medieval harbor, presents the same intricate underwater configuration as the area inside and around the medieval harbor. Indeed, this third location is too rocky and shallow for the maneuvering of bigger cargo vessels in antiquity.

Based on these indications, the hypothesis of an ancient anchorage in the northern zone of Byblos had to be ruled out, at least for the mooring of

large cargo ships. This reasoning steered the field investigations to the south of the ancient city, to the sandy El-Skhyneh Bay (Fig. 13).

4. Within the framework of Project CEDRE, Frost and Morhange launched another session of auger core soundings in the southern area of Byblos in 2000, more precisely in the El-Skhyneh Bay, which stretches over 800 m and is 250 m wide. The southern and northern angles of this bay are protected from predominantly southwest currents, respectively by Cape Qartaboun and Yasmine Island. The inward side of the bay is enclosed by a strip of rocky cliffs, which is interrupted at its north and at its south by two seasonal rivers, the Qassouba and the Qartaboun.

Two boreholes (BIV and BII) removed from the southern part of the bay (see Fig. 13) showed coarse sediments, indicating an open unprotected bay and ruling out this 800 m-long sandy stretch as a

F i G . 10shaft tombs cut into the bedrock overlooking the medieval harbor, from the east. (Photo by N. Grimal.)


mooring facility, except, however, for lighter boats or service crafts, which may have beached on this stretch. A third borehole (BI) was taken from the northern part of the bay, south of the Armenian Orphanage lot, which may have once been the ancient mouth of the Qassouba River. Today, this

river is almost dried up and barely trickles down to the sea (Fig. 14). The coring sediments included a large amount of river pebbles, flattened by erosion and indicating the existence of quite a large riverbed at the south of the city of Byblos during antiquity (Frost 2004: 341–42).

F i G . 11Bathymetric survey of the medieval harbor area showing shallow and narrow seaward approaches in spite of the 1968 harbor enlargement. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


According to Frost, cedar logs and other conifers were floated down from the hinterland on the Qassouba River. Actual field investigation has proven otherwise: (a) the course of its riverbed is rather rough and bumpy, and also presents narrow elbows; and (b) the higher end of the Qassouba

River only reaches 325 m in altitude, where cedar and juniper trees cannot grow (see Fig. 3). It was, thus, impossible to float timber down on the Qassouba River in antiquity. However, smaller-sized goods may have been transported on its course.4

F i G . 12seabed composition in the medieval harbor area of Byblos showing the large and shallow rocky seabed (brown), the sandy area (beige), and loose rocks and cement blocks deposited for the modern jetty (green and yellow). even today, the maritime approaches are rather difficult for larger boats. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


One last coring session (BIII) took place at the foot of the ancient city in the so-called Armenian Orphanage lot, which lies in a location well protected between the promontory and the Qassouba River. There, Frost tried looking for a cothon (an artificially dug harbor) or any vestige of artificial harbor construction (Frost 1998–1999; Morhange 1998–1999). However, this coring did not yield any substantial results, due to the unfortunate loss of a large amount of sediments while pulling out the core itself (Stefaniuk 2001: 85–86). Therefore, it was commonly agreed at the time, based on the nature of the few sediments pulled out, that the area has always been an unprotected open bay, with a shoreline close to where it lays today.

The second criterion for elimination of this area as a possible harbor was the underwater

configuration of the near shore in front of the Armenian Orphanage lot. The actual depth and configuration of the Jouret Osman Bay appears to be very shallow and rocky. One cannot help but eliminate this area as a harbor basin due to its topographical configuration.

5. Based on this evidence, Frost pulled away from her original thought, which was to place the ancient harbor in the northern corner of the southern El-Skhyneh Bay. Nevertheless, she explains the beaching of smaller boats (kpnt) on the open sandy bay and their commuting back and forth between the bay and large cargo ships, which would anchor on offshore reefs 2 km off the coast (Fig. 15). These boats (more commonly known as lighters) would tow logs from the shore to the cargo vessels at sea for transport to Egypt.

