UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

InternationmesJahrbuch
für die
Alterturnskunde Syrien- PaHistinas

Herausgegeben von
Manfried Dietrich . Oswald Loretz

Beratergremium
J. Bretschneider • 1. Kottsieper • K.A. Metzler
R. Schmitt· J. Tropper· W.H. van Soldt· J.-P. Vita

Band 37
2005

Inmemoriam
Stanislav SEGERT

Ugarit -Verlag Münster

2006
 Tbe Political Decadence of Beirut
(14th_7th Centuries BCE)

Jordi Vidal, Barcelona *

The history of Beirut attested in cuneiform sources reveals a remarkable change

in the political status ofthe city between the 14th_ih centuries BCE. During the
Late Bronze Age both the Amama letters and Ugaritic documents featured Bei-
rut as one of the main kingdoms in the Phoenician coast. However, after a long
period of si1ence in the written sources Beirut reappears in a cuneiform text fram
the ih century BCE as a location belonging to the kingdom of Sidon. In this
paper we shall try to determine when exactly Beirut did lose its political inde-
pendence.

1 Beirut in the 14th century BCE. The Amarna Letters

Recent archaeologica1 works in Beirut have brought to 1ight architectonical re-
mains and pottery dating from the Early Bronze Age III (Badre 1997, 12ff.,
2000, 942, and 2001-2002, lf.). However, there are no certain references to the
city in written sources unti1 the Late Branze Age.
Pettinato suggested that Ba'urad (ba-u9-ra-duki / ba-u9-ra-adk), mentioned in
the Eblaitic texts 1, referred to Beirut (Pettinato 1983, 108-109; see a1so Xella
1995, 40). But Ba'urad was in fact a small Syrian town close to Eb1a and unre-
lated to historica1 Beirut (Bonechi 1990, 164f., and 1993, 68).
Likewise it is also doubtful whether Beirut appears as b-i-r-t under n. 19 and
109 ofthe great topographicallist ofTuthmosis III (Lipinski 2004, 23).
Thus, the first certain written references to Beirut, then under Egyptian rule,
figure in the Amama letters. There are three letters sent by the on1y king of the
city known to us by name, Ammu-nira1. Furthermore, Rib-Adda, king of Byb-

* This paper has been produced in the context of the research project called "Análisis
lingüísticode las inscripcionesreales neobabilónicas"(BFF2003-08425) directedby Dr.
Rocío da Riva. 1 am gratefu1to Prof. Joaquín Sanmartínfor his he1pwith bib1iography
and to Ester B1ayfor the he1pgrantedin writingthis paper.
1 ARET 13 v. II 15; ARET III 159r. VII 3', 323 v. VII 8'; ARET IV 16v. V 16; ARET
VII 154r. III 8.
2EA 141-143. Severa1 authors point out that Yapah-Adda was an earlier king of
Beirut than Ammu-nira (He1ck 1962, 179, 193 n. 29; Na'aman 2005, 56). However
644 J. Vida1 [UF 37

los, sent seven letters to the pharaoh mentioning Beirut and/ or its king3. The last
mention of Beirut is found in a letter sent to Egypt by Abi-Milki, king of Tyre4.
Recently, Amaud and Salvini published one letter belonging to a private collec-
tor sent by the king ofBeirut to the king ofUgarit (Amaud/Salvini 2000). Un-
fortunately, the names of the kings are not preserved in the letter, and only
through philological criteria have the editors of the text dated it in the epoch of
the Amama letters as well.
During the time span covered by the aforementioned texts, c. 1360-1330
BCE, Beirut was bordered on the north by the kingdom of Byblos and on the
south by the kingdom of Sidon. Its eastem and westem limits were respectively
Mt. Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately it is not possible to de-
fine these borders more precisely; the Amama letters do not mention any town
belonging to Beirut that could help us in this task. It is currently hypothetically
accepted that the northem border ofBeirut was located in the river Nahr al-Kalb,
the actual border during the Persian period (Elayi 1982, 92; Belmonte 2003, 78).
The very same difficulties recur when trying to define the southem border of
Beirut. Again hypothetically it is usually located in the area of the river Nahr al-
Damur (Elayi 1982,93; Belmonte 2003, 87). Ifthese assumptions are right, then
during the 14th century BCE Beirut controlled about 40 km of coastline, a
territorial stretch that must not have been substantially modified in the 13th
century BCE.
The analysis of the terminology in the Amama letters does not provide out-
standing information about the political situation of Beirut. Thus, Beirut is la-
belled a 'city' (uru) in the letters sent to Egypt5. However, it is labelled a 'coun-
try' (k ur) in the letter sent from Beirut to Ugarit, kingdom of similar rank6. The
ruler of the city is labelled 'king' (Iugal) by Rib-Adda of Byblos7. Instead,
Ammu-nira used the more modest titles 'man' (IÚ)8 and 'servant' (ir)9 in his
letters to Egypt, thus underlining his subordination to the pharaoh.
The political history of the Phoenician territory during the Amama epoch

