geoarchaeology of byblos, tyre, sidon and beirut

Byblos

ix cores were undertaken at Byblos (Fig.1), two in the northern harbour and four

in the bay of El-Skhiny.1 The elucidatedchronostratigraphy has shed new light on anumber of questions posed by H. Frost dur-ing the 1960-70s.2 New work has demonstrat-ed that the ancient city of Byblos possessedtwo harbours: the present port, just to thenorth of the tell in a creek that favoured thebeaching of small vessels, and the bay of El-Skhiny, south of the tell, open to the inluenceof the wind and swell and bordered by asandy beach. The islet of Jeziret el-Jasmine, inthe northern angle of the bay, faces themouth of wadi Qassouba and afords greaterprotection to this area of the bay.

No rapid shift in sedimentological facies isattested in the northern or southern bays’sedimentary records, demonstrating thatthese basins were probably never endowedwith artiicial harbourworks, such as moles,destined to protect the waterbody. Indeed,

the chronostratigraphy demonstrates thatthe northern port was also relatively exposedto swell and wind dynamics during antiquity.The southern bay was open to ofshore inlu-ences and only its northern lank was rela-tively sheltered from high-energy sea states.Relative to present, the coastline lay furtherinland during antiquity and progradation ofthe coastline, through sediment supply fromlocal wadis, began around 1300-1200 years BP.Today, the topography has been signiicantlydisturbed due to the illegal extraction of sandallied with the construction of numeroustourist amenities.

From a geomorphological perspective, theancient harbour system of Byblos comprisestwo harbours separated either side of the ar-chaeological tell: to the north an exposedpocket beach and, to the south, a large marinebay (~550-m wide) with a small ofshore islet.

Byblos was the most important harbour ofthe Levantine coastline during the BronzeAge and its spatial organisation is typical ofthis period, namely a series of simple juxta-

* Nicolas Carayon: CNRS UMR 5140 – Montpel-lier-Lattes (France); [email protected]. NickMarriner: CNRS CEREGE UMR 6635 – Aix- Marseille Université, Aix-en-Provence (France);[email protected]. Cristophe Morhange: CNRS

CEREGE UMR 6635 – Aix-Marseille Université, Aix-en-Provence (France); [email protected].

1 Stefaniuk et al. 2005.2 Frost 1973b; Frost – Morhange 2000.

RStFen, xxxix, 1 · 2011

GEOARCHAEOLOGYOF BYBLOS, TYRE, SIDON AND BEIRUT

Nicolas Carayon · Nick Marriner · Christophe Morhange*

Abstract: Recent geoarchaeological work at Byblos, Tyre, Sidon and Beirut has looked to marry geoscience techniques (coring, geomorphological mapping, bio-sedimentological studies) with archaeology, to better understand where, when and how the cities’ ancient harbours have evolved.Not only have these data contributed to a historical and archaeological reinterpretation ofLebanon’s harbour environments, but they have also provided new insights into seaport systemsand infrastructure for the wider Canaan, Phoenician and Punic spheres. In this paper, we sum-marise the geoarchaeological results from these four sites, placing particular emphasis on previ-ously unpublished archaeological data.

Keywords: Ancient Ports; Phoenicia; Geomorphology; Tyre; Sidon; Byblos; Beirut.

S

Rivista di Studi Fenici 1 2011_Impaginato 30/06/12 14:52 Pagina 45

46 nicolas carayon · nick marriner · christophe morhange

posed harbours.3 This model is also attestedat Batroun, Tell Sukas, and Akzib. The use ofthese harbours was totally dependent uponthe meteorological conditions, whilst the ab-sence of artiicial infrastructures meant thatlarger vessels could not shore-up at the wa-terfront. The northern creek was, as it is to-day, too small for large vessels to access. In-stead, the latter anchored ofshore in thesouthern bay when weather permitted whilstlighter vessels assured the transit with thecontinent.

