Quick viewing(Text Mode)

200 Bc - Ad 400)

200 Bc - Ad 400)

ARAM, 13-14 (2001-2002), 171-191 P. ARNAUD 171

BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

PASCAL ARNAUD

We know little of 's commerce and trade, and shall probably continue to know little about this matter, despite a lecture given by Mrs Nada Kellas in 19961. In fact, the history of Commerce and Trade relies mainly on both ar- chaeological and epigraphical evidence. As far as archaeological evidence is concerned, one must remember that only artefacts strongly linked with ceram- ics, i.e. vases themselves and any items, carried in , (predominantly, but not solely, liquids, can give information about the geographical origin, date and nature of such products. The huge quantities of materials brought to the light by recent excavations in Beirut should, one day, provide us with new evi- dence about importations of such products in Beirut, but we will await the complete study of this material, which, until today by no means provided glo- bal statistics valid at the whole town scale. The evidence already published still allows nothing more than mere subjective impressions about the origins of the material. I shall try nevertheless to rely on such impressions about that ma- terial, given that we lack statistics, and that it is impossible to infer from any isolated sherd the existence of permanent trade-routes and commercial flows. The results of such an inquiry would be, at present, worth little if not con- fronted with other evidence. On the other hand, it should be of great interest to identify specific Berytan productions among the finds from other sites in order to map the diffusion area of items produced in Beirut and the surrounding territory. Of course, only items definitely produced in this area could be considered. But few of these items can be surely identified as such productions, except “carrot-like” am- phoras, which are likely to have contained , and have been seldom de- scribed, and probably, much earlier, some stamped amphoras naming some Abdes.2 Furthermore even when the origin of ceramics is clearly identified, it does not necessarily allow any reconstruction of trade-patterns, as they by no means provide information about the identity and origin of the .

1 We would like to refer to this lecture Mrs Nada Kallas who collected part of the evidence hereafter mentioned, in the Masters Study she wrote under our direction: dans la méditerranée occidentale aux époques hellénistique et romaine (Nice,1996). 2 A sample found in our excavation BEY-027, unfortunately out of context, should be read as follows: “In the year 124 / In the month of Gorpiaïos. / Of Abdès”. If related to the , it should date from 198 BC. Relating to the Beirut era, which starts in the year 81/80 BC (H. Seyrig, “Sur les ères de quelques villes de Syrie”, , 37 (1950), pp. 5-50, esp. p. 38), the dating should be summer AD 43. 172 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

Large vessels could go directly from one point to another, but small coasters, much adapted to actual conditions of sailing in the , where islands and rocks are numerous and make night-sailing dangerous, used to exchange parts of the cargo and load new items, in several places. The wreck usually called “Kyrenia II” provides interesting information about such a practice,3 because it was typically the kind of vessel which could have reached Berytus from the Aegean and Cyprus, even after the . This small merchant-ship, shorter than 14 m in length, was crewed by no more than four persons. It sank in the surroundings of Larnaka, at Kyrenia, by the end of the fourth century BC, probably after some act of piracy (eight swords were found under the hull). The cargo was composed of: – 404 amphoras. Among these, 343 were Rhodian wine-amphoras, loaded in which appears to be the last step of the ship. The rest of amphoras came from Samos or were of undetermined origin. – 29 basalt grain-millstones – 10,000 almonds It has been stated that the ship started its last trip from , ran through the Cyclades, where it probably put in at several places. The last step was Rhodes. The cargo was therefore made of items from several origins loaded in several harbours when part of the cargo was sold. The same items can reach the same harbour in the same quantities either di- rectly from another harbour or through several middlemen and trade-places. As commerce is concerned, it can make little difference, for the one who sells part of the cargo must also buy some goods to complete it, but it is obvious that the trade-patterns involved are entirely different. Unless a large sequence of wrecks has been excavated along a certain portion of coastline, it is very hard to have any idea of the reality of trade and commerce. Even then, we should still lack evidence from ships sunk in deep waters and high sea, which, until today, remain, for technical reasons, largely unexplored. Now, we know almost nothing of ancient wrecks in the surroundings of Beirut, and still lack even the harbour's dumps, which should provide much statistical evidence re- lated specifically to Beirut's commerce and trade activities. Little reliable in- formation is therefore to be expected from archaeological evidence, at least at the present time. Epigraphical and literary evidence gives us a firmer ground, especially as far as trade, more than commerce itself, is concerned. But it remains very frag- mentary. We can examine the Beritan Diaspora and consider that, unless any explicit reason is mentioned for the presence of such people abroad, commerce or trade can provide acceptable explanation for such a presence. This topic has

3 M. L. Katzew & S. W. Katzel, “Last harbour for the oldest ship”, National Geographic, 146 (1974), p. 622. P. ARNAUD 173 already been examined in the past but new evidence can be gathered and gives way to some confrontation with places such as Tyre, Arados or , in order not to consider Berytus as a whole. Within these limits, we can consider evidence for each of the three main periods hereafter considered, I mean, Hellenistic and Roman-Republican, Ro- man-Imperial, and Late Roman – Early Byzantine, and try to answer two ques- tions: – Whith which countries was Berytus, directly or undirectly, connected? – Is Berytus original or prominent in trade and commerce activities, as com- pared with other harbours from the Phoenician coast?

1. WINDS, CURRENTS, SAILING AND TRADE-ROUTES

Commerce and trade, in Antiquity, as in more recent periods, are basically linked with sailing. R. Duncan-Jones4 as shown clearly, on the ground of evi- dence drawn from prices given in 's Prices Edict (ch. 35), that the cost of goods' transportation was far cheaper than river-transportation, the lat- ter being in turn far cheaper than land-transportation. Recent editions of the Aezani copy, and overall of the Aphrodisias copy of the Edict5 and new evi- dence about the actual size of the modius kastrensis, the volume unit com- monly used by Edict,6 allow the reconstruction of the following transportation- cost table, given in % of the actual cost of one modius kastrensis of wheat, per 100 Roman :

land transportation () 55 land transportation (camel) 43,95 land transportation (donkey) 43,95 riverborne traffic (upstream) 107 lagoon traffic 7,5 riverborne traffic (downstream) 5 seaborne traffic (-) 1,3

Seaborne transport therefore appears to be five to ten times cheaper than riverborne traffic and 50 times cheaper than land-transportation. Given that