it is necessary to note that the name of Yapah-Adda never appears linked to Beirut.
It is also uncertain that the Yapah-Adda mentioned in the letters of Rib-Adda (EA
83, 85, 103, 105, 106, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120) was the very individual who
sent the letters EA 97 and 98 (Liverani 1998-1999,242).
3 EA 92,101,114,118,136,137,138.

4EA 155. There is another possible mention of Beirut in EA 85: 43: [URU be-ru}
fa (see recently Belmonte 200 1, 56). Differently Liverani (1998-1999, 193), who
puts forward [Abdi-Ashi]rta.
5EA92:32; 101:25; 114:13; 118:28,31; 138:51,134; 141:4; 142:12; 143:21,25;
155:67.
6 Arnaud/Salvini 2000, line 1.
7 EA 92:32.

8EA ]41 :4.

9EAI42:2.
2005J The Politieal Deeadenee of Beirut (14th_7th Centuries BCE) 645

was conditioned by the territorial expansion of Amurru led by Abdi-Ashirta and

his sons, particularly Aziru. We shall try in the following lines to analyse the
role of Beirut in this contexto
After Abdi-Ashirta's rise to power he began the aforementioned territorial
expansion, which confronted him to Rib-Adda of Byblos. In letter EA 101 :20ff.
Rib-Adda accused the king of Beirut, among others, of disobeying the orders
given by the Egyptian authorities about the conflict caused by such expansion.
This passage leads to conclude that Beirut chose to side with Abdi-Ashirta
against Byblos (Klengel 1970, 16 and 1992, 176; Katzenstein 1973, 32; Singer
1991, 145; Na'aman 2005,56).
The threat posed by Abdi-Ashirta to the kingdom of Byblos temporarily
ceased when he was liquidated by an Egyptian task force (Singer 1991, 145;
Liverani 1998). However the sons of Abdi-Ashirta, some of whom are known to
us by name (Aziru, Pu-Ba'la, Ba'luya and perhaps Niqmepa), tried to restore
their father's authority (Singer 1991, 148). Later letters EA 114 and 118 show
how Beirut chose to retake its former alliance with Amurru (Klengel 1970, 16
and 1992, 176; Katzenstein 1973,33; Swiggers 1985,57; Singer 1991, 150).
However, letters EA 136, 137, 138 and 142 show a surprisingly radical
change in the alliance policy of Beirut. According to these letters, Rib-Adda
took refuge in the formerly enemy city of Beirut after his banishment from By-
blos. Na'aman links Beirut's approaching to Rib-Adda to another change in the
throne of the city. According to this proposal the already mentioned Ammu-nira
would have succeeded a former king, maybe Yappah-Adda10, thus ceasing the
old confrontation with Rib-Adda (Na'aman 2005, 56).

2 Beirut in the 13th century BCE. Ugaritic Texts

We practically only have texts found in Ugaritl to undertake the reconstruction
1

of the history of Beirut in the 13th century BCEI2. Such documents can be
divided into two main groups: (1) three letters from Beirutl3 and (2) five texts
written in Ugarit and other p1aces containing references to Beirut and its
14
people .

10 See note 2.
I1 Papyrus Anastasi 1, an extended model letter probably eomposed in the early reign of

Ramesses II (c. 1279-1213) also mentions Beirut together with the Phoenician eities of
Byblos, Sidon, Tyre and Sarepta (Allen 2002, 12).
12 See van Soldt (1994, 368 n. 20) about the supposed existenee of two different sites

called Beirut suggested by Arnaud 1984.