F i G . 13a view of the el-skhyneh Bay, looking northwest. The ancient tell is visible in the background to the left. The locations of the four boreholes drilled during project cedre are indicated by black arrows. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)


Hence, until then, no Bronze Age harbor installation had been found in the vicinity of ancient Byblos. Based on the field investigation, the five harbor possibilities on the coast were eliminated, and Frost adopted the theory of an offshore anchorage at more than 2 km off the coast of Byblos. However, given the exposure of these offshore anchorages to seasonal winds, whether southwesterly or northerly, the potential anchorage issues had to be revised. Mooring and loading harbor activities are not easy tasks to perform in general, specifically the uploading of long-sized timbers. A series of pierced stone anchors found on the middle anchorage, known as Dahret Martine, may nevertheless indicate a possible temporary anchorage for cargo ships, which waited to be moored in the harbor basin of ancient Byblos, as explicitly described in Wenamun’s account.

Field Investigation in the Southern Area of Byblos

Based on the above results, the immediate southern vicinity of the ancient city of Byblos (Fig. 16) was reinves-tigated by the Byblos and the Sea Project for the following reasons: (a) the proximity of the ancient city of Byblos; (b) the area at the foot of the ancient tell, presenting a deep inward golf prior to silting and construction; (c) the protection Yasmine Island offers to the area; (d) the loca-tion of two main rivers to the south of the area, enabling the southwesterly sea currents to drift towed logs or rafts naturally toward the north to the possible harbor loca-tion; and, last but not least, (e) the indications that the Report of Wenamun, more precisely the mention by Prince Tjekerbaal of 20 boats moored in the harbor which he (the prince) sees from his office on the headland, is quite a realistic description.

Geophysical Survey

Geophysical prospection is an essential tool prior to any “invasive” intervention at a given site. It provides a two-dimensional mapping or a three-dimensional image of the underground and allows a rough localiza-tion of silted-in harbor coves or land-filled bays and their paleo-shorelines, since these move over time. It may also detect possible buried archaeological structures. In the present case, a survey was conducted in October 2013 on the lower lot of the Armenian Orphanage in Byblos (Francis-Allouche and Grimal 2015: 54–59). The measure-ments of this electrical resistivity profiling survey were taken by geophysicists Tomasz Herbich and Dawid Swięch (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland). The grid was set by topographer Damien Laisney (Maison de l’Orient, Lyon, France). The data were processed by Herbich.

The main objective of this geophysical survey was, of course, the localization of a possible ancient har-bor beneath this lot in the immediate southern vicin-ity of the ancient city of Byblos. The results were quite astonishing: A two-dimensional image of a buried harbor basin was rendered, showing an old shoreline at about a 100 m inland from the current shoreline (Figs. 17–19). These geophysical readings allowed for the detection of

F i G . 14The Qassouba river today, southeast of the buried harbor basin. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)


a silted-in basin, buried inland in the lower lot of the Armenian Orphanage. Results are presented as maps of the apparent resistivity changes, with blue corresponding to the lowest values of resistivity and brown correspond-ing to the highest ones (see Fig. 19). The result of the survey produced a good basis for further research; veri-fication by auger coring was necessary at this point. This was performed along lines perpendicular to the bound-ary between high- and low-resistivity areas, both in the northern and the southern parts of the prospected area.

Auger Coring Survey: Based on the analyses of extracted sediments, one may understand the process of transfor-mation from a “natural” coastal space to a “man-made”

artificial installation. The process of the different phases can even be retraced, recreating the ancient harbor space. Once artificial harbor structures are built to protect a natural environment from sea currents, it transforms the nature of sediments from very coarse ones, exposed to strong currents, to very fine and silt sediments, trapped in the enclosed and protected area. Such changes appear very clearly, and they denote a protected harbor area (Carayon 2008; Goiran and Morhange 2001).