Despite its unfavourable harbour context,Byblos was able to play an important role inthe eastern Mediterranean’s Bronze Age

trade network, particularly the trade of cedarwith Egypt, described in the 11th century BCin the account of Wenamon.4 In this text, anEgyptian envoy, Wenamon, arrived in Bybloslooking to buy cedar wood. He installed histent in the harbour where he met the Gibliteking and negotiated the merchandise. It is re-counted that the wood was cut in the moun-tain and stocked on a beach outside the cityuntil the boats loaded and exported them toEgypt. It is hypothesized that Wenamon setanchor in the northern harbour and that thestocking and charging of the logs took placeon the beaches of El-Skhiny.5

Tyre

25 cores were undertaken at Tyre (Fig. 2),centred on four geographical areas: (1) thenorthern harbour; (2) the “southern” har-bour; (3) the tombolo; and (4) the coastline ofPalaeo-Tyre.6 In addition, underwater ar-chaeological surveys in the area known as the“southern harbour” were also undertaken.7The results of this underwater study havelooked to reconcile some unresolved ques-tions relating to the work of E. Renan,8 A.Poidebard9 and H. Frost.10

The ancient coniguration of the northernport has been reconstructed. The basin wasapproximately 50% larger in antiquity thantoday, diminishing in size due to the inillingof a natural semi-protected bay, acceleratedby harbour infrastructure (e.g. envelopingmoles). A rapid shift in sediment facies froman exposed to a conined environment, datedto the Hellenistic period, translates this struc-ture. Underwater surveys undertaken by ateam from the University of Perpignan (pro-gramme ARESMAR) have relocated remainsof a late construction today submerged un-derwater, consistent with the ancient mole ofTyre’s northern harbour.11 It is important tonote that no harbourworks dating from the

3 Carayon 2008.4 Schipper 2005. 5 Frost 2002.6 Marriner 2009; Marriner – Morhange –

Carayon 2008.

7 El Amouri et al. 2005.8 Renan 1864. 9 Poidebard 1939.10 Frost 1971.11 Castellvi et al. 2007.

Fig. 1. Simpliied geomorphologyof the Byblos coast (Carayon 2008).


geoarchaeology of byblos, tyre, sidon and beirut 47

Phoenician period have been evidenced. Therelative absence of sediment from this periodalso evokes considerable dredging operationsthat would have removed sediment archivesdating from the Phoenician period.

Work undertaken in the southern harbourhas clearly shown that the drowned area,called the “southern harbour” or “Egyptianharbour” after the work of Poidebard, wasnot a harbour complex. The presence of nu-merous land-based structures (walls, quar-ries) suggests that this area corresponds to anurban quarter of the ancient city, protectedfrom the sea by an important mole today sub-merged underwater (Fig. 3). These remainsappear to correspond to the last phase of oc-cupation of a polderized area that has yet tobe dated (perhaps the inilling work attrib-uted to Hiram 1st in the ancient literature).12The southern harbour, mentioned by the

Graeco-Latin sources relating to the siege ofTyre by Alexander, must therefore lie else-where. Two sediment cores were extractedfurther west (TVIII and TXVI; Fig. 2), inproximity to the so-called Tour des Algérienswhere E. Renan located the famous southernharbour, at the foot of the Phoenician citywall. The sediments reveal a relatively openmarine environment, inconsistent with thedescriptions of a protected harbour evokedby literary sources.

A number of cores were also taken on thecoastline directly facing the island of Tyre,where the ancient city of Ushu-Palaeotyre lay.The results attest to a prograding sandy coast-line with a natural shallow sand bank be-tween the ofshore island city and the conti-nent by the time of Alexander the Great. Asublittoral lagoon around the Tyre el-Bass

12 For example Ios. Fla., C. Ap., I 112-113; 116-118.

Fig. 2. Location of cores and reconstructed limits of Tyre’s ancient northern harbour (Marriner 2009).



