sign in sign up
<<
Home , Phoenicia, Prehistory of the Levant, Sumur (Levant), Tell Kazel, Tell Tweini

UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas

begründet von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz †

unter Mitarbeit von Josef Tropper

herausgegeben von Manfried Dietrich und Ingo Kottsieper

Beratergremium J. Bretschneider • K. A. Metzler R. Schmitt • W. H. van Soldt • J.-P. Vita

Band 47 2016

Manfried Dietrich: @uni-muenster.de Ingo Kottsieper : [email protected] Josef Tropper : [email protected]

Redaktion Ugarit-Verlag, Salzstr. 45, D-48143 Münster (Kai A. Metzler: [email protected])

Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewähr übernommen werden. Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet, unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen. Manuskripte für die einzelnen Jahresbände werden jeweils bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten.

© 2016 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster (www.ugarit-verlag.com) Alle Rechte vorbehalten All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-231-3 ISSN 0342-2356

Printed on acid-free paper

Inhalt

Artikel Stefan Bojowald Zum Gebrauch des Verbs „kochen“ im Sinne von „Pflanzen reifen“. Eine Antwort auf Benjamin Kilchör ...... 1 Manfried Dietrich Beschreibungslieder von Mensch und Tier im Kirtu-Epos ...... 7 Meir Edrey Phoenician Ethnogenesis. The Crucial Role of Landscape in the Early Shaping of Phoenician Culture ...... 41 Betina I. Faist / Josué-Javier Justel / Ferhan Sakal / Juan-Pablo Vita Bibliografía de los estudios de (7) ...... 53 Finkelstein Comments on the Abimelech Story in Judges 9 ...... 69 Philippe Guillaume Wonder Woman’s Field in Proverbs 31: Taken, not Bought! Economic Considerations on Proverbs 31:16 ...... 85 Issam K. H. Halayqa / Mohammad Abu Rmilah Middle II – Iron II Scarabs from ...... 103 Giovanni Mazzini The Expresion šḥr ṯlṯt in Ugaritic Legal Language and a Parallel in Ancient South Arabian ...... 123 Nadav Na¬aman Memories of in the Old Testament ...... 129 Hermann Michael Niemann Juda und . Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Stamm und Stadt und zur Rolle in Juda ...... 147 Łukasz Niesiolowski-Spanò Functional Ethnicity. Or, How to Describe the Societies of Ancient Palestine? ...... 191 iv Inhalt [UF 47

Manfred Oeming / Keren Ras / Ido Koch / Anat Weinberg-Cohen / Yuval Gadot / Oded Lipschits Late Figurines from Tel Azekah...... 205 T. M. Oshimia A Babylonian Marduk Prayer found at Ugarit (RS 94. 2498) ...... 221 Katsuji Sano Die Eroberungen von Ägypten durch Asarhaddon und Aššurbanipal ...... 251 Michael Stahl Ḥērem-Warfare at Ugarit? Reevaluating KTU 1.13 and KTU 1.3 II ...... 265 M. Justin Walker The Wings of the Dove are Covered with . The (Absent) Presence of the Goddess in Psalm 68 ...... 301 Manfred Weippert „Veni de Libano, sponsa!“. Hoheslied 4,8 ...... 343 Nicholas Wernick Ancient Near Eastern Battering Rams. Questioning their Penetrative Power and Target Location ...... 371 Masamichi Yamada Did terḫatu Mean “Dowry” in Emar? ...... 415 Wolfgang Zwickel Zwei Aramäerstaaten in der Beqa®-Ebene : Bet-Rehob und -Zoba..... 431

Buchbesprechungen und Buchanzeigen Davide NADALI / Jordi VIDAL (eds.): The Other Face of the Battle: The Impact of War on Civilians in the Ancient (Nicholas Wernick) . 449 Studia Mesopotamica, Bde. 1–3 (2014–2016) (Ludger Hiepel) ...... 453 Pieter Gert VAN DER VEEN: The Final Phase of II in Judah, , and : A Study of Prevenanced Official Seals and Bullae as Chronological Markers (Rüdiger Schmitt) ...... 464

Abkürzungsverzeichnis ...... 467

Indizes A Stellen ...... 475 B Wörter ...... 478 C Namen ...... 480 D Sachen...... 484

Phoenician Ethnogenesis The Crucial Role of Landscape in the Early Shaping of Phoenician Culture1