13 RS 11.730 (= PRU 3 12), RS 34.137 (= RSOu 7 n. 37), RS 86.2212 + 86.2214A

(= RSOu 14 n. 11). Focusing on strictly philological criteria Arnaud has pointed out that
RS 92.2021 (= RSOu 14 n. 12) came originally from Beirut. However, due to the frag-
mentary condition of the text its initial words have not been preserved, so we cannot be
certain if the letter was in fact sent from Beirut.
14 RS 16191 + 16.272 (= KTU 3.4), RS 17.341 (= PRU 4 161), RS 18.24 (= KTU
646 J. Vidal [UF 37

The terminology used in the letters sent by the king of Beirut to the king of
Ugarit seems to show that Beirut was, after Sidon, the main Phoenician city in
the 13th century BCE (Arnaud 1992, 184f.). Thus, in RS 11.730, RS 34.137 and
RS 86.2212+ the king of Beirut referred in the first place to himse1f, and on1y
afterwards did he mention the recipient of the letter, either the king, probably
Niqmaddu III (Singer 1999, 669; Vidal, forthcoming), or an Ugaritic high offi-
cial. That was the traditional order when the higher rank ofthe sender was being
underlined (Nougayrol PRU 3, p. 2f.; Liverani 1979, 1328; Arnaud 1992,184;
Cunchillos 1999,361; Huehnergard 1999, 376). The fact that the king ofBeirut,
as did the king of Sidon, placed himself before the Ugaritic monarch has led to
consider the possibility of Beirut occupying at the time an outstanding position,
similar to that of Sidon, and above the one heId by Tyre and Byb1os. Further-
more, the political relevance of Beirut wou1d also be supported by the fact that
both Beirut and Sidon used in their correspondence the logogram kur ('coun-
try') instead ofthe logogram uru ('city') that appears in the letters from Byb10s
and Tyre, to refer to its own domains (Amaud 1992, 184f.). However, as we
have pointed out elsewhere (Vidal, forthcoming), the use ofthe logogram kur or
the order used in the letters are probably not the outcome of the political rele-
vance of Beirut but a result of an epistolary habit in the City15without a real
political meaning.
Beirut in fact maintained an intense diplomatic relationship with Ugarit, of a
similar depth than those held by Ugarit with Sidon and Tyre, from which seven 16
and threel7 letters respectively survive, and deeper than those held with Byblos,
about which only one letter remains 18.However, the study of the commercial
relationships maintained by Beirut leads to a better understanding of its role in
the 13th century BCE.
The commercial relationships between Ugarit and other sea-ports of the Le-
vant, particularly Byblos and Tyre are well documented by the Ugaritic archives
(Liverani 1979, 1329f.; Bordreuil 1992; Castle 1992, 253ff.; Loretz 1994,
118ff.; Aubet 2000, 73ff.). However, its relationship with Beirut is poorly at-
tested. In fact the only direct proof of commercial relationships between Ugarit
and Beirut is the supply of copper and tin to the Phoenician city recorded in
RS 18.24 (Sasson 1966, 135). Moreover, the scarcity of evidences attesting
these relationships is not a result of the random preservation of tablets. The

4.337), RS 21.183 (= Ug 5 41), RlH 81/04 (Amaud 1984). See DULAT p. 204 about the
possibility ofRIH 78/02 (= KTU 4.771) mentioning Beirut (suggested e. g. by Belmonte
2001,57).
15 This epistolary habit is also present in the already quoted letter of the 14th century
BCE published by D. Arnaud and M. Salvini (Arnaud/Salvini 2000).
16 RS 11.723 (= PRU 39); RS 18.54; RS 25.430A; RS 34.149 (= RSOu 7 n. 38); RS
86.2208 (= RSOu 14 n. 14); RS 86.2221+ (= RSOu 14 n. 13); RS 86.2234.
17 RS Varia 25; RS 18.31 (= KTU 2.38); RS 17.424C (= PRU 4 219).
18 RS 18.134 (= KTU 2.44).
2005] The Political Decadence ofBeirut (l4th_7thCenturies BCE) 647

secondary role of Beirut in the international trade of the Late Bronze Age is also
evidenced by RS 34.145 (= RSOu 7 n. 9), where the king of Carchemish pointed
at Byblos and Sidon, and not at Beirut, as the main sea-port of the Lebanese
coast. Finally, the archaeological record also ascertains this situation. Thus, the
extraordinary wealth of Mycenean, Cypriot and Ugaritic imports found in the
Late Bronze Age tombs of the necropolis of Sidon Dakermann contrasts with the
more modest findings in Beirut (Saidah 1979-1980 and 1993-1994; Aubet
2000,73).
To sum up, we would suggest that the international influence of Beirut in the
commercial sphere was limited by the greater political and economic dynamism
of its two neighbouring kingdoms, Byblos and Sidon (Vidal, forthcoming). In-
stead, both the Ugaritic texts and particular1y the Amarna letters point at Beirut
as one ofthe main kingdoms ofthe Phoenician region in the 14th_13th centuries
BCE, taking part in the most important events ofthe time19. Furthermore, Beirut
was probably one of the most active centres in the Phoenician coast from a cul-
tural point of view. Thus, it is important to bear in mind that Sanchuniathon, a
priest from the city who probably lived in earlier times than those of the war of
Trolo, wrote his book Phoenician History there. Unfortunately, it is now only
known by an account transmitted to us by Philo ofByblos, which itselfwe know
of via the textual references found in the Praeparatio euangelica of Eusebius of
Cesarea (Cors i Meya 2001).

