Marked Stones at the Western Gate of Iron II-III Beirut, (BEY 032)

Full text

100
ANS
PHOENIC I A N
H E RIT A G E
INSTITUT E
2020
FONDATION CHARLES CORM

© Éditions de La Revue Phénicienne
Place du Musée B.P. 11-221
Beyrouth - Liban 2020
www.revuephenicienne.com
Suivi éditorial : Grace Salameh
Design : Sarah-Joe Wakim
Impression : Raidy Printing Group
Decembre 2020
Tous droits de reproduction, de traductions
et d’adaptations réservés pour tous pays.

Editor
Editorial Board
Contributing Authors
Pierre Zalloua
Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat, Wissam Khalil, Maroun Khreich,
Pierre Zalloua, Nassim Nicolas Taleb, Roland Tomb
David Corm
Hiram Corm
Sarkis Khoury
Nicolas Grimal
Roland Tomb
Josette Elayi
Maroun Khreich
Francisco J. Núñez
Marc Abou-Abdallah
Lorenzo Nigro
Anis Chaaya
Hans H. Curves
Federica Spagnoli
Issam Khalifé
Wissam Khalil
Hassan Ramez Badawi
Helene Sader
Maha Masri
Marlies Heinz
Christina Ioannou
Pierre Zalloua
Jimmy Daccache
Corinne Bonnet
Maria Bianco
Ida Oggiano
Hareth Boustany
Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat
Marie Rose Samia
Carole Saliba

From the editor
One hundred years ago, the 24-year-old
Charles Corm whose love for Lebanon mold-
ed every aspect of his character, decided to
provide a platform for all those who wanted
to express and share their views on the na-
scent state. He called this platform “La Revue
Phénicienne” and the year was 1919. The date
was of paramount importance, 1919 was the
year when “Le Grand Liban” was declared.
Corm saw with this declaration a new and
bright dawn for a free Lebanon, just liberat-
ed from 400 years of Ottoman domination. A
Lebanon that met the ideals and aspirations of
Corm and an entire class of his contemporar-
ies who shared his humanist vision.
The name “Revue Phénicienne” was also as
important. Corm wanted to revive Lebanon’s
most cherished heritage, that of the Phoeni-
cians. For Corm, the Phoenician culture was
one of openness, peace and prosperity, that
he himself epitomized. In the 1919’s Revue
Phénicienne, Corm and others expressed ideas
about all aspects of Lebanese culture of the
time and many were enthusiastic patriots who
dreamt of a bright future for Lebanon that was
recovering from the crippling Great Famine.
Corm wanted to remind his fellow country-
men, as they were turning a new page, of their
rich history at the most crucial time. He want-
ed to show them that Lebanon has the fun-
damentals and the talent necessary to spring
back into life by bringing together many lumi-
naries of his time to write about the country’s
past glories and future aspirations.
This 100-year anniversary volume of “La
Revue Phénicienne” is exclusively dedicated
to commemorating the Phoenician culture in
Lebanon as a recognition for Charles Corm’s
passion for Lebanon’s heritage. A passion that
is still certainly shared by many in Lebanon
and elsewhere. This book brings together, as
Corm would have dreamt it, many Phoenician
scholars from around the world. The work
presented in this centenary volume highlights,
using several perspectives and many lan-
guages, the rich, magnanimous, versatile and
beautiful contributions of the Phoenicians. It
is the rst in a series of volumes focusing on
Lebanon. Successive volumes will explore the
Phoenician settlements across the Mediter-
ranean world, carrying the torch of faith and
hope that Charles Corm lit in 1919.
Pierre Zalloua

v
Note liminaire ..........................................................................................................................ix
David et Hiram Corm
Préface .......................................................................................................................................x
Sarkis Khoury
Introduction | Charles Corm, la Revue Phénicienne et le Grand-Liban : une approche subjective
de deux centenaires ................................................................................................................... xi
Roland Tomb
Thème I: Les Connes de la Civilization Phénicienne au Levant
[The Boundaries of the Phoenician Civilization in the Levant]
Il y a 34 siècles, le Liban dans un papyrus égyptien ..................................................................2
Nicolas Grimal
L’histoire d’Arwad au Ier millénaire avant notre ère .................................................................. 4
Josette Elayi
L’arbre qui cache la forêt : la Phénicie du Sud au Ier millénaire avant notre ère .....................11
Maroun Khreich
The Phoenicians: Stratigraphy of ceramics through archaeology ............................................28
Francisco J. Núñez
Byblos, royaume de la culture et du commerce ....................................................................... 43
Marc Abou-Abdallah
Phoenician Culture and Heritage .............................................................................................50
Lorenzo Nigro
Thème II: Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
[The Latest Archeological Discoveries]
Tell Arqa, une cité de la Phénicie ............................................................................................. 54
Anis Chaaya
Byblos, an Ancient Capital of the Levant ................................................................................61
Lorenzo Nigro
Marked Stones at the Western Gate of Iron Age II-III Beirut, (BEY 032) .............................. 75
Hans H. Curvers
Khaldeh, the necropolis of an uncovered Phoenician city of the Iron Age ..............................85
Federica Spagnoli
Sarepta (Sarafand), an industrial coastal city ...........................................................................89
Federica Spagnoli
Table des matières