Meir Edrey,

Introduction ...... 41 The emergence of Phoenician culture ...... 42 The Phoenician landscape ...... 43 The shaping of Phoenician culture ...... 45 Summary ...... 47 References ...... 48

Introduction The ethnicity and identity of ancient Levantine peoples has been the subject of copious historical and archaeological studies in recent years. The majority of these studies have focused on the ethnogenesis, i. e. the formation and development process, of ancient Israel (e. g. Finkelstein, 1991; Sparks, 1998; Faust, 2006), alt- hough other neighboring peoples such as the (e. g. Faust/Lev-Tov, 2011; Killebrew/Lehmann, 2013) have also been examined. The Phoenicians, on the other hand, had not received as much attention, and our knowledge on their unique is still largely based on conceptions originating from ancient texts such as the Hebrew and the writings of various classical authors which have been preserved in early Phoenician scholarship (e. g. Pietschmann, 1889; Rawlinson, 1889; Contenau, 1949). From these ancient sources we learn that the Phoenicians were renowned in antiquity as celebrated mariners (1 Kgs. 9:26–28; , 4, 42; Pliny, Hist. Nat., 4,36; 7,208; , 16,2,24), shrewd mer- chants (Ezek. 28:4–5; , Odyssey, 15,415ff.) and skillful artisans that pro- duced magnificent artifacts from stone, metal and textile (2 Chr. 2:6; Homer, Il- iad, 6,289; 23,470ff.; Odyssey, 15,415ff.; Pliny, Hist. Nat., 9,60). This character- ization has been largely corroborated by , which reveals a prosperous urban civilization engaged in maritime activities, with extensive networks, and luxury items industries. But when did this unique culture emerge?

1 I would like to thank O. Tal and W. Zwickel for their support in the preparation of this article, and also to J. Errington for his assistance. 42 M. Edrey [UF 47

There are two main schools of thought concerning the Phoenician ethnogenesis. The first maintains that the Phoenician culture dates back to the third or even fourth millennium BCE, i.e. to the founding date of the of (Har- , 1963, 21; Markoe, 2000, 11).2 The second and more popular view is that, although impossible to detach from its Canaanite heritage, Phoenician culture could have only truly emerge during the Iron Age, ca. 1200 BCE, after the demise of Egyptian hegemony over the southern and their confinement to the coast by more powerful inland kingdoms such as the , Philistines, and Ara- maeans. Scholars that adhere to the latter approach often refer to the Bronze Age Canaanite inhabitants of Phoenicia as ‘Proto-Phoenicians’ (Moscati, 1968, 23; Muhly, 1970, 26; Elayi, 1980, 14; Bondi, 2001, 23). In recent years a middle approach has developed maintaining that the emergence of an independent Phoe- nician civilization after 1200 BCE was both a result of the innovation that took place around it at that time, and the continuation of earlier traditions (Moscati, 2001a, 19). This article argues that scholars citing the two latter approaches wrongly as- sociate concepts of ethnicity with nationalism and state formation, and that alt- hough effected by the political upheaval of the Iron Age transition, the fundamen- tal cultural concepts defining Phoenician culture were fashioned long beforehand by basic environmental factors.

The emergence of Phoenician culture The Iron Age saw the rise of many new nations in the , such as the Israelites, Philistines and Aramaeans. These nations rose into the power vac- uum left by the Egyptian and Hittite after the cataclysmic events that be- fell the close of the Bronze Age, which included quakes, famine, and large migrations (Fritz, 1984, 86–91; Drews, 1993, 4–7; Nur/Cline, 2000; Jof- fe, 2002). Massive destruction layers, dated between ca. 1200–1150 BCE, were unearthed in sites throughout the , evident the upheaval that struck (Markoe, 2000, 23). The only spared was the Phoenician coast. The cities of southern Phoenicia were seemingly unharmed, exhibiting almost no de- struction layers in the archaeological record, only a somewhat impoverishment settlement that quickly recovered already during the Iron Age I (Bikai, 1978, 73; 1992, 132–141; Anderson, 1987; 1988, 380–388; Khalifeh, 1988, 103, 113, 124, 138–139; Klengel, 1992, 183–184; Badre, 1997; Tsirkin, 2003, 110). Similarly, the cities of northern Phoenicia suffered only a minor blow that had no devastating