Fig. 3. Plan of archaeological structures on the south part of the Tyrian peninsula (El Amouri et al. 2005).

Fig. 4. Reconstructed limits of the ancient island of Tyre in 3000 BP (Marriner 2009).



area has also been elucidated (Fig. 4). Thiscould help to explain the important surfacearea attributed to Palaeotyre in Pliny the El-der’s descriptions (Nat., V, 17).

In sum, Tyre’s port system during Phoeni-cian times comprised a vast outer harbourthat exploited the long aeolianite ridge ex-posed during this period and upon which theancient city lay. These outer harbours operat-ed in tandem with: (1) the northern harbourcomprising a semi-protected natural bay (amole conined the ancient basin at least fromthe Hellenistic period onwards, possibly earli-er); (2) a southern harbour whose precise lo-cation and geomorphological dispositionhave yet to be precisely determined; and (3)the beaches of Palaeotyre and its sheltered la-goon. Similar spatial conigurations are at-tested at Arwad (Fig. 5), Cadix, JeziratFara’un (Red Sea) and at Cerro del Villar, andrepresent a unique speciicity of the Phoeni-cian model.13

Sidon

At Sidon, 15 cores were undertaken in collab-oration with the British Museum, ten aroundthe northern harbour and four around thecrique ronde.14 Topographic measurementswere also made on the island of Zire.15 As atTyre, the results of the geoarchaeoogicalstudy of Sidon’s harbours complement the pi-oneering work of A. Poidebard, J. Laufray16and H. Frost.17

The sediment record attests to a prograda-tion of Sidon’s coastline since the BronzeAge. The northern harbour and the criqueronde were approximately 30% larger duringantiquity (Fig. 6). Up until the Middle BronzeAge, the northern harbour’s sediment recordattests to a sublittoral marine environmentsubject to ofshore marine dynamics, partial-ly protected by the semi-transgressed aeo-lianite ridge. After the Middle Bronze, threedistinctive phases of harbour coninement

have been elucidated. The irst, around 1700-1450 BC, is concomitant with the apogee ofthe Middle Bronze Age town according to ex-cavations at the American College site. It ap-pears to correspond to the earliest artiicialmodiication of the aeolianite ridge. The sec-ond phase was dated to the Roman periodand corresponds to a well-protected basin,subject to rapid silting. The remains studiedby Poidebard and Laufray appear to corre-spond to this second phase. The third phase

13 Carayon 2008.14 Marriner – Morhange – Doumet-Serhal

2006; Marriner 2009; Morhange et al. 2003.

15 Carayon 2003.16 Poidebard – Lauffray 1951.17 Frost 1973a and Frost 1999.

Fig. 5. Simpliied map of the Arwad reef,Syria (Carayon 2008).



dates to the modern and contemporary peri-ods and is consistent with a harbour environ-ment open to an ofshore marine inluence. It

appears to correspond to a decline in themanagement of harbour structures charac-terised by a more poorly conined basin.

The study of Zire has detailed the island’suse as a sandstone quarry and outer harbour(Fig. 7). A prominent “sea wall” has beenfashioned into part of the quarry, in additionto an artiicial quay and two jetties built dur-ing Persian times. An erosion notch is attest-ed on the front of the quarry face, translatingan uplift of the island, probably of tectonicorigin, dated to the irst centuries AD.

During the Canaan and Phoenician peri-ods, Sidon’s geomorphology was charac-terised by a partially drowned aeolianite ridgesheltering two harbour complexes: (1) thenorthern harbour and (2) the insular harbourof Zire that formed an outer harbour operat-ing in tandem with the continental port. Tothe south, wide sandy beaches bordered thecrique ronde, which was open to the inluenceof the marine swell and winds. Nevertheless,it would have been possible for small boats toanchor in this bay during clement weather.During the Iron Age, the exploitation of apartially drowned ridge system to form har-bours is a common trait in Canaan and Puni-co-Phoenician sites,18 for instance at BronzeAge Tel Dor, Cap Hermaion near LeptisMagna and Oea (present-day Tripoli in

18 Carayon 2008.

Fig. 6. Sidon and Zire during the 1940s(Poidebard – Lauffray 1951).