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
vi
Sarepta (Sarafand), une ville phénicienne vouée à l’oubli, entre histoire et traditions ...........94
Issam Khalifé
Les récentes découvertes archéologiques dans la région du Chouf au Mont-Liban ..............111
Wissam Khalil
Oumm el-Amed – Naqoura ....................................................................................................121
Hassan Ramez Badawi
Les vestiges phéniciens de Tell el-Burak ............................................................................... 133
Helene Sader
Sidon et les fouilles archéologiques .......................................................................................146
Maha Masri
Kamid el-Loz – a short story! ................................................................................................ 154
Marlies Heinz
Cyprus, another island, another world of the Mediterranean Sea .......................................... 159
Christina Ioannou
Thème III: Epigraphie
[Epigraphy]
The First Alphabet ..................................................................................................................168
Pierre Zalloua
Le panthéon phénicien de Chypre ..........................................................................................174
Jimmy Daccache
Thème IV: Religion
[Religion]
Les Phéniciens et la religion ..................................................................................................188
Corinne Bonnet, Maria Bianco
Le sanctuaire phénicien de Kharayeb dans l’arrière-pays de Tyr ...........................................201
Ida Oggiano, Wissam Khalil
Le monothéisme des Cananéens-Phéniciens .........................................................................209
Hareth Boustany
Thème V: Sciences
[Sciences]
The Phoenicians and their DNA ............................................................................................222
Pierre Zalloua
Phoenicians and their natural resources ................................................................................. 228
Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat, Marie Rose Samia, Carole Saliba

vii
Il y a juste cent ans, à la veille de la procla-
mation du Grand-Liban en septembre 1920,
paraissait à Beyrouth le premier numéro de la
première publication francophone du Proche-
Orient, intitulée La Revue Phénicienne.
Charles Corm, un jeune Libanais âgé de 26
ans à peine en était à la fois le propriétaire, le
directeur et le principal éditorialiste.
Cette revue avait rassemblé à l’époque
une pléthore de personnalités de lettres, de
juristes, de scientiques, des hauts fonction-
naires et des hommes d’affaires venus de tous
les horizons et qui exprimaient leur exaltation
patriotique et leur espoir en un pays démocra-
tique indépendant et souverain.
Aujourd’hui en 2020, nous célébrons la
Déclaration du Grand-Liban de 1920, tom-
bé entretemps dans une grande déchéance
politico-économique, et qui passe par une
crise existentielle qui menace de saper ces
fondements. Mais nous tenons également
par ce numéro spécial, consacré exclusive-
ment au monde phénicien, à commémorer le
centenaire de la Revue Phénicienne. Et cela,
dans la même tradition de ceux qui s’y ex-
primaient jadis, en publiant les contributions
d’une collection d’érudits contemporains
surtout focalisés sur le rayonnement phéni-
cien avec l’espoir d’une renaissance du Li-
ban pour le siècle à venir.
David et Hiram Corm
Note liminaire