2 Although it should be stated here that human presence along the Phoenician coast dates back to Palaeolithic period (Bar-Yosef, 1980), and the earliest urban settlement in , dates as early as the period (Dunand, 1950–1958, 899–900; 1973, 235; Jidejian, 1968, 16–17; Sala, 2007, 48–49; 2008, 60–65). 2016] Phoenician Ethnogenesis 43 impact (Badre/Gubel 1999–2000, 124ff.; al-Maqdissi et al., 2008, 343–345; Gu- bel, 2009a, 454; 2009b, 45; Vansteenhuyse, 2010; Bretschneider et al., 2011, 77– 80). In the aftermath of this upheaval, radical changes to the socio-political system of the Ancient Near East occurred. The mighty empires and powerful -states that previously dominated Canaan had given way to nation-states which devel- oped unique ethnic identities, manifested mainly socially and religiously. This process began during the Iron Age I and intensified during the Iron Age II (Herr, 1997; Joffe, 2002; Killebrew/Lehmann, 2013, 6). It is to this time period that most scholars likewise attribute the Phoenician ethnogenesis. However, this pro- cess of ethnic state formation did not take place in the Phoenician coast, nor did any other radical change in Phoenician culture occur. The inhabitants of the Phoe- nician coast did not unite under a single banner, but rather rigidly preserved the Bronze Age socio-political construct of independent city-states, as well as other Canaanite traditions manifested in their material culture (Gilboa, 2005; Gilboa et al., 2008, 116–117; Gilboa/Sharon, 2008, 157–160; Herzog, 2009, 39–41; Ed- rey, forthcoming). It seems likely that the minor effects of the close of the Bronze Age on the Phoenician coast contributed to the endurance of Canaanite culture. However, the seminal characteristics of the Phoenician culture, which can be defined as part of its ethnogenesis, were determined long before the coming of the Iron Age and seem to be, primarily, a direct result of the unique physical conditions of its land- scape, conditions that are without parallel anywhere else in the southern Levantine mainland.