Fig. 7. Zire island (Carayon 2003).



Libya). In a similar vein, the use of quarry seawalls sensu Zire is also attested at Batroun(Fig. 8) and at Tripoli (Lebanon), Arwad (Syr-ia), R’mel (near Bizerte in Tunisia) or Guardias’Arena (near Sulcis in Sardinia).

Beirut

25 cores were undertaken around the ancientharbour of Beirut,19 in collaboration with theexcavations of the Beirut Central Distrit(BCD). The results enabled the ancient loca-tion, nature and geomorphological conigu-ration of Beirut’s ancient harbours to be de-scribed, and the origin and nature of thecoastal progradation to be more clearly un-derstood (Fig. 9). Excavation of harbour-works from a number of diferent periods(Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine andOttoman)20 have complemented this study

and demonstrate that Beirut’s ancient coast-line has been subject to considerable modii-cations, both natural and artiicial.

The Canaanite and Phoenician harbour ofBeirut was composed of two separate basins,separated by a modest promontory uponwhich the ancient city was founded. To thewest, the tell was lanked by a wadi creek.This creek was protected from the sea by RasBeirut, in addition to a number of other ridgeoutcrops still visible during the Ottoman pe-riod (Fig. 10). To the east of the tell, a secondmore open creek served as a fair-weather har-bour.

Over the centuries, due to urban growthand signiicant sediment inputs from urbanrunof and the Ras Beirut, the two basinswere gradually inilled. The mouth of the wa-di, attested at excavation sites Bey 27 and Bey69, served as a natural anchorage during the

19 Marriner 2009; Marriner – Morhange –Saghieh-Beydoun 2008; Francou 2002.

20 Elayi – Sayegh 2000.

Fig. 8. View of the seawall in Batroun (N. Carayon).



Middle and Late Bronze Ages. During theIron Age, an artiicialisation of the ancient

harbour is clearly attested in the coastalstratigraphy, although Roman and Byzantine

Fig. 9. Location of core sites (Marriner 2009) and archaeological data in Beirut (Elayi – Sayegh 2000).

Fig. 10. Davie’s proposed location for Beirut’s ancient harbour (Davie 1987).



dredging practices, already elucidated atTyre, have considerably disturbed the sedi-ment record.

The geomorphological coniguration ofancient Beirut is typical of other Canaan har-bours, namely a promontory accommodat-ing the ancient city overlooking two naturalharbours.21 This same coniguration is ob-served at Byblos and Sidon, and was repro-duced elsewhere in the Mediterranean by thePhoenicians. This type of settlement is attest-ed, for instance, at Nora (Sardinia) or atLilibeo (present-day Marsala in Sicily). Oneimportant characteristic of the harbour ofBeirut is the presence of a relatively large an-chorage area sheltered by the Ras Beirut (Fig.11). The vessels waiting to unload their cargo

at the quayside could anchor in proximity tothe coastline. Even today, this physical trait remains a signiicant natural advantage ofthe city. Sheltered lanks are a recurrenttheme in Phoenician and Punic harbours.This is the case, for instance, at Tyre, Sidonand Carthage, although this is not true for Byblos. This might be a possible explanationfor the decline of the latter city’s harbour ac-tivities during the Iron Age.

The geomorphological study of the an-cient harbours of Byblos, Tyre, Sidon andBeirut has allowed a more precise topogra-phy of these ancient harbour systems to beelucidated. The multidisciplinary nature ofthese analyses has yielded fresh geomorpho-logical insights into a number of diicult his-

21 Carayon 2008.

Fig. 11. Simpliied geomorphology of the Ras Beirut (Carayon 2008).



torical and archaeological questions. The sig-niicant changes in the coastline and the con-tinued occupation of these sites since theBronze Age makes a traditional archaeologi-cal approach problematic, rendering a preciseinterpretation of historical sources particu-larly diicult.