viii
Préface
Enraciné dans une terre orgueilleuse, le
pays des Cèdres a perpétuellement résisté au
vent des conquêtes, en assimilant les diverses
civilisations qui se sont succédé sur son terri-
toire engendrant un patrimoine culturel riche
et diversié, tout en offrant l’alphabet phéni-
cien à l’humanité.
Depuis l’Antiquité, son chemin fut parse-
mé par des épisodes tragiques qui ont marqué
son paisible visage par des rides et des stig-
mates.
Le peuple libanais ne s’est jamais résigné
face aux obstacles ; au contraire, il a toujours
tiré prot des catastrophes, en sortant vain-
queur et anobli après chaque épreuve. Ain-
si, les désastres causés par les épidémies et
la grande famine, qui ont dévasté le Liban
durant la Première Guerre mondiale, ont té-
moigné de sa vitalité et de sa ténacité. De
plus, ils ont ouvert un nouveau chapitre dans
l’Histoire tourmentée de ce pays, rédigé par
les prestigieuses plumes des grands intellec-
tuels tel Charles Corm, fondateur de la Re-
vue Phénicienne en 1919. Ces derniers ont
joué un rôle primordial dans la naissance du
Grand-Liban le 1er septembre 1920, et par
la suite dans le développement du système
administratif, nancier, judiciaire et sécuri-
taire.
En revanche, la préservation du patri-
moine culturel de ce pays fut conée au ser-
vice des antiquités qui vit le jour en 1921,
et qui constituera, après l’Indépendance, le
noyau de la Direction Générale des Antiquités
(DGA) relevant actuellement du ministère de
la Culture.
Depuis un siècle, la DGA maintient un en-
gagement ferme dans la sauvegarde et la ges-
tion de notre héritage culturel an de garantir
sa transmission aux générations futures.
Cependant, et en dépit de toutes les mesures
prises pour la protection de notre patrimoine,
la monstrueuse explosion, qui a ravagé le port
de Beyrouth le 4 août 2020, a endommagé le
tissu urbain historique, social et culturel dans
les quartiers sinistrés. Ainsi, le Liban célèbre
son premier centenaire en reétant l’image
d’une capitale dégurée et accablée par des
enjeux économiques et politiques, favorisant
la récession et l’émigration.
Dans les périodes les plus cruciales de
son histoire, le dé pour le Liban fut toujours
d’être un lieu de rencontre entre l’Orient et
l’Occident, un havre de communication et de
tolérance, de spiritualité et de modernité.
Face à cet avenir incertain, le peuple liba-
nais est invité, encore une fois, à prouver sa
résilience, sa capacité à surmonter les crises,
à combattre le chaos, bâtir, recréer, préserver,
et reconstruire le pays des cèdres, an de se
hisser à la hauteur de nos ancêtres qui nous
ont légué un pays tissé par les malheurs et les
sacrices.
Un grand hommage est dédié à l’honorable
Revue Phénicienne qui, cent ans après sa fon-
dation, continue à relater l’histoire sublime
d’un pays dont le destin est de survivre à ses
peines à l’image d’Adonis, et de renaître de
ses cendres tel le légendaire Phoenix.
Sarkis Khoury
Directeur Générale des Antiquités

Thème II
Les Dernières Découvertes
Achéologiques
§
[The Latest Archeological Discoveries]

Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
75
The title of this essay connects to the con-
clusions of several publications and disserta-
tions published in the last decades on the ac-
tivities in the gates of Levantine Iron Age II
and III sites1,2. Four grooved stones found in
BEY 032 at the western edge of the Ancient
Tell, the location of a western gate, would t
cultic and ritual activities performed at the
gates of Iron Age III Beirut. The question is:
can a study of their context shed some light
on these activities in the western gate of Iron
Age Beirut?
The context of four stones marked with
grooves, in a bench at the base of a wall in
BEY 032, needs a closer look. The stones are
associated with a sequence that started with
the construction of a stone pavement in front
of a wall with integrated pivot stone. This
conguration has gradually convinced us of
the presence of a western gate complex. Suc-
cessive analyses have resulted in an assumed
layout consisting of a lower gate and its outer
plaza, a ramp, a storage complex and a higher
gate3,4. An additional southern gate complex
was excavated in BEY 0205,6. The Iron Age
II-III fortications of Beirut are assumed to
have consisted of an enclosure wall, several
glacis and two gates connecting the mound to
the lower town4,5,7,8.
The boundaries of Beirut have been dened
and reinterpreted on the basis of archeologi-
cal discoveries and experiences. Architectur-
al remains set the physical boundaries, their
contemporaries experienced space and set
intangible boundaries, while those who study
Beirut’s archeology and history try to recon-
struct past activities, boundaries and transi-
tions. In the years of the early French Mandate
Robert du Mesnil du Buisson surveyed the re-
mains of the city walls, the same walls had
been surveyed in 18419. The urban plans of
the 19th and 20th century were about to change
the face of Beirut al-Qadimah10, the appoint-
ment of du Mesnil du Buisson as a military
surveyor was an external event that contribut-
ed to our insights into the history of Beirut11.
It took several decades before more re-
mains of ancient boundaries were discov-
ered12,13. In 1993 Leila Badre was the rst to
expose the ancient core of Beirut as part of the
reconstruction of the city after the Taif agree-
ment (1989) set the condition for the end of
the civil war. Other archeologists participated
in this opportunity to investigate the Ancient
Tell4,5,6,7,8,14. The excavations in 1982 had been
a prelude to this phase15,16.
The oldest gate and enclosure wall are sit-
uated in BEY 003, the excavator dated the
construction to the Middle Bronze Age7. The
eastern end of the wall abuts the bedrock in
BEY 0138. Two fragments of the enclosure
wall exposed in BEY 020 are linked to the
wall and gate in BEY 003, but not specical-
ly dated5. The pottery of the site includes a
few Early Bronze sherds, no Middle Bronze
sherds17. Francisco Nunez studied the pottery
and claims a time range of the pottery between
Late Bronze Age and Iron Age18. A date of the
enclosure wall and gate in the Late Bronze
Age seems most likely4.
Marked Stones at the Western Gate
of Iron Age II-III Beirut, (BEY 032)
Hans H. Curvers, Archaeologist, Archeological Heritage Management, BCC Archeology Project