4 R. Duncan-Jones, The Economic History of the , (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 366- 369, Appendix 17: “Diocletian's price Edict and the cost of Transport”. 5 M.-H. Crawford et J.-M. Reynolds, “The Aezani Copy of the Prices Edict”, ZPE, 34. (1979), pp. 185-189; Ch. Roueché, Aphrodisias in , ( Journal of Roman Studies Monographs, 5, London 1989), pp. 303-311. 6 R. Duncan-Jones, “The size of the modius kastrensis”, ZPE, 21 (1996), pp. 53-62. The modius kastrensis is equal to 1.5 Italic modius. 7 The article adds that feeding the sailors is charged in addition to the cost of transportation itself. It is not clear whether it was also charged in the case of downstream traffic. 174 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400) prices listed in the Edict are somewhat artificial, one must remain very cau- tious when using evidence from the Edict. Nevertheless, taking ratios alone into consideration, the feature suggested seems in itself wholly valid and ac- ceptable. One understands better in such conditions, why seaborne traffic was the ba- sic pattern of Ancient commerce in trade. It is, obviously, closely linked with natural conditions, I mean not only winds and currents, which actually draw the map of possible sea-routes, given that ancient ships are generally supposed by ancient writers to go in the same direction as the wind, but also timber-re- sources necessary for the building of any kind of fleet, either military or com- mercial. We know that mount and Lebanese cedars provided huge quanti- ties of what used to be considered as the best building material for naval archi- tecture. For that reason, the political control of Lebanon was a key to political and economic leadership in the eastern Mediterranean. Who ever seized Leba- non was able to build a military fleet. Part of the Lagids' interest in Lebanon was clearly related to such preoccupations. Ancient writers appear to have considered the sea between Alexandria, Creta, Rhodes and the Phoenician coast as an entity, but divided it in two dis- tinct ensembles: the so-called Egyptian and Pamphylian Seas.8 The former was limited west by the line drawn southwards from eastern Crete, north by the line drawn eastwards from the surroundings of the island of Scarpanto (Karpathos, between Crete and Rhodes) straight to the south coast of Cyprus and Pierias, and whence, east by the Phoenician and Palestinian coast, and finally, by itself. The latter was limited south by the Egyptian sea and Cyprus, north by the Cilician coast from Rhodes to the gulf of Issus, and west by Scarpanto and surrounding waters. Such a division fits very well with natural conditions of winds and currents. Main currents along the Phoenician and Cilician coasts run anticlockwise. They are generally not very fast (mostly less than 1 knot), but tend to get stronger as one joins the Cilician coast, and generally get stronger nearer the coast. Along the Cilician coast, they generally run eastwards. As usual within the Mediterranean, by summer, night and day breezes (the former blowing from land, the latter from the sea) do provide regular winds until a distance from the coast always inferior to 20 nautical miles. They allow good condi- tions for coasting in any direction, especially for those small coasters which have produced the majority of wrecks. In the Pamphylian Sea, summer breezes, occasionally strong, especially day-breeze, which tend to start about 10 a.m., are generally the only winds in summer. They allow any kind of sailing, eastwards or westwards along the

8 Strab. XIV.6.1, C 682. P. ARNAUD 175 coast as well as southwards and northwards between Cyprus and the Cilician coast. On the other hand, between Cyprus and the Phoenician coast, main winds, by summer, tend to blow from West9 (from North-West in July and Au- gust) with a great regularity, allowing safe and quick crossings from the island to the Phoenician coast. (14.6.3, C 683), probably relying on some Hel- lenistic writer, gives 1,500 stadia, equal to a 36 hours-sailing, between and Berytus, meaning an average spead of about 3 knots for the crossing, for we know that maritime distances, given in stadia, by ancient geographers, find their origin in average durations in time along some commercial sealinks.10 According to wind and current charts, the normal routes from Beirut ran southwards to Alexandria, along the coastline, or to Cyprus and Rhodes, fol- lowing the costline again. Thence the normal route ran either to the Aegean as far as Bosphorus, or to Crete and the West (Peloponesian and Epirus coast to Otranto canal or straight to Sicily and , and thence to Africa, , , Rome and even Portugal). The canal of Cyprus and Cilician sea were the sole way to any other destination than Egypt for Berytan merchants. This is actually the route followed by Paul of Tarsus on his first trip from to Rome. The way back to Berytus should have usually followed the same Cilician coast until Cyprus, whence it could be oriented exactly as main sum- mer winds were, and crossed straight from Larnaka to Beirut. It was unlikely, even for fiscal reasons, that Berytan ships reached Alexandria from Crete or Rhodes, along very busy and well-documented trade-routes,11 and thence, fol- lowed the coastline down to Beirut.

2. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN REPUBLICAN PERIOD

This period is the one that provides the largest epigraphical evidence,12 showing the presence of Berytan citizens within the Aegean Sea basin. A great part of them is supposed to have dealt with trade or commerce or related ac- tivities. Such a feature is by no means original. Regular commercial inter- course between Phoenician cities and the Aegean is well attested as early as

9 According to XIXth century Instructions nautiques, winds blow from SW 88 days a year, from W 144 days a year, and 49 days a year from NW, giving an average total of 281 days a year for the three west rhumbs. 10 P. Arnaud, “De la durée à la distance: l'évaluation des distances maritimes chez les géographes anciens”, Histoire et Mesure, VIII.3/4 (1993), p. 225-247; P. Arnaud, “La naviga- tion hauturière en Méditerranée ancienne d'après les données des géographes anciens: quelques exemples”, in E. Rieth, (ed.), Méditerranée antique: pêche, navigation, commerce, (Paris, 1998), p. 75-87. 11 about these routes, see P. Arnaud “Naviguer entre Egypte et Grèce. Les principales lignes de navigation d'après les données numériques des géographes anciens”, in J. Leclant, (ed.), Entre Egypte et Grèce (Cahiers de la Kérylos, 8, Paris, 1995), pp. 94-107. 12 P. Roussel, “Laodicée de Phénicie”, BCH, 25 (1911), pp. 433-440. 176 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400) the late IVth century BC,13 when a Sidonians' koinon is known in Athens,14 and a thiasites' koinon as well, which is likely to have been a Phoenician or Cyp- riot one.15 As several other oriental communities,16 Berytans were numerous enough in the island to have there their own koïnon.17The Berytan Poseidoniasts are very well-known18 and appear to have been one the wealthiest or most numerous foreign communities in , which, from 166 BC, was a free harbour and the principal trade-place of the Mediterrean. It seems to indicate that, among other Phoenicians or Syrians,19 Berytus and its people had a prominent place in trade activities of the island. This impression is confirmed by the number of members of the community, known by inscriptions, as given by the prosopo- graphical indices of J. Treheux.20 Berytans are at least sixty-five persons, and appear to be as numerous as people from -on-the-Orontes, who are sixty-six. These two communities clearly were the most prominent ones in the island. The pattern thus provided is twice to thrice higher than those given by other Phoenician or Syrian cities, as shown in the following table.