The geoarchaeological approach adoptedin Lebanon is set within the wider context ofancient harbour geoarchaeology at the scaleof the Mediterranean that includes work atCaesarea,22 Kition,23 Alexandria,24 Mar-seilles,25 etc. Investigation of the fourLebanese harbours has been particularly im-portant with regards to the Canaanite,Phoenician and Punic periods. The study ofthese Phoenician harbour complexes has pro-vided the basis for a typological classiicationof Phoenician harbours at the scale of the en-tire civilization.26

References

Carayon 2003 = N. Carayon, L’île de Ziré àSaïda: nouvelles données archéologiques, in «Ar-chaeology and History in Lebanon: Sidon-British Museum Excavations 1998-2003» 18, 2003,pp. 95-114.

Carayon 2008 = N. Carayon, Les portsphéniciens et puniques. Géomorphologie et infra-structures, PhD Thesis. Université Marc-Bloch,Strasbourg, 2008. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00283210/fr/.

Castellvi et al. = G. Castellvi – C. De-scamps – V. Porra-Kuteni et alii, Recherchesarchéologiques sous-marines à Tyr, in «BAAL» 11,2007, pp. 57-102.

Davie 1987 = M.F. Davie, Maps and the Histor-ical Topography of Beirut, in «Berytus» 35, 1987,pp. 141-164.

El Amouri et al. 2005 = M. El Amouri – M.El Hélou – M. Marquet – I. Noureddine –M. Seco-Alvarez, Mission d’expertisearchéologique du port sud de Tyr. Résultats prélimi-naires, in Morhange – Saghieh-Beydoun2005, pp. 91-110.

Elayi – Sayegh 2000 = J. Elayi – H. Sayegh,Un quartier du port phénicien de Beyrouth au FerIII / Perse. Archéologie et histoire, Paris 2000 («Tran-seuphratène», supplément 7).

Francou 2002 = S. Francou, La mobilité desrivages du port de Beyrouth à l’époque contempo-raine, une aide à la recherche géoarchéologique, in«Archaeology and History in Lebanon» 15, 2002,pp. 52-56.

Frost 1971 = H. Frost, Recent Observations onthe Submerged Harbourworks at Tyre, in «BMus-Beyrouth» 24, 1971, pp. 103-111.

Frost 1973a = H. Frost, The Ofshore IslandHarbour at Sidon and Other Phoenician Sites in theLight of New Dating Evidence, in «IJNA» 2, 1973, pp.75-94.

Frost 1973b = H. Frost, Ports et mouillagesprotohistoriques dans la Méditerranée orientale, inL’archéologie subaquatique, une discipline naissante,Paris 1973, pp. 93-115.

Frost 1999 = H. Frost, Installation on the Ancient Ofshore Anchorage at Sidon (the Rock Islandof Zire), in «National Museum News» 10, 1999,pp. 69-73.

Frost 2002 = H. Frost, Byblos: The Lost Temple, the Cedars and the Sea. A Marine Archaeo-logical Survey, in «Archaeology and History inLebanon» 15, 2002, pp. 52-56.

Frost – Morhange 2000 = H. Frost – Chr.Morhange, Proposition de localisation des portsantiques de Byblos (Liban), in «Méditerranée» 94,2000, pp. 101-104.

Goiran et al. 2005 = J.-Ph. Goiran – N. Mar-riner – Chr. Morhange – M. Abd el-Maguib– K. Espic – M. Bourcier – P. Carbonel, Evo-lution géomorphologique de la façade maritimed’Alexandrie (Egypte) au cours des six derniers millé-naires, in «Méditerranée» 104, 2005, pp. 61-64.