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
76
Ancient Gate Traditions
A Spartan tradition illustrates the physical
and virtual importance of gates. Upon return-
ing to their hometowns the winners of the
Panhellenic games did not enter their towns
through the existing gates but via a temporary
gap in the town wall. After entry this tempo-
rary entrance was repaired, as if nothing had
happened. All this to keep the good fortune the
victors brought into their towns retained by
removing ‘all traces of the passage through
which they entered’. Whether the victor left
the city through the regular gate was ‘imma-
terial’19.
Stefania Mazzoni summarizes the status of
the gates in her essay on the city and its gates
in the rst millennium of northern Syria as
“a sacred area where rites are performed for
the gods who protect the city (…) The gate-
way represents the magic border between wild
nature and the city and passing through it is,
like hunting, a transgression to be propitiat-
ed by ritual offerings. The entrance to the city
comes under the care of the gods and is visu-
ally celebrated by means of rituals performed
by the king and his family and attendants for
the care of the city. The king celebrating the
rituals acts as a tutelary god, as the founder
of the dynasty and the city. In the Syrian tradi-
tion the king in fact acts as a judge seated at
the gate” 2,20,21.
She observes a gradual development from
Iron Age I to the later centuries of the rst half
of the rst millennium BCE. In the Iron Age I
period ‘The gate was a place of passage and a
border; it was a sacred area where rites were
performed; the decoration aimed consequent-
ly at protection and blessing’20. In the Iron
Age II period ‘The progressive enclosure of
the city in a fortied centre and the hierarchi-
cal seclusion of its units were all matched by
a gate, which gradually was converted into
a place for performing rituals, processions,
parades. In this function, the gate merged into
a metaphor for the city being its celebratory
façade’20.
Among the ingredients of some magical
rituals in Mesopotamia the dust of the gate
is required or the gate is the place outside of
which items used in rituals have to be bur-
ied22,23. Frans Wiggermann discusses quite ex-
tensively the apotropaic and protective spirits
active in and around gates2,24.
Nataly May studied the city gate in a larger
perspective aiming to trace patterns, similari-
ties and differences per period and by region.
She concludes that the city gates were a place
of judgment, execution, and public displays
in ancient Western Asia. Other functions she
listed are: a sacred or cultic space, a place for
installation of royal monuments, a place of
military or ritual procession, a place of public
appearance of the king, a place of public as-
semblies, a market place, and a place of con-
trol23.
In 2003 De Geus noted that ‘By under-
standing the gate complex, consisting of two
gates with an open space between them, as one
unit, archaeologists nowadays interpret such
a gate complex as the largest public building
of an Iron Age town’25. The gates represent the
center of social, economic and administrative
matters25.
David Ilan compared the gate complex-
es of Dan and et-Tell/Bethsaida and com-
pared them with the northern Syrian gates at
Carchemish and Tell Halaf. He recognized a
northern inuence in the constructions and
concluded ‘that they were commissioned by
a central authority with a base in the north:
Aram Damascus, under the reign of Hazael,
ca. 840-830 BCE’26.
It seems appropriate to conclude this small
survey of archaeological literature on the
gates with Victor Matthews’ perspective ‘The
gate was the tie that bound the average citizen
to the operations of his government and of the

Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
77
temple. And it was the symbol of the continuity
of law and social stability’27.
Reliefs in the gates of cities in northern
Syria depict cultic rituals, hunting scenes
and gods aiming to impress those who pass
through the gates. The choice of images and
narratives contributed to the identity of the au-
thorities of the city. In Beirut apparently no in-
dication for rituals, reliefs or judicial sessions
have been found, neither in the ruins of the
southern gate, nor in the remains of the west-
ern gate, its ramp leading up to a supposed
main gate and the ruins of a storage facility.
However, the ndings of three marked stones
may change our perspective for Beirut.
Beirut may have been a port city under the
tutelage of the king of Sidon, ceramics man-
ufactured at workshops within the realm of
Sidon seem to conrm this political situation.
The clay composition of the human gurines
found in Beirut also reveals that a high per-
centage of the gurines were of non-local,
Sidon-realm manufacture.
The Assyrian kings, and after them the
kings of Babylon and Persia, subjected, some-
times destroyed, and in general dominated the
peoples and states of the Levant5. To protect
their interest they allowed local rulers to build
fortications and gates for protection, but at
the same time to express their own power and
prestige. The Phoenician cities in the Eastern
Mediterranean must have negotiated their po-
sition within this political context. Their mar-
itime connections contributed to their strength
within the various empires, Assyrian, Babylo-
nian and Persian.
Southern Gate of Beirut
In 1994 the Iron Age glacis and fragments
of the (Late) Bronze Age enclosure wall were
exposed in BEY 003, BEY 013 and BEY 020.
In 1997, the lower part of the glacis was in-
vestigated, as part of an infrastructure project
to relocate the track of Cadmus Street and to
protect the Iron Age glacis6. A cantilevered
retaining wall was designed to separate the
road and its infrastructure from the classied
ruins.
To nd the appropriate alignment for the
footing of the retaining wall the extent of the
Figure 1. The marked stones in situ against the retaining
wall (right) and west of the northern gate jamb (bottom).
Figure 2. Southern gate of Iron Age II-III Beirut and plan (6, Figure 2,
6; work in progress with Angus Kennedy for Beirut Heritage Trail).