In 2014, an auger coring mission was conducted by sediment specialist, Nicolas Carayon (CNRS UMR 5140: Archéologie des sociétés méditerranéennes, Montpellier-Lattes, France) in the Armenian Orphanage lot (Carayon 2014). It completed a series of boreholes conducted in 2000 by Project CEDRE (Frost and Morhange 2000).

F i G . 15The offshore anchorages ca. 2 km off the coast of Byblos. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


The main objective for this mission, however, was to ver-ify the results of the 2013 geophysical survey readings. As a result, the existence of a body of water was con-firmed, and a silted-in harbor cove was corroborated. The sediments filling this harbor cove were analyzed, and all 29 boreholes unanimously verified that this area, at the foot of the ancient city, was once a well-protected har-bor basin.5 According to the different layers found in the cores, this basin was wide enough (approximately 8,000 to 12,000 m2) and had deep enough waters (of 1.5 to 4 m) to accommodate a fleet of commercial boats, as described in ancient Egyptian annals and the Report of Wenamun (Figs. 20–22).

Several phases of seashore modification have been identified thanks to the auger cores: two paleo-shorelines were located, showing a progradation exceeding 100 m since the maximum rise in sea level (marine transgres-sion), dated to around 6000 BC. In our case, silting could have been the outcome of the abandonment of harbor structures, which served as protection from swells and

major winds. This abandonment caused rapid silting of the basin from the inland, leading to a quick progres-sion of seashores. The phenomenon of ancient seashores being totally integrated into their urban surroundings has been noted, for instance, at: the Phoenician slipways of Minet el-Hosn in Beirut (ca. 100 m) (Francis-Allouche 2012: 7–10), the slipways of Kition-Bamboula in Larnaka, Cyprus (ca. 800 m) (Yon 2000; Yon and Sourisseau 2010), and the harbor of Yenikapı in Istanbul, Turkey (ca. 1,500 m) (Perinçek 2010).

Bathymetric Survey: An extensive marine remote sensing survey was conducted in the maritime approaches of Byblos, covering a total area of 8 km² with a total length of 250 km in track lines, from the medieval harbor of Byblos to the Nahr el-Fidar River canyon, and a width of 3 km (Papatheodorou et al. 2014) (Figs. 23–27). This marine prospection completes two preliminary underwater mappings previously

F i G . 16The presumed location of the ancient harbor basin of Byblos. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 17Tomasz herbich conducting an electrical resistivity profile survey in october 2013 on the armenian orphanage lot, south of the archaeological site of Byblos. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 18a close-up of Tomasz herbich taking electrical resistivity profile measurements. (Courtesy of T. herbich.)

F i G . 19a two-dimensional image of a buried body of water, showing an old shoreline at approximately 100 m inland from today’s shoreline. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

F i G . 20nicolas carayon conducting auger coring in 2014 in the armenian orphanage lot. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 21assessing the 291 kg of sediments removed during coring, of which 80 kg were sampled, processed, and analyzed by uMr 5140: archéologie des sociétés méditerranéennes of the centre national de la recherche scientifique in Montpellier-lattes, France. (Photo by N. Grimal.)

FiG

. 22

a ge

nera

l plan

show

ing t

he b

oreh

ole su

rvey

on th

e arm

enian

orp

hana

ge lo

t in

Bybl

os: (

a) th

e loc

ation

of 2

9 au

ger c

ores

(blac

k dot

s); an

d (b

) the

limits

of

a tw

o-ph

ased

silte

d-in

har

bor b

asin

(8,0

00 m

2 and

12,0

00 m

2 , res

pect

ively)

(hat

ched

blu

e lin

es).

(Cou

rtesy

of t

he B

yblo

s and

the S

ea P

rojec

t.)