Berytus Antioch Tyre Sidon “Syrians” Laod. Syr. Number 65 66 28 23 17 34

We find among Berytan people, as listed in an Delian inscription dated 122/ 121 BC,21 naukleroï, owning the ships, emporoï, equal to negotiatores, dealing as much with trade as with financial affairs, and ekdocheis whose ex- act meaning is far from beeing clear, but which are likely to have been for-

13 F. Baslez, “Les communautés d'occidentaux dans la cité grecque. Formes de sociabilité et modèles associatifs”, in R. Lonis, (ed.), L'étranger dans le monde grec, (Nancy, 1988), pp. 139- 158, esp. p. 149, n. 4; O. Masson, “Recherches sur les Phéniciens dans le monde hellénistique”, BCH, 93 (1969), pp. 679-700. 14 IG II.2, 2946, dated 319/318 BC. 15 IG II.2, 126, dated 302/301 BC. 16 In hellenistic times, oriental communities abroad used to be organized as koina or synodoi, cf. F. Baslez, “Les communautés d'occidentaux…” who gives a complete list of such communi- ties, p. 149, n. 4. 17 P. Roussel & M. Launey, Inscriptions de Dèlos, (Paris, 1939), no 1774. Cf. P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Dèlos à l'époque hellénistique et à l'époque impériale (Paris,1970), p. 623; Bruneau, Recherches, p. 629; Picard, “L'établissement…”, p. 58. 18 Ch. Picard, “La société des Poséidoniastes de Bérytos à Dèlos”, BCH, 34 (1920), pp. 270- 307; Ch. Picard, L'établissement des Poséidoniastes de Bérytos, (Paris, 1921); P. Bruneau, “Les cultes de l'établissement des Poséidoniastes de Bérytos à Délos”, in M.B. de Boer & T.A. Edridge, (edd.), Hommage à M.J. Vermaserteur, ( EPRO, 68, Leiden, 1978), pp. 160-190. 19 F. Baslez, “Le rôle et la place des Phéniciens dans la vie économique des Ports de l'Egée”, in E. Lipinski, (ed), and rhe East in the First millenium BC, (Studia Phoenicia, 5, Leuven, 1987), pp. 267-285. 20 J. Tréheux, Inscriptions de Délos. Index, t. 1: les étrangers, à l'exclusion des Athéniens de la clérouchie et des Romains, (Paris, 1992). 21 M. Bulard, “Fouilles de Dèlos”, BCH, 31 (1907), no 34 (a), p. 445, dated 122/121 BC; no 36, pp. 446-447, dated ca 90 BC; nos 39-42, pp. 448-449, dated late IId century BC. P. ARNAUD 177 warding agents. Ekdocheïs are mentioned only among Berytans, when other koina or synodoi include naukleroi and emporoi, as that of the Tyrian Hera- kleistes, or naukleroi only. With ekdocheis, trade as well as commerce was concerned, and there is no reason to think that the presence of such traders was bound to commerce of goods from or to Berytos only, given the importance of both Berytus, as we shall soon see, and Delos as trade-places. Among Berytan people settled in the island or in Rhenea, which is obviously to be considered as part of Delos, we also hear of some physicians22 which obviously were not directly involved in commerce or trade-activities. Dating Poseidoniasts' house has been much discussed. H. Meyer23 argued that the first Berytan settlement was founded little before 153/152 BC,24 while porticoes should be dated circa 110 BC and Dea Roma's Shrine after 88 BC only, but in its recension, M. Sève25 disagrees with him and more classicaly reaffirms that the whole complex is to be dated about 150 BC. The noteworthy importance of Berytan traders in Delos is probably to be related to their early presence in the island before it became a free harbour in 166 BC, at least as early as a date between 187 and 175 BC, when ekdokeïs and nauklèroï are al- ready mentioned.26 Other Berytan people appear to have dwelt in other great Aegean sea har- bours. I mean Rhodes, Athens, Tenos and Kos. A very interesting inscription comes from Rhodes,27 another outstanding harbour in Hellenistic times. It is dated circa 100 BC and lists female contribu- tors to a sanctuary. Among these women, twelve are foreigners and three – that means a quarter of foreign contributors – are Berytan. Two of them (ll. 3- 8) are said to have come from Laodikeïa in Phoenicia and were actually mar- ried to men from the same city. The third one (ll. 54-56) is only mentioned as Theudôra, altogether with a certain Théudôros, Berytios, and must be the lat- ter's daughter. This inscription implies that such Berytan contributors had a good social status and were well integrated into the local community. It also suggests that a real Berytan community existed within this city, not merely a few individuals, whether it was gathered in a koinon or not. Although there is no information about the reason why these Berytan citizens were dwelling in Rhodes, it seems most probable that commerce or trade was the reason.

22 P. Roussel & M. Launey, Inscriptions de Dèlos, no 2611, a 21. The same man is probably mentioned in an inscription from Rhaenea, cf. M. T. Couilloud, Les monuments funéraires de Rhénée (EAD,30, Paris, 1970), no 29. An other physician is given by P. Roussel & M. Launey, Inscriptions de Dèlos, no 2611, a 42. All three inscriptions are dated late IId century BC. 23 H. Meyer, “Zur Chronologie des Poseidoniastenhauses in Delos”, MDAI (A), 103 (1988), pp. 203-220. 24 P. Roussel & M. Launey, Inscriptions de Dèlos, no 1520. 25 “Bulletin épigraphique”, REG, 102 (1989), no 100. 26 Dittenberger, OGIS, 247. 27 SEG XLIII (1993) 526 = AE 1922 49/50, SEG III 676, XXXIX 719; L. Migeotte, “Une souscription de femmes à Rhodes”, BCH 117 (1993) 349-358. 178 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