3 Beirut after c. 1200 BCE. The loss of political independence

The next reference to Beirut in cuneiform sources is much later21. Thus, Beirut
is mentioned in a list of sixteen cities of the Sidonian territory captured by Esar-
haddon (680-669 BCE), after the anti-Assyrain revolt of Abdi-Milkuti, king of
Sidon (Borger 1956, 48). Despite the spelling urubi-'-ru-u/it, which does not
mark the final -t, this city must be identified as Beirut (Lipiúski 2004, 22). The
reference to Beirut in this text is particularly significant because it shows that
Beirut lost its political independence and became a Sidonian town some time
after the c. 1200 BCE crisis.
Unfortunately the absence of written sources renders the reconstruction of
this 'dark age' of Beirut (lih_8thcenturies BCE) difficult. Lipiúski has recentIy
pointed out that the city had lost its former importance after several destructions
between the 10th and the mid_8th century BCE (Lipiúski 2004, 23). In fact recent

19 Ward also puts forward the finding of a sphinx bearing the name of pharaoh Amenem-

hat IV of the 12'h dynasty (1800-1792 BCE) as another praof of the important rale of
Beirnt during the Branze Age (Ward 1970, 18).
20 Praeparatio euangelica 1.9,20-21.
21 Beirnt is neither mentioned in Phoenician inscriptions fram the first half of the first

millennium BCE nar in the Old Testament. As Lipinski points out, accarding to the con-
text neither Be'erath (Josh 9: 17) nor Berathai (II Sam 8: 8) might be identified with
Beirut (Lipinski 2004, 23; see a1so Dorsey 1992 and Ava1as 1992).
648 1. Vidal [UF 37

archaeological works in Beirut have identified a destruction level in the fortifi-

cation wall of the city formed by several layers. It is dated between the begin-
ning of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th centuries BCE (Badre 2001-2002,
11). However some signs lead us to suggest an earlier date for the 10ss of the
po1itica1independence of Beirut and its subordination to the kingdom of Sidon,
that is just after the c. 1200 BCE crisis.
Archaeo10gica1 destruction 1evels do not provide enough evidence to deter-
mine the disappearance of Beirut as an independent kingdom. For example ar-
chaeological works in Beirut have identified another destruction level toward the
end ofthe Late Branze Age Il period (Badre 1997,50-53, and 2001-2002,10);
but due to the texts fram Ugarit, we know that after such time Beirut continued
to be an independent kingdom. Certain written references lead us to suggest that
the disappearance ofthe kingdom took place in the 1ih century BCE.
Cuneiform, biblical, homeric and classical sources al! point to the fact that
Sidon was the main kingdom in the southem Phoenician coast after the c. 1200
BCE crisis (Vita 2001-2002, 427; Belmonte 2003, 88f.). Among the aforemen-
tioned sources, a rayal inscription of Tig1ath-pileser 1 (c. 1110 BCE)22 concem-
ing the paying of tribute to the Assyrian king by Sidon, Byblos and Arvad ought
to be underlined. Meaningfully, Beirut is not mentioned. It is then plausible to
assume that this omission is due to Beirut being a Sidonian town at that time23.
A more prob1ematic text fram a historiographic point of view is Josh 13 :4-5,
very relevant since it supports the information held by the inscription of Tiglath-
pileser 1. According to this passage the southem Phoenician territory, including
Beirut, was under Sidonian control during the 'Israelite conquest'. The omission
of Beirut in the story of Wenamun, a text fram the 11th century (c. 1050 BCE;
see recently Lichtheim 1997), mentioning the main sea-ports ofthe Levant (Dor,
Tyre, Sidon, Byb10s), is also very meaningful.
So, if we bear in mind the significant omissions of Beirut noted in the rayal
inscription of Tiglath-pileser 1 and in the story of Wenamun, as well as the in-
formation granted by Josh 13: 4-5, we can date the disappearance of that king-
dom with plausible certainty just after the c. 1200 BCE crisis.
Unfortunately our knowledge of the impact of the migration of the Sea Peo-
pies over the Phoenician kingdoms is very pOOLByblos and Sidon enjoyed a
relative1y swift recovery after the c. 1200 BCE crisis and soon resumed their
traditional commercial enterprises (Aubet 1994, 36). It might be supposed that
Sidon took advantage of the situation and extended its authority over the area of
the former kingdom of Beirut, which from then on played a very secondary role
in the political and economic history ofthe Phoenician region.
The later history of Beirut must have been linked to the history of the king-