F i G . 23a remote sensing survey conducted in the maritime approaches to Byblos in June 2014 under the direction of George papatheodorou from the laboratory of Marine Geology and physical oceanography at the university of patras in patras, Greece. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 24deploying a wide side-scan sonar that is towed behind the ship and takes planimetric measurements of a wide seafloor area, resulting in geomorphological mapping and the detection of man-made features. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 25a sub-bottom profiler system provides a geological profile of the sub-bottom up to 50 m beneath the actual seabed. it evaluates the seismic stratigraphy of the seafloor and detects paleo-shorelines, buried seabeds, and structures. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 26The data acquisition system for all the marine remote sensing devices. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)


performed in Byblos (2002 [Frost 2002; Collina-Girard et al. 2002] and 2011 [Grimal and Francis-Allouche 2012]). The processed data of this survey resulted in: (a) a bathymetric map of the actual seabed; (b) a paleo-bathymetric map of a deeper laying seafloor; (c) a seafloor composition map; and (d) a man-made target map, spotting unusual man-made features.

In Jouret Osman Bay (Fig. 28), results of this bathy-metric survey indicated an extremely shallow and rocky seabed with a shoreline practically linked to Yasmine

Island and almost forming a headland. However, fur-ther investigations located a paleo-bathymetric level, that is, a deeper seabed, buried beneath the actual one. A 5 m-thick layer of loose sediments accumulated over the years and covers the deeper original seabed (Figs. 29–31). Moreover, the depth of this buried seabed perfectly matches the depth of the inland silted-in harbor basin on the Armenian Orphanage lot, meaning that the entire profile of the Qassouba Valley seems to have been much deeper and perfectly suited for mooring boats (Fig. 32).

F i G . 27plan of the bathymetric sea surveying mission in Byblos covering a total area of 8 km² with a total length of 250 km in track lines. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


Geophysical Survey

Within the framework of the Byblos and the Sea Project, a survey of geophysical readings was performed on the Armenian Orphanage lot in March 2015 by geophysicists Vivien Mathé and Adrien Camus (La Rochelle University, La Rochelle, Poitou-Charentes, France). The objectives of this mission were to: (a) survey the areas located outside the harbor basin lines; (b) fine tune previous results obtained by the geophysical resistivity survey; and (c) spot possible man-made structures, such as a mole, dock, or other harbor buildings.

This tomographic survey performed 13 parallel north-east–southwest and northwest–southeast pseudo-sections across the area, yielding results in section and elevation, whereas former resistivity results gave

two-dimensional images or in plan. Both of these highly efficient and complementary techniques were used to optimize results by cross-referencing one another and resulted in a three-dimensional image of the harbor basin (Figs. 33–37).

Archaeological Soundings

Based on the results of the last geophysical survey, some archaeological soundings were conducted and trenches were dug in 2015 on the Armenian Orphanage lot to assess the archaeological importance of the site. A team of archae-ologists confirmed the existence of a silted-in basin in the lower part of the lot. However, deeper archaeological layers were only reached in one of the soundings, confirming an

F i G . 28The Jouret osman Bay in front of the armenian orphanage lot in Byblos, showing yasmine island in the background. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

FiG

. 29

a co

mpa

rativ

e plan

show

ing a

ctua

l bat

hym

etric

seab

ed le

vels

(to th

e lef

t) an

d bu

ried

paleo

-bat

hym

etric

leve

ls (to

the r

ight)

of th

e sam

e are

a in

the J

oure

t osm

an B

ay. (

Cou

rtesy

of t

he B

yblo

s and

the S

ea P

rojec

t.)