The Phoenician landscape Since the nineteenth century many geographical studies have focused on the rela- tionship of man and his environment (see Grossman, 1977; Cosgrove/Jackson, 1987, with references there). Although it is clear that man has a sometimes irre- versible effect on his landscape, the environment in turn has a profound impact on man, especially in ancient societies (Flinn/Alexander, 1982, 397). It is nature that produces culture which in turn changes nature (Eagleton, 2000, 3). The envi- ronmental settings of a region often dictate many cultural aspects of society, which are vividly evident in the material culture of everyday life such as dietary habits, dress, and habitat. But the environment also forms and shapes basic ideas in man’s thought processes which result in social behavior, iconography and sym- bolism, which are ultimately manifested in abstract notions of art, religion, and cult (Deffontaines, 1953; Hultkrantz, 1966; Kong, 1990, 355; Foxhall, 2003, 75). While the Phoenician coast may not have been clearly defined politically, the region forms a well-defined geographic unit. Unlike the wide southern coastal plain of Israel or the Syrian coast further to the north, Phoenicia centered on a narrow strip of land, ranging between 6.5 km to only a few hundred meters in 44 M. Edrey [UF 47 width. It is bordered by the Mount range to the east, which over 3000 m. above level, and by the to the west (Aharoni, 1967, 19–21; Moscati, 1968, 24; 2001b, 20; Prag, 1974, 195; Ron, 1983, 9–11; Kings- ley/Raveh, 1996, 6–8; Bourogiannis, 2012, 38). The borders from north and south are more problematic to assert, as they expanded and contracted according to the political and economic influence of the Phoenician city-states throughout the ages. Nevertheless, the accepted scholarly convention is that Phoenicia stretched from just south of Ras Shamra in the north and to the head of the Carmel range in the south (Moscati, 1968, 24; Ganor, 1974, 16; Markoe, 2000, 10–11; Killebrew, 2005, 96). An area that lays between the Akkar plain in the north, and the Akko plain in the south. These two fertile plains served as inland corridors and were therefore exposed to external influences, far more so than in the relatively isolated land in-between. Furthermore, this narrow and isolated land is segmented into small territorial sub-units by large river gorges and rocky promontories that often reach directly to the Mediterranean Sea, creating natural borders. Each of these sub-units could sustain only a single major urban center, supported by its small dependencies which constitute its agricultural hinterland, because although Phoe- nicia was rich with freshwater sources that allowed for yearlong irrigation, arable land was limited due to large areas of sand dunes, marshes, and the rocky terrain (Prag, 1974, 195). Furthermore, natural resources in Phoenicia were relatively scarce. Besides the renowned forest of the Lebanon, which was rich with fir, pine, oak, juniper, and the highly prized cedar (Mikesell, 1969, 1–3; Markoe, 2000, 19; Bartoloni, 2001, 92), the only other significant natural resource was the Mediter- ranean Sea. Unconstrained access to the sea must have been one of the main factors in choosing to settle in this stretch of land that otherwise offered limited opportuni- ties. The Phoenicians were not, as some scholars suggest, confined to the coast during the Iron Age by stronger political entities (Elayi, 1980, 14; Bartoloni, 2001, 92), but rather had consciously and willingly settled on the coast and on offshore islands, founding large urban centers as early as the third or even fourth millennium BCE (Bikai, 1978, 72; Badre, 1997, 14–22; cf. note 2). In the Ancient Near East, the sea was often perceived as a negative, chaotic element filled with sea-monsters and other dangers, in sharp contrast to fresh wa- ter. This attitude is attested in the Mesopotamian creation myth ‘Enuma elish’, in which Marduk battles the sea monster Tiamat, and from her body creates the world. The same concept of a conflict with the sea also appears in the Ugaritic myth of and (Grønbaek, 1985), and is also echoed in the biblical crea- tion myth (Hasel, 1972, 1–2). However, the Phoenicians’ attitude towards the Mediterranean must have been far more favorable, as they became a par excel- lence maritime society with strong connections to both the sea and seafaring. No doubt the Mediterranean, which is notorious for its fickle nature, invoked respect to all maritime activities (Brody, 1998, 102; López-Bertan et al., 2008, 343–346), 2016] Phoenician Ethnogenesis 45 but the Phoenicians reliance on it on a daily basis for transportation, sustenance, and raw materials, must have created a positive view of the sea. Phoenicia offered limited opportunities for an agrarian society, however it was an ideal setting for the development of a maritime culture. The Mediterranean Sea, through a long process of erosion, created cliffs, coves, and natural bays suit- able for anchorage all along the Phoenician coast. The land is also characterized by a narrow continental rise that could accommodate with relatively large hulls close to shore, unlike the northern Syrian coast and the southern coastal plain beyond the Carmel range, which are very wide and shallow. The continental rise also formed small offshore islets which serve as natural wavebreakers (Aharoni, 1967, 19–21; Moscati, 1968, 24; Prag, 1974, 195; Ron, 1983, 9–11; Kingsley/ Raveh, 1996, 6–8; Bourogiannis, 2012, 38). Even the other primary natural re- source of this land, namely the once vast forest of the Lebanon, contributed to the development of a maritime society as it provided tall trees suitable for the con- struction of sturdy seagoing crafts. Similarly, many land-based Phoenician in- dustries were also heavily dependent on the sea, either for the import of raw ma- terials, or the export of finished commodities. Perhaps the most notable example is the renowned Phoenician crimson industry, which utilized Murex shells for its production, and its maritime trade network for its distribution (Bartoloni, 2001, 96–97).

The shaping of Phoenician culture Although the land and sea provided some commodities and raw materials, they could not naturally provide all the wants of a growing population, resulting in a dependency on trade, specifically sea-based trade, from an early age. Phoenicia’s limited arable land could support only a small productive agrarian population, forcing the remainder of the population to rely on other means of employment. Therefore, the inhabitants of the land developed other expertise, becoming the skilled , craftsmen and artisans (Bartoloni, 2001, 92). In addition to the mass exploitation of the forests of the Lebanon (Mikesell, 1969), the Phoenicians developed many small industries which produced luxury items for exportation, such as fine pottery (Anderson, 1990), glass (Uberti, 2001b), and the aforemen- tioned crimson dye (Bartoloni, 2001, 96–97), and imported basic commodities such as wheat and grains, as well as precious raw materials, such as ivory and silver, which were also turned into fine works of art (Markoe, 1985; Stephan, 1996; Pisano, 2001; Uberti, 2001a). The Phoenician dependency on trade only grew with the rise in demography. This dependence, combined with the acute lack in natural resources, and espe- cially arable land, must have resulted in an innate state of competition between the Phoenician city-states from a very early age, both economically and politically 46 M. Edrey [UF 47