22 RIMA 2, Tiglath-pileser 1A.0.87.3, 16-25.

23 Belmonte points out that the omission of Tyre in the inscription of Tiglath-pileser 1
implies that the city was also under Sidonian control (Belmonte 2003, 88). However, its
absence is more probab1y due to its southern location, beyond the area affected by Assy-
rian rule (Bunnens 1995, 224)
2005] The Political Decadence of Beirut ( 14th_7th Centuries BCE) 649

dom of Sidon. Thus, since the 10th century BCE and coinciding with the political
and economic growth of Tyre, Beirut could have been part of the great kingdom
of Tyre-Sidon (Katzenstein 1973, 130ff.; Bunnens 1979, 292ff.; Bondi 1988,
41; Belmonte 2003, 89). This situation would have remained stable until the
military campaigns of Sargon n (Be1monte 2003, 89) or Sennacherib (Bunnens
1995, 230), which meant the end of the unified kingdom. From then on Sidon
recovered its political autonomy and Beirut lost alllinks with Tyre.
Beirut did not play any relevant role in the region until the second half of the
first millennium BCE. A major activity in the harbour of Beirut is revea1ed only
in the Persian period and particularly in the 2nd century BCE, when the city
started issuing an autonomous coinage, which probably underlined its growing
importance (Badre 1997, 12 and 2000,942; Lipinski 2004, 24).

Bibliography
Allen, 1. P., 2002: The Craft of the Scribe (Payrus Anastasi 1). In W. W. Hallo
(ed.): The Context ofScripture, vol. III. Leiden/Boston/K61n. Pp. 9-14.
Arnaud, D., 1984: La lettre Hani 81/4 et l'identification du site de Ras Ibn Hani
(Syrie). Syria 61,15-23.
- 1992: Les ports de la 'Phénicie' a la fin de l'age du Bronze Récent (XIV-
XIII siécles) d'aprés les textes cunéiformes de Syrie. Studi Micenei ed Egeo
Anatolici 30, 179-194.
Arnaud, D. / Sa1vini, M., 2000: Une 1ettre du roi de Beyrouth au roi d'Ougarit de
l'époque dite «d'E1-Amarna». Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici 42,5-17.
Aubet, M. E., 1994: Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente. Barcelona.
- 2000. Aspects of Tyrian Trade and Colonization in the Eastern Mediterra-
nean. Münstersche Beitrage zm Antiken Hande1geschichte 19, 70-120.
Ava1os, H. 1992: Berothai. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1, p. 679.
Badre, L., 1997: Bey 003 Preliminary Reports. Excavations of the American
University of Beirut Museum, 1993-1996. BAAL 2 (1997), 1-98.
- 2000. Les Premiéres découvertes Phéniciennes a Beyrouth. In Actas del IV
Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Vol. 3. Cádiz. Pp.
941-961.
- 2001-2002: The Bronze Age of Beirut: Major Results. ARAM 13-14, 1-26.
Be1monte, 1. A., 2001: Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der Texte aus Syrien im
2. 11.v. Chr. Wiesbaden.
- 2003: Cuatro estudios sobre los dominios territoriales de las ciudades-estado
fenicias. Barcelona.
Bondi, S. F., 1988: L'andamento della storia. In S. Moscati (ed.): I Fenici. Mi-
lano. Pp. 38-45.
Bonechi, M., 1990: I "regni" dei testi degli archivi di Ebla. Aula Orientalis 8,
157-174.
- 1993: 1nomi geografici dei testi di Eb1a. Wiesbaden.
Bordreui1, P., 1992: Tyr et Ougarit au ne millénaire. In Tyr et la formation des
650 J. Vida! [UF 37

civilisations méditerranéennes. Paris. Pp. 105-113.