Marriner 2009 = N. Marriner, Geoarchae-ology of Lebanon’s Ancient Harbours, Oxford 2009(«BAR International Series», 1953).

Marriner – Morhange – Carayon 2008 =N. Marriner – Chr. Morhange – N. Cara-yon, Ancient Tyre and its Harbour: 5000 Years of Human-Environnment Interactions, in «JASc» 35,2008, pp. 1281-1310.

Marriner – Morhange – Doumet-Ser-hal 2006 = N. Marriner – Chr. Morhange –

22 Reinhardt – Patterson – Schröder-Adams 1994.

23 Morhange et al. 2000.

24 Goiran et al. 2005.25 Morhange – Laborel – Hesnard 2001.26 Carayon 2008.



Cl. Doumet-Serhal, Geoarchaeology of Sidon’sAncient Harbours, Phoenicia, in «JASc» 33, 2006, pp.1514-1535.

Marriner – Morhange – Saghieh-Bey-doun 2008 = N. Marriner – Chr. Morhange– M. Saghieh-Beydoun, Geoarchaeology ofBeirut’s Ancient Harbour, Phoenicia, in «JASc» 35,2008, pp. 2495–2516.

Morhange et al. 2003 = Chr. Morhange –K. Espic – Cl. Doumet-Serhal – M. Bourcier– P. Carbonel, Sidon’s Ancient Harbours: A Ten-tative of Summary, in «Archaeology and Historyin Lebanon: Sidon-British Museum Excavations1998-2003» 18, 2003, pp. 71-81.

Morhange et al. 2000 = Chr. Morhange –J.-Ph. Goiran – M. Bourcier – P. Carbonel –J. Le Campion – J.M. Rouchy – M. Yon, RecentHolocene Paleoenvironmental Evolution and Coast-line Changes of Kition, Larnaca, Cyprus, Mediter-ranean Sea, in «Marine Geology» 26, 2000, pp.205-230.

Morhange – Saghieh-Beydoun 2005 = Chr.Morhange – M. Saghieh-Beydoun (edd.), Lamobilité des paysages portuaires au Liban, Beyrouth2005 («BAAL», hors-série 2).

Morhange – Laborel – Hesnard 2001 =Chr. Morhange – J. Laborel – A. Hesnard,

Changes of Relative Sea Level during the Past 5000Years in the Ancient Harbor of Marseilles, SouthernFrance, in «Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology» 166, 2001, pp. 319-329.

Poidebard 1939 = A. Poidebard, Un grandport disparu, Tyr. Recherches aériennes et sous-ma-rines, 1934-1936, Paris 1939.

Poidebard – Lauffray 1951 = A. Poidebard– J. Lauffray, Sidon, aménagement antique du portde Saïda, étude aérienne, au sol et sous-marine (1946-1950), Beyrouth 1951.

Reinhardt – Patterson – Schröder-Adams 1994 = E.G. Reinhardt – R.T. Patter-son – C.J. Schröder-Adams, Geoarchaeology ofthe Ancient Harbour Site of Caesarea Maritima, Israel: Evidence from Sedimentology and Palaeoecol-ogy of Benthis Foraminifera, in «Journal ofForaminiferal Research» 24, 1994, pp. 37-48.

Renan 1864 = E. Renan, Mission de Phénicie,Paris 1864.

Schipper 2005 = B.U. Schipper, Die Erzäh-lung des Wenamun, Vandenhoek 2005.

Stefaniuk et al. 2005 = L. Stefaniuk – Chr.Morhange – M. Saghieh-Beydoun et alii, Lo-calisation et étude paléoenvironnementale des portsantiques de Byblos, in Morhange – Saghieh-Beydoun 2005, pp. 19-41.


geoarchaeology of byblos, tyre, sidon and beirut

Documents

northern harbour

geoarchaeologyof byblos

northern angle

thatthe northern port

cnrs umr

new work

b frost morhange

cities ancient harbours