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
78
glacis and its associated features had to be
traced (BEY 078),28. The balks of BEY 020
were removed and the lower limits of the
glacis were exposed by a combination of me-
chanical and manual excavation.
At the base of the glacis stone slabs of 2.5
m length formed a ight of stairs (Figures
1-2)6. A gate-chamber protected these stairs.
The inner jamb of the gate-chamber consisted
of big hewn ashlars. The top of this northern
wall of the gate-chamber was found ush with
the surface --the stone cladding-- of the gla-
cis. The southern wall of the gate chamber and
the northern wall of the tower were probably
taken down for the construction of the low-
er (later) glacis, covering the remains of the
truncated tower.
The excavators assume a ramp existed
outside the gate-chamber, leading down to
a landing at 5 m above sea level. In the Per-
sian period a retaining wall, at the base of the
glacis, protected the ramp and landing. Other
observations suggest that earlier parts of the
gate constructions may still exist, covered by
stretches of the glacis6. The pottery is dated to
the Iron Age III period.
Western Gate of Beirut
Andrew Jamieson analyzed the pottery of
the earliest two phases of the site. His Period
1 ceramic assemblage was found atop the lat-
est glacis and between the two glacis3 (Figure
529).
The sherds of the Period 2 material were
retrieved from deposits above the stone pave-
ment of a ramp and associated with a retain-
ing wall and a possible northwestern jamb of
a gate29.
The presence of this lower gate became
more evident in 1999 during the cleaning and
conservation project that the DGA commis-
sioned to a team of conservation architects
(Michel Daoud, Ousama Kalab and Raf
Gergijan under the direction of Yasmine Ma-
karoun).
Jamieson dates the Period 1 ceramics to the
Iron Age II period, whereas he has suggested
an Iron Age III date for the Period 2 assem-
blage.
The Period 2 retaining wall cuts through
Glacis 1 and the retaining wall is associat-
ed with the stone-paved ramp3. The stone
Figure 5. West section (77.5/002-006): Iron Age I-III retaining wall, pavement, bench(es) and Hellenistic
retaining wall.

Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
79
surface of the lowest glacis (I) descended at
an angle of 30 degrees towards an elevation
of 3.50 m above sea level3. We assume that
the lower courses of Glacis I descended ver-
tically towards bedrock 4(Figure 2; Glacis 1
and Glacis 2). A clear relation between the
retaining wall and Glacis II has not been ob-
served. The retaining wall is of a later date,
the wall retained accumulated layers of soil on
top of the latest stone surface of the sequence
of glacis. At one spot the excavators observed
that the retaining wall cut through Glacis I,
suggesting that the construction of the retain-
ing wall and Glacis II were contemporary.
The wall perpendicular to the retaining
wall is the only evidence for the presence of
a gate (Figure 4). A later foundation touched
upon the perpendicular wall and obliterated
the southern end of the wall but left a slab
with two depressions in situ.
The opposite part of the lower gate con-
struction is missing due to the construction
of a Roman building. The northern face of its
wall had a water-proong plaster at the high-
er level. South of the wall several other walls
with associated oors were found3.
It is possible that remains belonging to the
supposed lower gate were found in the exca-
vated site south of BEY 032. The publication
of the results of this site, BEY 184, will pro-
vide more insight. For now we assume the ex-
istence of a southern jamb or more likely a
tower. The latter would t the Beirut building
tradition. In BEY 020 a gate jamb in the north
and a tower in the south created a passage of
ca. 90 cm with a northern jamb.
In BEY 032, we assume that the passage is
more than 3.4 m wide, allowing carts to move
up and down the ramp. The people, animals,
carts and goods using the lower entrance
could reach the high mound through a main
gate. The construction of the 14 m wide moat
around the Crusader castle demolished the
central, main gate of the Iron Age II-III for-
tication4,5,7. The ramp may also have given
access to the ‘Casemate Wall Building’ which
was ‘probably used as a ware house’ in BEY
0037 (Figure 40 a, b). This building construct-
ed atop the Iron II glacis is dated to the ‘mid-
dle of the 7th c. BCE7 although based on the
evidence in BEY 032 a date in the Iron Age III
period seems more likely4,29.
Figure 4. Marked Stones in context of Iron Age II-III lower western gate (BEY 032).