Berytan citizens also appear in Athenian Ephebian's list: as early as a date between 168/167 to 164/163, we find a certain Hieron, son of Gorgias, in the lists of Panathenaïc winners, but one cannot demonstrate that it actually dwelt in Athens.28 In 127/126 BC,29 we hear of a Berytan païdotribes whose name is Nikôn, counted both among didaskaloï (l. 39) and païdeutai (l. 137). About 120 BC, we hear in the same lists of an epheb, named Antiochos, son of Pros- tates, Berytios.30 Links between Athens and Berytus are not surprising for Delos Island was part of Athenian territory, but there is no evidence at all for any kind of permanent Berytan community in Athens, such as that of the Sidonians. It may, obviously, be just a case. It has been argued that a man appearing in Delphian Archonts' lists should be considered as a Berytan citizen, but this reading is a mere conjecture,31 and we should remove it from our lists. Conversely, during the 2nd cent. BC, Eudamos, son of Heliodoros was surely settled in Tenos island.32 Unfortu- nately, we have no idea of the duties and social position of this Berytan citi- zen, but in Kos island, apparently between 175 and 123 BC, a boundary stone of private estates shows that another Berytan citizen, Zenon, son of Miltiades, was settled in the island and wealthy enough to be the owner of an estate.33 His son (or father?) was granted a statue in the island.34 This feature looks a lot like that of Italian people which settled, at the same time, in Asia or in the Aegean island, for commercial purposes, and used to buy land and establish themselves for several generations in those countries. As compared with that of other Phoenician harbours, Berytan diaspora within the Aegean shows both originality and common features. As other cities from the Phoenician area, Berytus dwelt mainly with the Aegean sea. We find Tyrians in Kos island as well as Berytans.35 Other Tyrians are also known at Kios in Bithynia36 and at Demetrias in Thessaly. This feature fits very well with archaeological evidence, for Hellenistic contexts in Beirut did provide very large sequences of Aegean sea pottery. It appears likely to be Kyrenia II's wreck's last destination. It is more surprising not to find Berytan people in Cyprus (at least according to the evidence available) along what used to be the normal way between Berytus and the Cyclades, but it can be a case, as ceramics from Cyprus are very common in Berytus during the whole period.

28 IG II 968, cf. Roussel, “Laodicée de Phénicie”, pp. 433-434 29 SEG 15 (1958), 104, ll. 39, 137, 272. 30 SEG 39 (1989) 187.18 31 SEG 3 (1927) 393 32 SEG 25 (1971) 9712 = IG XII.5.986 33 Roussel, “Laodicée…”, p. 434, no 5. 34 A.-M. Hauvette-Besnault et M. Dubois, “Inscriptions de l'île de Cos”, BCH, 5 (1881), p. 237 no 22. The identification and textual integrations are those of Roussel, “Laodicée…”, p. 434, no 5. 35 Hauvette-Besnault et Dubois, “Inscriptions de l'île de Cos”, pp. 206-207, no 2. 36 Th. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 29, , 1985), no 711. P. ARNAUD 179

But Berytan trade seems much more related to Delos than any other Phoeni- cian city. Reference has already been made to the huge number of Berytan citizens in the island and to the fact that ekdocheis are unknown among members of the other Phoenician communities. On the other hand, although several Phoenicians from Tyre, Sidon or Arados are known in the Hellenistic necropolis of Demetrias, in Thessaly, we hear of no Berytan among these, while Sidonian have their koinon in Athens. Other Phoenician people appear to have had regular commercial intercourse with some other cities of the Aegean, even situated as distant as Thessaly. Berytan people seem to have been much more exclusively connected with Delos itself. According to this pattern, other implantations are to be related both to the main trade-route from Berytus to Delos or to secondary ones from other places within the Aegean sea to Delos. As, when other Phoenician cities had military fleets in the early IInd century BC,37 there is no evidence for any such fleet in Berytus, Berytus' outstanding importance in Delos should have relied on trade much more than on com- merce. Strabo (XIV.6.3, C 683) probably confirms the impression of the over- whelming position of Berytus in trade during the hellenistic period, for we know that maritime distances, given in stadia, by ancient geographers, find their origin in average durations in time along some commercial sealinks.38 Among the points of origin of such distances, harbours are rare, compared with capes, whence pilots used to change the ship's route. Now, Beirut is quoted once, when the Greek geographer, gives 1500 stadia between Kition, in Cyprus, and Berytus, as we have seen above. One quotation only is, obviously, little compared with the numerous quotations of Alexandria or Rhodes, but the outstanding importance of Beirut among other Phoenician harbours is un- doubtedly confirmed by the fact that none of the other Phoenician harbours, has been mentioned in such conditions by the geographer. It is not surprising that Cyprus was the only point related to Beirut: as has been already noticed, Cyprus was the natural cross- of trade-routes from or to Berytus. Nor do we have epigraphical evidence for direct links with Alexandria, although ce- ramics from Alexandria are also present in Beirut, in much smaller quantities than those from the Aegean Sea. It has been argued, on account of a quotation of Sacevola by Justinian's Di- gest,39 that there was trustworthy evidence for direct links between Beirut and Italy as early as the late 2nd century BC. This should explain why black-var- nished Campanian pottery is so common on Beirut excavations. Unfortunately this passage must be related to Q. Cervidius Scaevola, who wrote under the reign of a , instead of P. Mucius Scaevola, who was

37 Liv. 35.50: Antiochos' fleet was made of forces from Tyre, Sidon, Arados and Side. 38 Arnaud, “De la durée à la distance…” 39 Dig., 45.1.122 (= Scaevola, Digesta, 28) 180 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