(cf. Aubet, 2001, 17).3 This perpetual state of competition is best demonstrated by the continuous rivalry of the neighboring cities Tyre and . These two major urban centers were situated on a narrow coastal strip some 50 km long but only 2 km wide at its widest extremity. Throughout their history, the prominence of one city always came at the expense of the other, and thus each city often turned on the other, exploiting each other’s weaknesses and showing no signs of com- radery (Katzenstein, 1997, 107, 115, 131–135; Aubet, 2001, 46; cf. Albright, 1950, 165; Boyes, 2012). Phoenician dependency on trade may have further contributed to the political segregation of the cities of Phoenicia. Being a nation of traders, it was in the Phoe- nicians’ best interest to remain non-threatening political entities with no alle- giance to one another. As ‘neutral’ city-states the Phoenicians could engage in trade with a verity of client states and markets, even during times of war. Further- more, as relatively small political entities with no apparent ambitions for territo- rial expansion, the Phoenician city-states posed little threat to other powers in the region. Furthermore, as flourishing emporiums, the cities of Phoenicia could sup- ply both a wealth of products which were otherwise unattainable to none seafaring peoples, as well as heavy tribute. This must have been the main reason they were generally permitted to maintain an autonomous conduct, politically, socially, and economically, even as subordinates of major empires while other neighboring na- tions were more brutally suppressed. It seems therefore that many key elements which shaped Phoenician society were determined long before the inauguration of the Iron Age and its socio-polit- ical revolution of national-ethnic states. The concept of an ethnic state was vital to entities that wished to dominate large areas and unite populations using kinship as an organizing mechanism (Joffe, 2002, 454). The distinction between them and others by means of social boundaries, based on shared cultural traits as well as self-ascription and ascription by others (Malkin, 2003, 59–60), ultimately formed political borders. Since the Phoenicians had no apparent territorial aspirations, their self-ascription as a unified ethnic group was less, or even insignificant to them.4 Rather than ascribing themselves to a broad ethnic definition, which would unite them ethnically, politically and culturally, the Phoenicians emphasized their localized-regional and civic identity. This is probably the reason the Phoenicians did not share a common name, which is a fundamental element that defines a peo- ple (Moscati, 1968, 21; Sherratt, 2005, 35). The Phoenicians preferred to identify

3 This is in accordance with the principals of the ‘classical realism’ theory, one of the oldest and most fundamental theories of international relations, which argues that nations are in a constant state of competition over political power and resources (Sylvest, 2008, 443). 4 Although a growing body of evidence suggests they did consider themselves in a broader sense as Canaanites, which may be both an ethnic and geographic definition (Na¬aman 1994, 399–403; Schoville, 1998, 158–159, 161; Bourogiannis, 2012, 38–39). 2016] Phoenician Ethnogenesis 47 themselves under their civic identity, e. g. Tyrians, Sidonians, or Byblites (Par- askevaidou, 1991, 523–524; Markoe, 2000, 10; Sherratt, 2005, 35). The name Phoenicia for their land and Phoenicians for its people was not used by them or any other ancient southern Levantine people. It was coined by the ancient Greeks during the ninth or eighth century BCE, a period in which they had set out to colonize the Mediterranean and increasingly encountered Phoenician competi- tion. The name ‘Phoenician’ was therefore much more significant for the for- mation of a Greek identity in direct relation to a Phoenician ‘other’, and the crea- tion of a pan-Phoenician territorial land was perhaps also vital for the definition of a pan-Hellenized territorial counterpart (Sherratt, 2005, 36).