F i G . 30cross-sections of the near-shore area in the Jouret osman Bay, showing a 5 m-thick layer of loose sediments covering a deeper seabed. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

F i G . 31cross-sections of the near-shore area in the Jouret osman Bay, showing the buried seabed level without the accumulated sediments layer. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

F i G . 32northeast–southwest general section, reconstituting the water depth of the ancient basin, buried in the armenian orphanage lot, and extending into the sea beneath the Jouret osman Bay. From top to bottom: (a) actual configuration, (b) the prospection, and (c) the ancient configuration of the basin. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

F i G . 33The tomography survey equipment used by Vivien Mathé and adrien camus in March 2015. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 34a tomographic pseudo-section across the armenian orphanage lot. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

F i G . 35Thirteen parallel northeast–southwest and northwest–southeast pseudo-sections resulting in a three-dimensional north–south view of the basin. The gray color represents the bedrock; the magenta and the blue represent the buried basin; and the red and orange represent possible structures. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


old seashore line with material finds, such as a mooring weight and a series of typical copper ship nails. Anchors were also found in the harbor vicinity (Fig. 38).

In the upper area, excavated results validated the high-resistivity readings obtained by the tomography survey, unearthing a concentration of medieval and Roman structures. However, no older harbor structures have yet been unearthed. But what should we expect? Would these harbor structures be rather spectacular in scale, or should we expect a natural cove with more average ones?

Synthesis

The present study has confirmed through different scien-tific approaches the localization of the Bronze Age harbor of Byblos at the southern foot of the ancient city. Further

archaeological investigations need to be conducted in order to better understand the harbor basin configura-tion and to unearth its possible structures. Moreover, it is important to note that the limits of the ancient city cannot be confined any longer to the promontory itself. These have to be extended to include the new harbor loca-tion, south of the city. As reported by ancient texts, the city of Byblos developed extensively during the middle of the third millennium BC due to its maritime trade, which was most probably conducted out of its southern harbor. This means that the natural border of the ancient city on the southeastern side coincides with the Qassouba Valley. The protected zone of the World Heritage site has to be widened to include not only its northern medieval harbor but also its newly located southern harbor, which seems to date to the Canaanite and Phoenician eras, based on the Report of Wenamun.

F i G . 36Two-dimensional image of the silted-in harbor basin. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)

F i G . 37Three-dimensional reconstruction of the harbor basin without the landfill. (Courtesy of the Byblos and the Sea Project.)


notes1. Ancient Byblos was called Gbl in Phoenician, Gubla in

Akkadian, and kpn in Egyptian (Jidejian 1971: 1–2).2. This is known from the Cheops ship, uncovered in the Great

Pyramid of Giza and dated to the third millennium BC.

3. All Egyptian transliterations and translations are by N. Grimal.4. Although it may not have transported logs, the Qassouba

River probably supplied fresh water to the harbor basin and, more generally, to the coastal area.

5. The sediments are currently undergoing 14C analyses.

referencesAbdul-Nour, H. 2001. Les inscriptions forestières d’Hadrien: Mise

au point et nouvelles découvertes. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 14:64–95.

Aurenche, O. 1978. Un voyageur français en Orient au XVIème siècle: Jean Palerne, Forézien. In Mélanges en l’honneur d’Étienne Fournial, ed. B. Yon, 19–34. Annales de l’Unité d’enseignement et de Recherches des lettres et sciences humaines de l’Université de Saint-Étienne 1. Saint Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne.

Bardinet, T. 2008. Relations économiques et pressions militaires en Méditerranée orientale et en Libye au temps des pharaons: Histoire des importations égyptiennes des résines et des conifères du Liban et de la Libye depuis la période archaïque jusqu’à l’époque Ptolémaïque. Études et mémoires d’égyptologie 7. Paris: Cybèle.

Breton, J.-F. 1970. Les inscriptions forestières d’Hadrien. 3 vols. MA thesis, Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient.

Breyer, F. 2010. Ägypten und Anatolien: Politische, kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte zwischen dem Niltal und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 63; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 25. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 2001. Les textes relatifs au cèdre du Liban dans l’antiquité. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 14:42–48.

Carayon, N. 2008. Les ports phéniciens et puniques: Géomorphologie et infrastructures. PhD diss., Université Marc Bloch–Strasbourg 2.