Consul in the year 133 BC, then in 131 BC. Neither can it be identified as the latter's son, Q. Mucius Sacevola, Consul 95 BC, who used to be considered as the founder of civile. No Mucius Scaevola ever wrote any book untitled Digest, nor can the words provincia Syria in the passage quoted above can apply to a period prior to 62 BC. Berytus trade activity seems therefore mainly to be related to Delos island and surrounding areas, given that the latter were in turn probably much related with the island. Through Delos Island, it is clear that Berytan commerce and trade was closely linked with Roman and Italian interests. Links between Seleucid Berytos and Roman officials and trade-agents are obvious in Delos as early as the early 2nd century BC. Links with Delos, more than direct links with Italy should explain that we find huge quantities of Campanianware in Beirut, given that ceramics were cheap items probably carried in order to bal- last ships or to complete a cargo aside higher added value goods. One can im- agine that, as Delos used to be mainly a slave-market, Italian ships going to the island in order to come back with a full cargo of slaves of very high value, could not sail empty and needed to ballast the cargo on the way to Delos. Given that Italian were mainly imitations of Aegean ones, one can hardly imagine that cargoes were made of wine amphoras. Campanian ceram- ics are probably to have had great importance in ballasting Italian ships on their way to Delos. We unfortunately know little of Beirut as a center of production during the Hellenistic/Republican period, and we know no more of what was then the actual extension of the city's territory. It is therefore impossible to estimate the nature and quantity of the items the city was able to export from its own territory and which were the goods imported from other countries in order to be re-exported and those which were intended to be sold and used in Berytus. The presence of such quantities of Berytan people outside the city not only in the Aegean, but especially in Delos itself and surroundings, seems to indicate that more than commerce itself, Berytan shippers, merchants and trade-agents were involved in emporia in its purest sense. They were probably less involved in selling abroad products from their city in order to bring back other items to their city, than in exchanging, even as far away as inside the Aegean Sea, goods of any origin, Delos being some kind of common market of the Mediter- ranean, during most of the 2nd century BC. This century seems, besides, to have been the most prominent in the history of Beirut's trade and commerce. After the beginning of 1st century BC, we lack epigraphical evidence for any Berytan diaspora similar to that we could observe during the former century. This may be purely casual. Of course, one must also remember that dating Greek inscriptions is a difficult exercise, which can never provide results as exact as one should expect. Inscriptions baring the name of Laodikeia can surely be assigned to the 2nd century, between 175 and 123 BC, but dating P. ARNAUD 181 those who just bear the name Berytus is much more difficult. As a matter of fact, many inscriptions dated by modern scholars about 100 BC should easily be dated in a bracket of at least half a century, between 125 and 75 BC, and even sometimes between 150 and 50 BC. We nevertheless may consider that, so far, evidence available shows a blank in our knowledge of Berytan dispora within the Aegean sea, and that this gap appears to have started between 100 and 50 BC. As we have said, this may be casual, if we consider that Berytus was probably still active as a trade-place by the time of Tigranes the Great, as shown by the grant of freedom, probably on account of its strategical importance as a commercial harbour, to the city, whose municipal era starts in 81/80 BC.40 Nevertheless, such a gap would fit well with the general pattern of economic and political history of the Mediter- ranean in general and of the Eastern Mediterranean in particular. Not only do we know of a general recession whose effects start by the early 130's; one must also remember the effects of the Social War, which surely affected, from 91 BC onwards, both trade and commerce with Italy, and the efficency of Ital- ian financial investment. Now, as we have seen, Berytan economy, as the whole economy of the Eastern Mediterranean, was closely related to Italian capital, not only through the activity of various negotiatores, but also when, borrowed, it allowed ships to be chartered. In 88 BC, the Mithridatic wars, in- cluding the slaughter, ordered by Mithridates, of Italians, in Asia and within the whole Aegean sea, and the sack of Delos put an end to the golden years of trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Numerous political and military troubles then affected Phoenicia from the times of Tigranes down to 20 BC, especially Itureans raids known from Strabo's testimony (XV.2.19). Overall, the growing of piracy, especially in Cilicia, probably urged eagerly Berytan commerce un- til the Great was able to eradicate the scourge in 70 BC. The sole pos- sible route between Berytus and other destinations ran exactly along the main stronghold of piracy within the Mediterranean: Cilicia. This global evolution probably put an end to Berytus large-scale trade ac- tivities and circumscribed them in a more restricted area.

3. EARLY AND MID-IMPERIAL

When the Roman colony was founded by Agrippa, Beirut became the center of a very large territory which extended as far as the springs of the Orontes river, including much of the Massyas valley.41 Granted the , it be- came free from the tributum and such a privilege must have been of great eco-

40 H. Seyrig, “Sur les ères de quelques villes de Syrie”, Syria, 37 (1950), pp. 5-50, esp. p. 38 41 Strab., 16.2.19, C 756; R. Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale, (BAH, 4, Paris, 1927), pp. 58-62. 182 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400) nomical interest. Beirut was thus the center of a large and fertile territory, which produced oil, wine, corn, and fruit. Both the inclusion of the fertile Bekaa in Beirut's territory and the rise of a new class of Italian land-owner veterans may have induced important changes in the general pattern of Bei- rut's economy. At the same time the building of must have opened Beirut's harbour to inner Syria and Arabia. It seems much more prob- able, as we have already observed, that Berytan people were much involved in trade outside Berytos itself. It was probably not properly the case during the Pax-Romana period, when the increasing of Beirut as a center for exportation of items produced within its own territory seems more likely. One should nevertheless wonder whether Rougé's assertion42 that “old harbours of Beirut, Tyre, Sidon (…) still were prosperous, although their activity was mainly regional” is based or not on the evidence available and can give realistic and reliable impressions of what Beirut actually was as a commerce and trade- place. The new Italian colonists were obviously land-owners rather than traders. It is not unsignificant that the only two civilians from Berytus known outside their city, at Ephesus43 and Stranonikeia,44 in Asia Minor, do not bear Latin names, and, apparently not being granted the , were prob- ably not citizens of the colony. This opened a new hinterland to Beirut's com- merce and was well connected with Syria and Arabia by good roads, as more items were now able to be exported from Beirut. Those may have included as early as the , linteamina which were to become so famous during the Later Roman Empire and Early Byzantine period,45 but there is no evi- dence for that. Last, but not least, the origin, customs and of the Italian colonists must have developed or maintained strong links with the Mediterra- nean West. In the town itself, importations from Italy and Southern Gaul appear to be particularily numerous in the early Julio- period, I mean during the very first generations of the colony. Occidental items noticed on the excava- tions are partly “universal productions” widespread over the whole mediter- ranean, but many are much more unusual in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g. amphoras Dr 23, votive volute-lamps bearing latin legends or “Pompeian red- ware” pottery) and may reflect the occidental customs and tastes of the new Italian settlers. But the main occidental productions, such as oil, wine and amphoras from Spain or Italian wine amphoras, are still rare, and for-

42 Rougé, Recherches sur l'organisation…, p. 127. 43 R. Merkelbach 1 J. Nollé, Die Inschriften von Ephesos- VI, Bonn, 1980, 2215a p. 112. Epi- taph of Asia and Ktètos, both Berytan, dated IId century. 44 M. Cetin Sahin, Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia-I: Panamara (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 21.1, Bonn, 1981), no 405 p. 15. The inscription is severian. 45 L. C. West, “Commercial Syria under the Roman Empire”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 55 (1924), pp. 159-189. P. ARNAUD 183 eign goods consumed in Roman Beirut as well as artifacts used there seem to come mainly from the Aegean Sea area or even more from the Cilician Sea and Cyprus. From the Flavian period down to the Later Roman Empire, material found in Beirut still shows a mixture of common grounds, very similar to any part of the Mediterranean, and mainly regional features, which are clearly pre- dominant. There is still evidence for economical links with the West, but in very small quantities: African sigillata A is mostly occasional. The majority of the material, especially amphoras, appears to come from the Roman East. This pattern fits quite well with the small number of foreigners or foreign communities known in Berytus, especially Tarsus, Emesa and . Even so, it is difficult to know for certain whether they rely on economical, politi- cal or cultural intercourse. It seems nevertheless that African products (both Tripolitana amphoras and pottery) did increasingly take a conspicious place within the goods consumed in Beirut. Such an evolution is very similar to that of most places within the Roman world, for the presence in huge quanti- ties of both African pottery and Tripolitana oil amphoras can be considered as a rather common feature in the whole Mediterranean after the Antonine dinasty. As far as archaeological evidence is concerned, although a Roman colony famous for its magnificent urbanism, Beirut does not appear as an especially prominent trade- or commerce-place, but one should drive the same conclu- sions from the same evidence during the former period. Interventions from for- eign evergets in local building may relate to the political status of the city as well as to flourishing trade and commerce. The argument is therefore worth- less as a proof about our topics. Unfortunately, epigraphical evidence, too, is worth little as far as commerce and trade in Beirut are concerned during the Pax Romana period. We still know of a Berytan diaspora, which still appears to be wide spread in many provinces, including Numidia and Gaul, but, contrary to what has been noticed during the 2nd century BC, it appears to be mostly limited to soldiers and offic- ers.46 Apart from such soldiers, we only hear of one man, buried in Athens,47 who appears to be a civilian, and of the three persons, already mentioned, at Athens and Stratonikeia. Berytan merchants are only reckoned in Puteoli. A Latin inscription48 dated AD 116 mentions there the cultores Iovis Heliopo|