Summary The Iron Age ushered in great changes to the southern Levant. It saw the collapse of mighty empires and in their wake, the rise of new nations. These emerging nations developed a new socio-political structure of ethnic-states. In the midst of these radical changes, the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast stood out in their defiance to conform with the Levantine zeitgeist. They remained ununited, inde- pendent city-states, preserving the Bronze Age socio-political system. The minor effects of the close of the Bronze Age on the Phoenician coast no doubt contrib- uted to the cultural and political continuity. However, the crucial elements that shaped Phoenicians culture, as well as their inability, or rather unwillingness, to create a single unified ethnic state was predetermined by environmental and eco- nomic factors. As stated above, the Phoenician landscape offered optimal condi- tions for the development of a maritime society in the southern Levant. The phys- ical conditions of the coast were ideally suited for anchorage of large hull ships close to port, conditions that were unmet anywhere else in the eastern Mediterra- nean basin, and the availability of premium quality timber, which was only avail- able in the Lebanon forests and on , allowed for the construction of sturdy seagoing vessels. Furthermore, the meager natural resources and limited arable terrain available in the Phoenician coast had forced its inhabitants to develop ex- pertise in the production of various luxury items for export and to import raw materials and basic commodities. This dependency on trade grew exponentially with the rise in demography, and created an innate state of competition between the large urban centers of the Phoenician coast from a very early age. The perpet- ual rivalry between the cities of Phoenicia, which is well attested in its history (e. g. Jidejian, 1968, 50–53; Jidejian, 1969, 75; Katzenstein, 1997, 29–39; Wal- linga, 1993, 128), and the naturally dividing nature of their land, seems to be the main reasons for their emphasis of a regional, civic identity rather than a collective ethno-political one. Furthermore, it may well have been in the best interest of the Phoenician city-states to remain small, non-threatening, political entities that could uphold economic relations with as many markets as possible with no allegiance to each other. While such ancient peoples as the Philistines, Israelites, 48 M. Edrey [UF 47 and Judeans suffered annihilation and large scale deportations of their people at the hands of the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians, the Phoenicians not only en- dured but have effectively succeeded in creating a prosperous thalasocracy, an at sea, and even emerge as the leading culture of the southern Levant dur- ing the subsequent Persian period.

References Aharoni, Yohanan, 1967: The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Phila- delphia. Albright, William F., 1950: Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem. American Journal of Archaeology 54/3, 162–176. Al-Maqdissi, M. / Badawy, M., et al., 2008: The Occupation Levels of Tell Twei- ni and their Historical Implications. In Robert D. Biggs / Jennie Myers / Mar- tha T. Roth (eds.): Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Interna- tionale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005. Chicago. 341–350. Anderson, William P., 1987: The Kilns and Workshops of (Sarafand), Lebanon. 35, 41–66. — 1988: Sarepta I: The Late and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Publications de l’Université Libanaise, Section des Études Archaéologiques 2. Beyrouth. — 1990: The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and Ce- ramic Technology in the Early Phases of the Phoenician Iron Age. BASOR 279, 35–54. Aubet, Maria E., 2001: The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, , and Trade. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Badre, Leila, 1997: Bey 003 Preliminary Report: Excavations of the American University of Museum. BAAL 2, 6–94. Badre, Leila / Gubel, Eric, 1999–2000: , : Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1993–1998. Third Preliminary Report. Berytus 44, 123–203. Bar–Yosef, Ofer, 1980: . Annual Review of Anthropol- ogy 9, 101–133. Bartoloni, Piero, 2001: Commerce and Industry. (ed.): The Phoenicians. 2nd ed. London. 92–100. Bikai, Patricia M., 1978: The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster. — 1992: The Phoenicians. In W. A. Ward / M. S. Joukowsky (eds.): The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the . Dubuque. 132–141. Bondi, Sandro F., 2001: The Origins in the East. In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians. 2nd ed. London. 23–29. Bourogiannis, G., 2012: Introduction to the Phoenician Problematic. In P. Adam- Veleni / E. Stefani (eds.): Greeks and Phoenicians at the Mediterranean Cross- roads. Thessaloniki. 37–41. 2016] Phoenician Ethnogenesis 49