———. 2012–2013. Les ports phéniciens du Liban, milieux naturels, organisation spatiale et infrastructures. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 36–37:1–137.

———. 2014. Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de carottage à Byblos, projet “Byblos & la mer,” directed by N. Grimal and M. Francis-Allouche. Report presented to the Directorate General of Antiquities, Beirut, Lebanon.

Collina-Girard, J., H. Frost, M. Hélou, and I. Nureddine. 2002. Un promontoire sous-marin au large du port antique de Jbail-Byblos: Cartographie, interprétation géologique

F i G . 38an ancient stone anchor found in Jouret osman Bay, the seaward side of the presumed ancient harbor of Byblos. (Photo by M. Francis-allouche.)

martine francis-allouche is a Lebanese land and underwater archaeologist. She was an archaeologist at the Lebanese Directorate General of Antiquities in 1996 and 1997. She is an affiliated researcher at the Collège de France and is currently pursuing a PhD in archaeology at the University of Paris I-Sorbonne. She is the co-director of the Byblos and the Sea Project. Her main interests are underwater archaeology and the study of the ancient maritime landscape of Lebanon. (421 Sabounjian Building, 3rd Floor, Jal el-Dib Highway, Lebanon; [email protected])

nicolas grimal is professor of Egyptology at the Collège de France. He is a member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres and is the secretary-general of the consultant Committee on Archeological Research Abroad at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is the co-director of the Byblos and the Sea Project. He has published extensively on Egyptian history, archaeology, and epigraphy. (14 Rue Saint-Guillaume, F 75007, Paris, France; [email protected])


et implications archéologiques. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6:317–24.

Dalix, A.-S. 2005. “L’épisode giblite” chez Plutarque. (De Iside et Osiride, 357 A–D, chapitres 15–16). A contrario 1:28–44.

Dalix, A.-S., and A. Chaaya. 2007–2008. L’activité forestière au Liban dans l’antiquité pré-classique: De l’exploitation à l’exportation. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26–27:234–57.

Davies, N. 1963. Scenes from Some Theban Tombs (No. 38, 66, 162, with Excerpts from 81). Private Tombs at Thebes 4. Oxford: Printed for the Griffith Institute at the University Press.

Dunand, M. 1939. Fouilles de Byblos I: 1926–1932. Paris: Geuthner.Egberts, A. 1991. The Chronology of The Report of Wenamun.

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 77:57–67.Elayi, J. 1988. L’exploitation des cèdres du Mont Liban par les rois

assyriens et néo-babyloniens. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31:14–41.

Fontan, E. 2001. La frise du transport du bois, décor du palais de Sargon II à Khorsabad. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 14:58–63.

Francis-Allouche, M. 2012. Les cales sèches ou cales à bateaux phéniciennes de Minet El-Hosn (Beyrouth). Carnets de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient, January 30. http://ifpo.hypotheses.org/2946 (accessed February 16, 2016).

Francis-Allouche, M., and N. Grimal. 2015. Evaluation du patrimoine archéologique maritime enfoui de la parcelle de l’Orphelinat arménien/Byblos, lot 642. Report presented to the Directorate General of Antiquities, Beirut, Lebanon.

Frost, H. 1998–1999. Marine Prospection at Byblos. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 3:245–59.

———. 2002. Fourth Season of Marine Investigation: Preliminary Charting of the Offshore Shallows. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 6:309–16.

———. 2004. Byblos and the Sea. In Decade: A Decade of Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, ed. C. Doumet-Serhal, 316–47. Beirut: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum.

Frost, H., and C. Morhange. 2000. Proposition de localisation des ports antiques de Byblos (Liban). Méditerranée 94:101–4.

Gardiner, A. H. 1932. The Misfortunes of Wenamun. Late Egyptian Stories; Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 1. Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.

Goiran, J.-P., and C. Morhange. 2001. Géoarchéologie des ports antiques de Méditerranée: Problématiques et étude de cas. Topoi 11:647–69.