Borger, R., 1956: Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Ki:inigsvon Assyrien. Graz.
Bunnens, G., 1979: L'expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Bruxelles/Rome.
- 1995: L'histoire événementielle partim Orient. In V. Krings (ed.): La civili-
sation phénicienne e punique. Leiden / New York / Ki:i1n.Pp. 222-246.
Castle, E. W., 1992: Shipping and Trade in Ramesside Egypt. Joumal of the
Economic and Social History ofthe Orient 35, 239-277.
Cors i Meya, J., 2001 : Elements narratius de procedencia anterior a HesÍode en
el re1at teogonic de Sancuniató. In J. L. Montero / J. Vidal / F. Masó (eds.):
De la estepa al Mediterráneo. Barcelona. Pp. 307-317.
Cunchillos, J.L., 1999: The Ugaritic Letters. In W. Watson / N. Wyatt (eds.):
Handbook ofUgaritic Studies. Leiden/Boston/Ki:iln. Pp. 359-374.
Dorsey, D. A., 1992: Beeroth. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1, pp. 646-647.
Elayi, J., 1982: Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Periodo
Joumal ofNear Eastem Studies 41,83-110.
Helck, W., 1962: Die Beziehungen Ágyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahr-
tausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden.
Huehnergard, J., 1999: The Akkadian Letters. In W. Watson / N. Wyatt (eds.):
Handbook ofUgaritic Studies. Leiden/Boston/Ki:i1n. Pp. 375-389.
Katzenstein, H. J., 1973: The History ofTyre. Jerusa1em.
Klengel, H. 1970: Geschichte Syriens im 2 Jahrtausend (Teil 3). Berlin.
- 1992. Syria, 3000 to 300 B. C. Berlin.
Lichtheim, M., 1997: The Report ofWenamun. In W. W. Hallo (ed.): The Con-
text of Scripture, vol. 1. Leiden / New York / Ki:i1n.Pp. 89-93.
Lipinski, E., 2004: Itineraria Phoenicia. Leuven.
Liverani, M., 1979: Ras Shamra. Histoire. In Supplément au Dictionnaire de la
Bible, co1s. 1295-1348.
- 1998: How to Kill Abdi-Ashirta. EA 101, Once Again. In S. Izre'el / 1. Sin-
ger / R. Zadok (eds.): Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of
the Ancient Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Winona Lake. Pp. 387-
394.
- 1998-1999: Le lettere di e1-Amama (2 vols.). Brescia.
Loretz, O., 1994: Mari, Ugarit und Byblos. In E. Acquaro et al. (eds.): Biblo.
Una citta e la sua cultura. Rome. Pp. 113-124.
Na'aman, N., 2005: Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE. Winona Lake.
Pettinato, G., 1983: Le citta fenicie e Byblos in particolare nella documentazione
epigrafica di Eb1a. In Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici.
Roma. Pp. 107-118.
Sasson, J. M., 1966: Canaanite maritime involvement in the second millennium
B. C. Joumal ofthe American Oriental Society 86, 126-138.
Singer, l., 1991: Appendix III. A Concise History of AmuITU.In Amurru Akka-
dian: a Linguistic Study. Vol. 11.Atlanta. Pp. 135-195.
- 1999: A Political History of Ugarit. In W. Watson / N. Wyatt (eds.): Hand-
book ofUgaritic Studies. Leiden/Boston/Ki:iln. Pp. 603-733.
2005] The Political Decadence of Beirut (14 th _7th Centuries BCE) 651

Swiggers, P., 1985: Byblos dans les lettres d'El Amama: Lumieres sur des rela-
tions obscures. In Studia Phoenicia 111. Leuven. Pp. 45-58.
van Soldt, W., 1994: The Topography and the Geographical Horizon of the
City-State ofUgarit. In G.l Brooke / A.H. W. Curtis / lF. Healey (eds.):
Ugarit and the Bible. Münster. Pp. 363-382.
Vidal, l, (forthcoming): Beirut and Ugarit in the 13th century BCE. Studi Mi-
cenei ed Egeo Anatolici.
Vita, J. P. 2001-2002: Continuidad y discontinuidad en la historia de Tiro y Si-
dón. Estudios Orientales 5-6,425--438.
Ward, W. A., 1970: Ancient Beirut. In Beirut Crossroads o/ Cultures. Beirut.
Pp. 14--42.
Xella, P., 1995: Les sources cunéiformes. In V. Krings (ed.): La civilisation
phénicienne e punique. Leiden / New York / Küln. Pp. 39-56.