Boyes, Philip J., 2012: The King of the Sidonians: Phoenician Ideologies and the Myth of the Kingdom of Tyre-Sidon. BASOR 365, 33–44. Bretschneider, Joachim / Van Vyve, Anne-Sophie, et al., 2011: : A Multi-Period Harbour Town at the Syrian Coast. In Jana Mynářová (ed.): and the Near East: The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3 2010. Prague. 73–87. Brody, Aaron J., 1998: “Each Man Cried Out to His God”: The Specialized Re- ligion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. HSM 58. Atlanta. Contenau, Georges, 1949: La Civilisation Phénicienne. 2nd ed. Paris. Cosgrove, Denis / Jackson, Peter, 1987: New Directions in Cultural Geography. Area 19/2, 95–101. Deffontaines, Pierre, 1953: The place of believing. Landscape 3, 22–28. Drews, Robert, 1993: The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton. Dunand, Maurice, 1950–1958: Fouilles de Byblos. Vol. II. 1933–1938. Paris. — 1973: Fouilles de Byblos. Vol. V: L’architecture, les tombes, le matériel do- mestique, des origines néolithiques à l’avènement urbain. Paris. Eagleton, Terry, 2000: The Idea of Culture. Oxford. Elayi, Josette, 1980: The Phoenician Cities in the Persian Period. JANES 12, 13– 28. Edrey, Meir, forthcoming: The Phoenicians in the during the Iron Age I–III, ca. 1200–332 BCE: Ethnicity and Identity in Light of the Material Culture. AOAT. Münster. Faust, Avraham, 2006: Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. London. Faust, Avraham / Lev-Tov, Justin, 2011: The Constitution of Philistine Identity: Ethnic Dynamics in Twelfth to Tenth Century . Oxford Journal of Ar- chaeology 30/1, 13–31. Finkelstein, Israel, 1991: The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Consensus, Main- stream and Dispute. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2, 47–59. Flinn, Mark, V. / Alexander, Richard D., 1982: Culture Theory: The Developing Synthesis from Biology. Human Ecology 10/3, 383–400. Foxhall, Lin, 2003: Cultures, Landscapes, and Identities in the Mediterranean World. Mediterranean Historical Review 18/2, 75–92. Fritz, Volkmar, 1987: Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 50/2, 84–100. Ganor, Nissim, R., 1974: Who were the Phoenicians? Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Gilboa, Ayelet. 2005: and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoeni- cian Coast: A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Šikila (SKL) Material Cul- ture. BASOR 337, 47–78. 50 M. Edrey [UF 47

Gilboa, Ayelet / Sharon, Ilan, 2008: Between the Carmel and the Sea: ’s Iron Age Reconsidered. 71/3, 146–170. Gilboa, Ayelet / Sharon, Ilan, et al., 2008: Tel Dor and the Chronology of Phoe- nician ‘Pre-Colonisation’ Stages. In Claudia Sagona (ed.): Beyond the Home- land: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Sup- plement 28. Leuven. 113–204. Grønbaek, Jakob H., 1985: Baal’s Battle with Yam: A Canaanite Creation Fight. JSOT 33, 27–44. Grossman, Larry, 1977: Man–Environment Relationships in Anthropology and Geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 67/1, 126– 144. Gubel, Eric, 2009a: The Phoenician Temple at Tell Kazel (Şumur). In A. M. Maįla-Afeiche (ed.): Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean: Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Bei- rut 2008. BAAL Hors Série 6. Beirut. 453–468. — 2009b: Phoenician Towns and Harbours in the North: The Case of Iron Age (Tell Kazel), Syria. In S. Helas / D. Marzoli (eds.): Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen. Iberia Arhchaeologica 13. Mainz. 45–54. Harden, Donald, 1963: The Phoenicians. Ancient Peoples and Places 26. London. Hasel, Gerhard F., 1972: The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels. Andrews University Seminary Studies 10, 1–20. Herzog, Ze’ev, 2009: Phoenician Cities in Palestine. In Sophie Helas / Dirce Mar- zoli (eds.): Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen. Iberia Archaeologica 13. Mainz. 39–44. Herr, Larry, G., 1997: Archaeological Sources for the : The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations. Biblical Archaeologist 60/3, 114–183. Hultkrantz, Äke, 1966: An ecological approach to religion. Ethnos 31, 131–150. Jidejian, Nina, 1968: Byblos through the Ages. Beirut. — 1969: Tyre through the Ages. Beirut. Joffe, Alexander H., 2002: The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant. JESHO 45, 425–467. Katzenstein, Jacob H., 1997: The History of Tyre: From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. Until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. 2nd ed. Jerusalem. Khalifeh, Issam A., 1988: Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X. Beyrouth. Killebrew, Ann E., 2005: Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 BCE. Brill. 2016] Phoenician Ethnogenesis 51