Grimal, N. 2009. Quelques réflexions sur la géopolitique du Levant au deuxième millénaire av. J.-C. In Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean: Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages; Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut, 2008, 339–60. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises hors-série 6. Beirut: Directorate General of Antiquities.

Grimal, N., and M. Francis-Allouche. 2012. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Byblos. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres 156:279–302.

Jidejian, N. 1971. Byblos through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq.Kees, H. 1936. Herihor und die Aufrichtung des thebanischen

Gottesstaates. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1, Altertumswissenschaft n.F. 2/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Lauffray, J. 2008. Atlas de plans et coupes. Part 2 of Fouilles de Byblos VI: L’urbanisme et l’architecture. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 182/2. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Lefebvre, G. 1976. Romans et contes égyptiens de l’époque pharaonique. Paris: Maisonneuve.

Linder, E. 1986. The Khorsabad Wall Relief: A Mediterranean Seascape or River Transport of Timbers? Journal of the American Oriental Society 106:273–81.

Montet, P. 1962. Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire des relations entre l’Égypte et la Syrie. VIII: Ounamon chez Zekerbaal. Kêmi 16:79–83.

Morhange, C. 1998–1999. Étude géomorphologique du littoral de Byblos: Résultats de la mission de terrain de 1998. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 3:261–65.

Mouterde, R. 1957. Les inscriptions d’Hadrien à Tarchich et au Wadi Brissa. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 34:230–34.

Papatheodorou, G., M. Geraga, C. Dimitris, M. Iatrou, N. Georgiou, and D. Zoura. 2014. Interim Technical Report: Marine Remote Sensing Survey in Byblos, Lebanon, Projet “Byblos et la mer,” directed by N. Grimal N. and M. Francis-Allouche. Report presented to the Directorate General of Antiquities, Beirut, Lebanon.

Perinçek, D. 2010. The Geoarchaeology of the Yenikapı Excavation Site in the Last 8000 Years and Geological Traces of Natural Disasters (Istanbul–Turkey). Bulletin of Mineral Research and Exploration 141:69–92.

Renan, E. 1864. Mission de Phénicie. Paris: Imprimerie impériale.Stefaniuk, L. 2001. Les ports antiques de Byblos (Liban): Localisation

et étude paléo-environnementale. MA thesis, Université de Provence.

Stefaniuk, L., C. Morhange, M. Saghieh-Beydoun, H. Frost, M. Boudagher-Fadel, M. Bourcier, and G. Noujaim-Clark. 2005. Localisation et étude paléoenvironnementale des ports antiques de Byblos. In La mobilité des paysages portuaires antiques du Liban, by C. Morhange and M. Saghieh-Beydoun, 283–89. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises hors-série 2. Beirut: Directorate General of Antiquities.

Tallet, P. 2012. Ayn Sukhna and Wadi el-Jarf: Two Newly Discovered Pharaonic Harbours on the Suez Gulf. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 18:147–68.

Tallet, P., and G. Marouard. 2012. An Early Pharaonic Harbour on the Red Sea Coast. Egyptian Archaeology 40:40–43.

Wreszinski, W. 1934. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, Vol. 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Yon, M. 2000. Les hangars du port chypro-phénicien de Kition: Campagnes 1996–1998 (Mission française de Kition-Bamboula). Syria 77:95–116.

Yon, M., and J.-C. Sourisseau. 2010. Le port de guerre de Kition. In Ricoveri per navi militari nei porti del Mediterraneo antico e medievale: Atti del workshop, Ravello, 4–5 novembre 2005, ed. D. J. Blackman and M. C. Lentini, 57–67. Archeologia, storia, cultura 5. Bari: Edipuglia.

Date post:	10-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aibl
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

M. Francis-Allouche, N. Grimal, \"The Maritime Approaches to Ancient Byblos (Lebanon)\", JEMASH, 4,...

Documents