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
80
Finally we need to address the complex
stratigraphy of both the southern and west-
ern gate. The absence of the upper gates does
not contribute to a good understanding. At the
southern gate a truncated gate-chamber with
its curtailed north jamb and northern wall is
anked by a tower at the southern side, a stair-
way led through the gate-chamber to a land-
ing (Figure 2). Another stairway in an almost
straight angle led to the top of the truncated
glacis. The gate in the supposed enclosure
wall is missing. The excavator has attempt-
ed to describe the various elements and con-
cludes that the gate in various layouts was in
use during the Iron Age II-III period6.
At the western gate the situation is even
more dramatic (Figure 3). Of the lower gate
only the northern jamb and pivot stone are
preserved, the opposite side of the gate (jamb
or tower) is missing. From the lower gate a
ramp leads upwards, but is interrupted after 14
m. In the ‘upper zone’ (BEY 003) is the ‘ware
house’ in which the excavators found one of
the room lled with over 30 storage vessels7
(Figure 40a, b). The remains of the ramp do
not reach the ‘ware house’ as the building it-
self is also truncated at the side where ramp
and ‘ware house’ should meet. The upper or
main gate is missing due to the construction
of a Crusader period moat. Closer inspection
of the exposed features in BEY 003 revealed
a fragment of a horizontal, rather worn pave-
ment, east of the rst glacis. The latter could
be a part of the plaza reached by the ramp and
connecting the main gate and ‘ware house’.
As the relation between the upper glacis
(II) and the retaining wall with lower gate and
ramp in BEY 032 could not be rmly estab-
lished and we have not been able to investi-
gate the deposits below the ramp, we cannot
accurately date the construction of the ramp.
The observation in one place that the retain-
ing wall cuts into Glacis I, suggests that the
construction of the lower gate and ramp could
have taken place late in Iron Age II. In BEY
020 Uwe Finkbeiner recognized that during
the Iron Age II and III period several changes
were made in the layout of the southern gate6.
We assume a similar situation at the western
gate complex.
The Marked Stones
Period 1 in BEY 032 consisted of an ac-
cumulation of four glacis stone surfaces. The
pottery collected atop the lowest and between
the other surfaces has been dated to the Iron II
period29,30.
In BEY 032 a stone-paved ramp and a cross
wall with pivot stone were associated with the
retaining wall. The deposits against the re-
taining wall and on top of the stone pavement
have been dated to Iron Age III29,30.
Closing in on the context of the stones re-
veals that they were embedded in a series of
benches constructed against the retaining wall
and cross-wall with pivot stone. The stones
belong to the construction of a bench overlay-
ing the remains of three other benches (Figure
5). The predecessors of these benches were
exposed in an excavation unit west of the four
stones. The marked stones were kept in situ
Figure 3. Western gate of Iron Age II-III Beirut, exposed features and
fragments in black, proposed features in shades of gray.

Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
81
for some time. Their recovery and the subse-
quent excavation of the strip below did reveal
stone clusters with hardly any ceramics, sug-
gesting a sequence of benches. It is unclear
whether the stones had been embedded in the
preceding benches, we can only conjecture
that they were embedded in the benches upon
their renewal or repair.
The rst bench was found ca. 40 cm above
the stone pavement of the ramp. We assume
that the ramp was allowed to be covered with
soil, pebbles and sherds throughout Period 2.
Andrew Jamieson dated all three contexts to
the Iron III/Persian period29.
The marked stones were all rounded stones
of a type commonly used in the Iron III graves
in the western cemetery8,31.
The marked stones were found at an ele-
vation of over 130 cm above the stone pave-
ment. Layers of stones and the general lack of
potsherds observed at the removal of the de-
posits below the stones suggest that it is also
possible that one bench had been constructed.
The observations west of the stones suggest
that several layers represent the gradual build-
up of layers over the stone-paved ramp (Fig-
ure 5).
It is difcult to choose between two op-
tions --one high bench or three low benches--,
either the ramp was kept free of accumulated
debris to allow passage or through time the
stones of the ramp became covered and peo-
ple moved over the ramp on pebble or trod-
den-soil surface. The presence of irregular
clusters of stones, layers of potsherds over
the ramp, suggest that the ramp was kept free
during use. The deposits we observed are part
of an accumulation due to collapse (Figure 5).
The bench or benches were situated in a
space left of the lower gate. The pavement
followed the northern retaining wall over a
length of 392 cm. The width of the space north
of the lower gate was 230 cm. The bench(es)
must have been the main feature in this area.
However, we do not know what was attached
to the retaining wall or the northern jamb.
The four stones were found in situ against
a retaining wall (Figures 1, 4, 6). Describing
the stones from west to east: the rst stone had
three vague grooves, forming a zigzag (Figure
6:1). The reverse of this stone had four paral-
lel grooves. This face had been damaged and
may therefore have been turned. The grooves
on the reverse side are deeper and seem to
have been used longer than the obverse zig-
zag grooves. We assume that the grooves
are the result of an activity that also left ne
lines inside the grooves. The stone second in
line had two parallel grooves. Unfortunately
this stone has not survived as an object and
got lost in our storage, but the two grooves
are stillrecorded in our photographs (Figure
6:2). The third stone also displays two par-
allel grooves, within a frame of two grooves
Figure 6. Marked stones and their grooved surfaces (BEY 032).