46 CIL XII. 3072 (Nîmes): ; CIL XIII.6658 (Seiligenstadt): praefectus cohortis Aquitanorum; CIL VI. 2910 (Rome): soldier of an urban ; CIL VIII. 3278 (Lambaesis): veteran; CIL VIII. 24620 (): soldier of an urban cohort; AE 1969/1970, 633 = AE 1955, 238 (Nicopolis, Egypt), col. III and VI: two from Berytos; we do not know the social status of M. Tuccius Silvanus, who died at the age of 60 in Lambaesis, and is likely to have been a veteran (CIL VIII. 4098). 47 SEG 19 (1963), 276 (Athens): –––]nis, son of Héracleïos. 48 CIL X. 1364. P. Dubois, Pouzzoles antique, (BEFAR 98, Paris 1907), p. 98. 184 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400) litani Berytenses qui | Puteolis consistunt (“the Berytan worshippers of Jupiter Heliopolitanus, who use to dwell in Puteoli”). It has been noticed that a group of permanent Berytan settlers in Puteoli, gathered as worshippers of the god of Ba’albek, probably meant a statio similar to that of the Tyrians in the same town. But contrary to what is known of the Tyrian statio, the Berytan commu- nity seems still prosperous, despite the opening of 's harbour near Ostia, which diverted the traffic of heavy carriers from Putoli to the mouth of the Tiber River. We know that the Tyrians opened in the new harbour a flourish- ing station, but we have no evidence for such a Berytan statio in Portus, al- though it is likely to have existed. One should imagine that, whereas Tyrian ships were diverted to Portus, Berytan commerce, being of less importance, re- mained closely linked with Puteoli. But it is very difficult to infer firm conclusions from the lack of epigraphical testimonies. One must in fact confess that, although actually flourishing, Tyrian commerce in the 2nd century AD has left almost no epigra- phical testimony outside Tyre, Puteoli and Ostia. On the whole Phoenician coast, only documents from Tyre necropolis do show a dispersion of foreign people linked with the trade-place. One can notice that no Berytan is known in Tyre, probably because Beirut harbour as a trade place had its own acti- vity. We do not know enough of Beirut's necropolis to make any similar survey of what was the actual importance of the foreign population in the city, but among the few epigraphical documents already published or mentioned, if we turn to the monuments of the Roman of Berytos, we shall find a dedi- cation from the Tarsensium Metropolis49 to a duumvir quinquennalis and flamen Martis of the colony, and another one50 made by M. Julius Avidius Minervius, domo Emesis to the Genius coloniae. The former is of great interest, for it clearly reveals strong institutional links between Beirut and the Cilician city. The latter unfortunately does not provide information about the reasons why this citizen of Emesa did actually dwell, or stay, in Beirut. Epigraphic evidence also acertains the existence of a Jewish community in Beirut as shown by the epitaph of “the most illustrious ruler of the synagogue of the Berytans”, whose corpse was buried in .51 Two other inscriptions are to be mentioned, because they are clearly related to trade-activities. The first one, found by the harbour, is a dedication to the Tychè of Hadriana Petra, engraved after AD 130, when the Nabatean town was first called Hadriana.52 This cult shows clearly the presence of a Nabatean

49 J. Lauffray, “Forum et monuments de Béryte”, BMB, 7 (1944-45), no 10 p. 77. 50 J. Lauffray, “Forum et monuments…”, no5 p. 68. 51 SEG 20, no 443; L. Robert, “Bulletin épigraphique”, REG, 74 (1961), pp. 253-254, no 808. 52 R. du Mesnil du Buisson & R. Mouterde, “Inscriptions grecques de Beyrouth”, Mélanges Univ. Saint-Joseph, 1 (1920-21), pp. 382-386, no 1. P. ARNAUD 185 community in Beirut. The editors of the text thought that it probably provided evidence for existence of a statio of Nabatean negotiatores in Beirut, and, thus, for strong connections of Beirut, through Petra and , with trade-routes from Arabia, Persia, India and the Far East. Conversely, one can think of Beirut as a step between West and Petra as well. Direct links with southern Gaul are also suggested by a bronze tablet found near Beirut.53 This document, which must be dated about the beginning of the 3rd century AD, bears the text of a decretum of the praefectus Annonae against mensores that had used fraudulent measures, to the detriment of members of the quinque corpora naviculariorum maritimorum Arelatensium. As Hirsch- feld noticed in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, it is highly possible that the text had but a general significance and that the decree taken after the com- plaint of navicularii Arelatenses was valid within the whole Roman world, al- though most scholars54 who had to deal with this text did think that it was ac- tually put up in some house or statio of the navicularii maritimi Arelatenses which stood in Beirut. If so, one should admit that the navicularii Arelatenses had permanent relations with Beirut and that their activity in Beirut had to deal with corn supplies to the city of Rome. We saw above that there probably used to be a Berytan statio in Puteoli. One can add some literary evidence for direct commercial intercourse between Berytus and Italy. As a matter of fact, by the times of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman jurisconsult Scaevola, used as a typical example, known as “Calli- machus' borrowing”, the case of a merchant-ship leaving Beirut to and intended to be back to Beirut before the 200th day.55 This document is es- sential to our argument, as it apparently provides evidence not only for the presence of Roman investment in Beirut during the antonine period, but also for direct relations between Beirut and Italy. First, it is essential to notice that the example given by Scaevola, is entirely fictitious as shown by the names given to people mentioned by the jurist, which are merely conventional. Seius, L. Titius, Stichus, are the names one shall usually find in similar examples discussed down to the mid-third century by several other jurists, such as Veruleius, Paul or . Let us now turn to the argument: a so-called Callimachus is supposed to be the owner of a mer- chant-ship, whether Berytan himself or not, we do not know, and borrows in Beirut, in order to buy a cargo, a certain sum from Stichus, slave of Seius, act- ing in the name of his master. This contract of maritime loan is waranted by