Killebrew, Ann E. / Lehmann, Gunnar, 2013: The World of the Phoenicians and Other “Sea Peoples”. In Ann E. Killebrew / Gunnar Lehmann (eds.): The Phil- istines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta. 1–17. Kingsley, Sean, A. / Raveh, Kurt, 1996: The Ancient Harbour and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the Underwater Surveys 1976–1991. BAR International Series 626. Oxford. Klengel, Horst, 1992: Syria 3000 to 300 B. C.: A Handbook of Political History. Berlin. Kong, Lily, 1990: Geography and Religion: Trends and Prospects. Progress in Human Geography 14, 355–371. López-Bertan, Mireia / Garcia-Ventura, Agnès, et al., 2008: Could You Take a Picture of My Boat, Please? The Use and Significance of Mediterranean Representations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27/4, 341–357. Malkin, Irad, 2003: Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity. Mediterra- nean Historical Review 18/2, 56–74. Markoe, Glenn E., 1985: Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Classical Studies 26. Berkeley. — 2000: Phoenicians. Peoples of the Past. Berkeley. Mikesell, Marvin W., 1969: The Deforestation of . Geographical Review 59/1, 1–28. Moscati, Sabatino, 1968: The World of the Phoenicians (trans. A. Hamilton). London. — 2001a: Who were the Phoenicians? In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians (2nd ed.). London. 17–19. — 2001b: Territory and Settlements. In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians (2nd ed.). London. 20–22. Muhly, James D., 1970: Homer and the Phoenicians: The Relations between Greece and the Near East in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Berytus 19, 19–64. Na¬aman, Nadav, 1994: The Canaanites and their Land: A Rejoinder. UF 26, 397–418. Nur, Amos / Cline, Eric A., 2000: Poseidon’s Horses: Plate Tectonics and Earth- quake Storms in the Late Bronze Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 43–63. Paraskevaidou, Heleni A., 1991: The Name of the Phoenicians: Some Consider- ations. In Enrico Acquaro et al. (eds.): Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 Novembre 1987. Vol. II. Rome. 523–528. Pietschmann, Richard, 1889: Geschichte der Phönizier. Berlin. Pisano, Giovanna, 2001: . In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians. 2nd ed. London. 418–444. Prag, Kay, 1974: Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. In Jacquetta Hawkes (ed.): of Ancient Archaeology. London. 195–205. 52 M. Edrey [UF 47

Rawlinson, George, 1889: History of Phoenicia. London. Ron, Zvi. 1983: Lebanon’s Geographical Units. Qardom 26–27, 9–27. (Hebrew). Sala, Maura, 2007: Early shrines at Byblos and Tell es-Sultan / ancient in the Early Bronze I (3300–3000 BC). In (ed.): Byblos and Jer- icho in the Early Bronze I: Social dynamics and Cultural Interactions. Pro- ceedings of the International Workshop held in Rome on March 6th 2007 by Rome “La Sapienza” University. ROSAPAT 4. Rome. 47–68. Schoville, Keith N., 1998: Canaanites and . In Alfred J. Hoerth / Gerald L. Mattingly / Edwin M. Yamauchi (eds.): Peoples of the Old Testament World. Cambridge. 157–182. Sherratt, Susan, 2005: ‘Ethnicities,’ ‘Ethnonyms’ and Archaeological Labels. Whose Ideologies and Whose Identities? In Joanne Clarke (ed.): Archaeolog- ical Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplementary Series 2. Oxbow. 25–38. Sparks, Kenton L., 1998: Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expressions in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake. Stephan, Fady, 1996: Les ivoires pheniciens: 2000 ans d’art en orient. Kaslik. Sylvest, Casper, 2008: John H. Herz and the Resurrection of Classical Realism. International Relations 22/4, 441–455. Tsirkin, Juri B. 2003: Ethnic and Political Changes in Near and the Fate of Phoenicia at the Dawn of Phoenician History. Rivista di Studi Fenici 31/2, 109–122. Uberti, Maria L., 2001a: Ivory and Bone Carving. In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians. 2nd ed. London. 456–471. — 2001b: Glass. In Sabatino Moscati (ed.): The Phoenicians. 2nd ed. London. 536–561. Vansteenhuyse, Klaas, 2010: The Bronze to Iron Age Transition at Tell Tweini (Syria). In Fabrizio Venturi (ed.): Societies in Transition Evolutionary Pro- cesses in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age: Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excava- tions in Tell Afis Bologna, 15th November 2007. Bologna. 39–52. Wallinga, Herman T., 1993: Ships and Sea-Power before the Great Persian Wars. Leiden.