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
82
curving towards each other at the western end
(Figure 6:3). At the opposite end a perpen-
dicular groove blocks all four grooves. The
fourth stone was complete but broken and had
three parallel grooves (Figure 6:4).
Function of the Stones
In the archeological record the gate com-
plex at Dan stands out as the site with the
best preserved cultic installations32. Tina
Heattner Blomquist surveyed fourteen other
contexts with less well preserved remains2.
More recently several standing stones were
found outside a gate of Khirbat al-Mudayna
ath-Thamad, bordering the path towards the
gate. The excavators interpreted this locus as
a small place of worship, although no objects
specically referring to cult or rituals were
observed33.
William Dever and Avraham Biran present
clear images of the ‘gate shrine’ at Dan. For
our purposes the bench with ve small un-
dressed stones in upright position, construct-
ed against a wall of the inner court of the gate
complex, is the most interesting feature (34,
Figure 152, top; 32, Figures 1-9). Next to this
bench is a low stone altar and the excavators
found many ceramic vessels associated with
both the bench and the altar32. One big differ-
ence with the marked stones in the western
lower gate of Beirut is the later date of the
feature and the fact that the stones are not in
an upright position.
Tina Heattner Blomquist used Renfrew’s
list of archaeological indicators of cult 2,35,
with four main categories: focus of attention,
the presence at a boundary zone, the presence
of a deity, and participation, offering, rituals.
The list is a guide for archeologists to identi-
fy relevant material evidence. When we use
this ‘checklist’ for BEY 032 the four marked
stones outside the lower western gate seem to
have drawn attention to the people passing the
gate, and the bench with the marked stones
was situated in a boundary zone, the transition
from lower to upper town36. We have, howev-
er, no evidence of a deity, offerings and other
rituals.
Elisabeth Bloch-Smith draws attention to
the denition of Carl Graesser37 in his study
of standing stones or ‘masseboth’38. Graess-
er differentiated between standing stones ‘(to
jog one’s memory), a sacred stone (or fetish,
infused with power), and an image (which
bears a resemblance to a deity…) (...) these
three objects had distinctive but overlapping
functions.’ We, therefore, can conclude that
the BEY 032 marked stones may t into these
‘overlapping functions’.
The presence of the ‘ware house’ on the
higher part of the ramp could be an argument
for a mere economic function in the register-
ing of the goods going in or out the gate. How-
ever, we cannot exclude that the ‘ware house’
on the high mound of Beirut may be part of
a ‘sacred economy’ 39,40,41,42. The presence of
a temple on the high mound and its relation
to the feature(s) in the gate complex(es) may
have reected and contributed to the percep-
tion of the various hierarchies within the reli-
gion of Iron Age Beirut.
Conclusion
The presence of a bench (or a sequence
of benches) against a wall dening a stone-
paved area outside the lower western gate of
Iron Age II-III Beirut puts the ndings on the
long list of features associated with gates. The
evidence at the gate in Beirut is too scarce to
allow for a detailed interpretation. But with-
in the larger scope of research on activities
within gates the bench with marked stones
can contribute to our understanding of those
activities.
In Iron Age Beirut the sacred or supernat-
ural was perceived at the moment of passage
through the gate(s), whereas the practices and
rituals, possibly also administrative policies