53 CIL III. 14165. 54 A. Barot, “Les naviculaires d'Arles à Beyrouth”, RA, 5 (jan.-june1905) pp. 162-273; H. Rey-Coquais “Sur l'inscription des naviculaires d'Arles” Syria, 70 (1993), pp. 69-80. Rougé, Recherches, p. 97. 55 Dig., 45.1.122 (= Scaevola, Dig., 28); J. Laufray et R. Mouterde, Beyrouth ville romaine, (Beyrouth,1952), pp. 15-16; Rougé, recherches sur l'organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l'empire romain, Paris, 1960, p. 349. 186 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400) both a pignus (money deposit) and a mortgage on the cargo bought in Beirut. The contract stipulates that the ship must be loaded with items bought in Bery- tus to be sold in Brentesium where Callimachus is supposed to buy a new cargo and return straight to Berytus, in order to sell there the items bought in Brentesium and give back the sum borrowed from Seius. A certain Eros, an- other slave of Seius, was to make the journey back aboard altogether with Callimachus. Although entirely fictitious, and even more because it is entirely fictitious, this text requires special attention, for it was intended to be convincing. It seems to show clearly that some wealthy Romans had permanent interests in Berytus, and could send there some of their representatives (slaves, as in the text examined, or freedmen). It also demonstrates that ships could usually go straight from Berytus to an other point, and whence return immediately to Berytus. This pattern is entirely opposite to what we learn from cargoes borne by small coasters' wrecks, but it is very close to the practice of the classical emporia. Brentesion and Beirut are both clearly considered as emporia, that means trade-places of noteworthy importance. It is difficult to imagine, in such a pattern, which were supposed to be the products exported from Italy to Beirut. It is not surprising that Italian wines, which were mostly imitations of Greek, especially Aegean, ones, appear to be absent from Berytus. But were the items bought in places such as Brentesium or Puteoli necessarily Italian ones? It is far from being certain: they could be African, Gaulish or Spanish as well… One should overall wonder why Scaevola choosed Beirut as the place whence an oared ship should start from the Phoenician coast. Such a choice can hardly be arbitrary. Brentesion was probably choosen both because it was the furthermost Italian place from Rome and the closest to Berytus, and be- cause it could be reached directly, which was not the case of places which could be reached only through the straights of Messina. But why Berytus? A first explanation is to consider Beirut as the Phoenician harbour “par excel- lence”, and as the commonest one when trade between Italy and the Near East was concerned. Any of the other Phoenician harbours should have been quoted instead of Beirut, should not the latter have been the outstanding one. Another explanation can also be offered. The point is not that a ship should leave from Beirut rather than from any other point. The Phoenician coast was probably choosen because it meant both the longest direct journeys across the Mediterranean and high-value cargoes from the East. If, as some consider, the was founded during the 2nd century,56 which is purely hypothetical, one can imagine that a jurisconsult like Cervidius Scaevola

56 P. Collinet, Histoire de l'Ecole de droit de Beyrouth, (Paris, 1925), p. 23. P. ARNAUD 187 choosed Beirut instead of Tyre just on account of that Law School or on the account of the collection of imperial consitutions which is supposed to have been gathered in Beirut. Furthermore there is the fact that Berytus used to be a Roman colony. The ius Quiritum was therefore valid in this city as well as in Rome and in Italy. This was the condition to make the example suitable for the jurisconsult's purpose. No evidence therefore shows any particular importance of Beirut during this period as compared with other cities which had stationes in Rome, as Cilician Anazarbus, Tarsus, Tiberias, Tralles, Sardi, or Tyre,57 given that until today, we do not know of any similar statio of Berytus in the capital. It seems even difficult to think that Beirut's trade activity was equal to that of neighbouring Tyre, as when one, among ancient writers, has to speak of what is the oriental harbour “par excellence”, he, invariabily, names Tyre, which, alone in Phoe- nicia, bore the title of metropolis. Tyre seems therefore to have clearly over- whelmed any other Phoenician harbour. Lead seals from Tyre and Alexandria have been found as far as , in the Saône river,58 but no similar lead seals from Berytus has ever been discovered… Nevertheless, trade-activities must certainly have been of great importance for Beirut. In Roman imperial times, Beirut was probably a noteworthy trade and commerce-place as well as a wealthy harbour. We lack clear evidence about that period, but it is likely that the situation known by the end of the 3rd century down to the 5th century AD is nothing but the continuation of the former status, and that several harbours of the Phoenician coast had similar, if not equal, importance, and that among these harbours stood Berytus.

4. THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

In fact, Diocletian's Maximum Prices Edict makes no difference between all harbours of Diocesis Orientis, although it normally names the harbours. As no particular harbour is named in this section of the Edict, one must consider that the trade-routes hereby mentioned were regular ones between all main Phoenician harbours and distant countries. The Edict actually provides much evidence about long-range maritime traffic from ports of Diocesis Orientis. We shall notice that three-quarters of the relations quoted by the Edict from or to oriental harbours are very long range relations and deal with the western- most countries. Regional relations have not been considered by the author of the edict, which had little or no interest at all in short-range traffic. The list of trade-routes related to our topics are as follows.

57 Rougé, Recherches…, p. 352. 58 M. Rostovtzeff & M. Prou, Catalogue des plombs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1900, p. 20, nos 3 and 5; pp. 29-30. 188 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

from: to: cost (in denarii per modius kastrensis) Oriens Rome 18 Oriens Salona 16 Oriens 22 Oriens Africa 16 Oriens Spain (Tarraconensis) 20 Oriens Baetica 22 Oriens 26 Oriens 24 Oriens 12 Oriens Ephesus 10 Oriens Sicily 16 Nicomedia Phoenicia 12

RELATIONS TO AND FROM PHOENICIAN HARBOURS ACCORDING TO DIOCLETIAN'S PRICES' EDICT

None of other harbours mentioned in the preserved parts of the Edict pro- vides a range of connexions so large as to include even provinces situated out- side Hercules' Columns, as Lusitania. Links with the West are essential in that list: the whole western Mediterranean is concerned (Adriatic area, Italy [Rome and Aquileia], Sicily, Africa, Gaul, Spain and Portugal) while in the East, apart from Ephesus and Byzantium, only Diocletian's capital (Nicomedia) is mentioned. It shall be noticed that all routes but the latter are intended to have their origin in Oriens. That probably means that the economical interest relied more in exportation currents than in importation ones. But one must also remember that Diocletian's Prices' Edict is also very arti- ficial, and does not relase much on everyday life and practice, so that we can by no means appreciate how much Beirut itself was involved at that time in long-range traffic, and what was the proportion of short-range traffic in the economy of the late Roman city. Nor can we consider the measurement unit used for the costs' calculation, I mean one modius kastrensis, equal to one and a half Italic modius of wheat, as an indication about the nature of the items ac- tually carried by the ships getting under way from Diocesis orientis. Given that onera fiscalia are mentioned in a list a part (at least in the Aphrodisias copy), and that the modius kastrensis is also taken as a measurement unit for the transportation of people and animal, through an amazing conversion-table, it is likely to be taken as entirely conventional, and one must probably con- P. ARNAUD 189 sider that no particular item was actually specified by the use of the wheat- measurement unit. The importance of Oriental harbours in the Edict should be regarded as a consequence of the importance of Orient, and of Beirut and Tyre in particular, in the manufacture and commerce of silk and other materials. This should ex- plain the presence in Beirut of tiles manufactured in Byzantium, which are likely to have been used to ballast ships coming back from Constantine's new capital. Litterary texts as well as epigraphical evidence provide much infomation about our topics. The Expositio totius mundi et gentium, written by an anony- mous oriental writer under the reign of Constantius II, considers (ch. 23-30) as special places for negotium and wealth, Tyre, Laodicia, Seleucia, Ascalon and Gaza, as well as , Scythopolis and , whereas Berytus and Caesarea appear to find their own importance in other particularities: both are considered as deliciosae. The writer does not omit the Law School of Berytus, nor the Tetrapylon and monuments of Caesarea. The first impression is that Beirut was not normally considered as a trade- place. It found its fame in the qualities of urbanism and in its Law School, not in trade, contrary to Tyre. It is also clear that the order of the list of cities is not the geographical one, but seems to be that of the importance of each of the cit- ies: After Antioch, then a capital, comes Tyre, the metropolis, and in third po- sition only Berytus. Would Beirut have had the same importance as a trade- place as Tyre, it should have been mentioned in a better rank. Nevertheless, the fact that trade activities are not mentioned in relation with Beirut does not imply that such activities did not exist in Beirut. During recent excavations, numerous western products have actually been brought to light in layers dated 4th century AD on Beirut excavations, espe- cially, African sigillata C and D and Tripolitana amphoras, although fragments of Late Roman tariffs found in Beirut59 give the general impression that the harbour was mainly devoted to short-range traffic, and especially to com- merce, with Cyprus island, of cheap or simple items. Such a feature fits well with the patterns one can notice in Beirut in the Justinian period. On the orher hand, it is clear that items such as cookingware or the so-called “Gaza ampho- ras” exported from the Roman East reached the far West in significant quanti- ties. Other items were surely exported from Berytus, such as textiles, espe- cially silk. Among the cities which used to export in huge quantities their linteamina to the rest of the world the author of the Expositio (ch. 31) lists Scythopolis, Laodicia, Byblus, Tyre and Berytus. Linteamina here means not only linen, but also silk materials.60

59 J. Lauffray, “Forum et monuments de Béryte”, BMB, 5 (1944-45), pp. 78-79. 60 L.C. West, “Commercial Syria…”, pp. 159-189; Expositio totius mundi et gentium (ed. J. Rougé), (Sources chrétiennes, 124, Paris, 1966), p. 252, ad loc. 190 BEIRUT: COMMERCE AND TRADE (200 BC - AD 400)

Procopius (Hist. arc., 25. 14-15) confirms this evidence when he points out that “since ancient times, silk clothes used to be made in Berytus and Tyre, which are both Phoenician cities. Traders, manufacturers and crafters of this material used to live there since the ancient times, and it is from there that silk was exported to the whole world”. The word emporoi used to qualify those who sold silk clothes shows clearly that meant those who acted in long-range seaborne traffic. Two Vth century inscriptions61 provide evidence for the making of silk-clothes in Beirut, which is a lot, given the small num- bers of inscriptions found in Beirut and published. The very high prices reached by silk in the Late Roman Empire compared with the small volumes needed in a cargo should explain that even a trade-activity such as the com- merce of silk may have not brought in turn large volume of items from the countries where it was exported. It is possible that a very lucrative activity did not afford the marks of an important trade-activity.

It is thus very difficult to have any precise idea of Beirut's commerce and trade throughout the whole Hellenistic, Roman and late Roman period within the limits of evidence now available. Permanent commercial links with Cyprus itself and with its basin appear to be a strong common pattern to each of the periods. It is therefore not surprising that Strabo, who records mainly informa- tions going back to the classical or early Hellenistic period, when he has to deal with maritime distances, mentions Berytus only once, when he gives the distance of 1,500 stadia ( 2 days and one night) between Berytus and Kition. Due to natural conditions, this journey was both safe and quick. Beirut's importance in trade seem to have reached its maximal extension by the end of the second century BC, but, contrary to what I suggested in the pre- liminary abstract, Berytan had footholds in the Aegean even before Delos be- came a free-harbour in 166 BC. Berytus trade-activities seem to have been or- ganized first by patterns which were already that of Kyrenia II wreck by the end of the Fourth century. When Delos emerged as a pole for economic intercourses between the Near East, the Aegean and the Western Mediterra- nean, this old pattern was renewed and gave way to increasing trade-activity. Such is the image we can reckon from written evidence. Under the Roman empire, although having probably been overwhelmed by the neighbouring metropolis of Tyre in the role of the main Phoenician trade- place, the Roman colony of Berytus still was active in long-range traffic both with the Western Mediterranean and with the Aegean Sea and remained a step in trade-routes between the Near East and the rest of Mediterranean. From that point of view the archaeological evidence recently brought to light confirms formerly known written documents.

61 H. Waddington, Inscr. Syr., no 1854; R. Mouterde, “Regards sur Beyrouth phénicienne, hellénistique et romaine”, MUSJ, 42 (1966), p. 44. P. ARNAUD 191

As far as quantities were concerned, the predominance of local relations and regional commerce within the limits of the Pamphylian Sea can be considered as the main permanent feature of Beirut trade- and commerce-activities. If we now consider the total amount and value of goods transiting through Beirut harbour, long-range trade between Far and Near East, by one side, and Far and Near West by the other, was probably more lucrative and explains the devel- opment of silk manufacture in Beirut.

Top View