Les Dernières Découvertes Archéologiques
83
and decisions may have enhanced the sacred-
ness of the places within the gates 43.
The context of the marked stones on the
plaza outside the lower gate combines two
basic ways in which social practices and the
experiencing of the supernatural collaborate
to create a prominent place. A tradition shared
by many inhabitants of and common for cen-
turies of gate traditions in the larger Western
Asian territories.
RefeRences
[1] BERNETT M., KEEL O., MÜNGER
S., Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die
Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 161, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),
Göttingen, 1998.
[2] HAETTNER BLOMQUIST T., Gates
and Gods. Cults in the City Gates of
Iron Age Palestine. An Investigation of
the Archaeological and Biblical Sources
(ConBOT 46, Almquiest & Wiksell
International), Stockholm, 1999.
[3] NIEUWENHUYSE O., “BEY 032”, in
H.H. CURVERS, B. STUART., The BCD
infrastructure archaeology project, 1995
(Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture
Libanaises 2), 1997, p. 178-181, p. 190-193.
[4] CURVERS H.H., STUART B., “Bey 008:
the 1994 results”, Bulletin d’Archéologie et
d’Architecture Libanaises 1, 1996, p. 228-234.
[5] FINKBEINER U., SADER H., “BEY 020
preliminary report of the excavations 1995”,
Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture
libanaises 2, 1997, p. 114-166.
[6] FINKBEINER U., “BEY 020-The Iron Age
Fortication”, ARAM Periodical 13-14,
2001-2, p. 27-36.
[7] BADRE L., “BEY 003 Preliminary Report.
Excavations of the American University
of Beirut Museum 1993–1996”, Bulletin
d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises 2,
1997, p. 6-94.
[8] KARAM N., “BEY 013 Rapport
preliminaire”, Bulletin d’Archéologie et
d’Architecture Libanaises 2, 1997, p. 95-113.
[9] DAVIE M.F., “Maps and the historical
topography of Beirut”, Berytus 35, 1987, p.
141-163.
[10] DAVIE M., NORDIGUIAN L., “L’habitat
urbain de Beyrout al Qadimat”, Berytus 35,
1987, p. 165-197.
[11] DU MESNIL DU BUISSON R., “Les
anciennes défenses de Beyrouth”, Syria 2,
1921, p. 235-257.Deuxième article, Syria 2,
p. 317-327.
[12] SAIDAH R., “Archaeology in Lebanon
1968-1969”, Berytus 18, 1969, p. 137-139.
[13] SAIDAH R., “Beirut in the Bronze Age:
the Kharji tombs”, Berytus: Archaeological
Studies 41, 1993-4, p. 137-186.
[14] CURVERS H.H., STUART B., “The
BCD infrastructure archaeology project,
1995”, Bulletin d’Archéologie et
d’Architecture Libanaises 2, 1997, p. 167-205.
[15] FOREST Ch.; FOREST J. D., “Fouilles à la
municipalité de Beyrouth (1977)”, Syria 59,
1982, p. 1-26.
[16] BADRE L., “The Historic Fabric of Beirut”,
in F. RAGETTE (ed.), Beirut of Tomorrow:
Planning for Reconstruction (American
University of Beirut), Beirut, 1983, p. 65-76.
[17] FINKBEINER U., “Pottery”, in U.
FINKBEINER, H. SADER, 1997, p. 135-137.
[18] NUNEZ F. J., “An Approach to Exchange
Relations in Iron Age Beirut: The Ceramic
Evidence”, ARAM 13-14, 2001-2, p. 37-49.
[19] VERSNEL H. S. (ed.), Triumphus: an inquiry
into the origin, development and meaning of
the Roman triumph (Brill), Leyden, 1970.
[20] MAZZONI S., “The gate and the city:
change and continuity in Syro-Hittite urban
ideology”, in G. WILHELM (ed.), Die
orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel,
Bruch: 1. Internationales Colloquium der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9.-10. Mai
1996 in Halle/Saale (SDV Saarbrucker
Druckerei und Verlag), 1997, p. 307-338.
[21] ORTHMANN W., Die aramäisch-assyrische
Stadt Guzana: ein Rückblick auf die
Ausgrabungen Max von Oppenheims in Tell
Halaf (Saarbrücker Drückerei und Verlag),
Vol. 15, 2002.
[22] MANOR D. W., “Gates and gods: high
places in the gates”, Stone-Campbell Journal
2.2, 1999, p. 236-43.

LA REVUE PHÉNICIENNE
84
[23] MAY N. N., “Gates and their functions in
Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel”, in N.N.
MAY, U. STEINERT (ed.), The fabric of
cities: aspects of urbanism, urban topography
and society in Mesopotamia. Greece and
Rome Cities (Brill), Leiden, 2014, p. 77-121.
[24] WIGGERMANN F.A.M., “Mesopotamian
protective spirits: the ritual texts” (Cuneiform
Monographs 1), Groningen: STYX & PP
Publications, 1992.
[25] DE GEUS C.H.J., “Towns in ancient Israel
and in the southern Levant”, Palaestina
Antiqua 10,Peeters Publishers, Leuven, 2003.
[26] ILAN D., “Iron Age II et-Tell/Bethsaida and
Dan: a Tale of Two Gates”, in F. STRIKERT,
R. FREUND (ed.), A Festschrift in Honor of
Rami Arav: “And They Came to Bethsaida…”
(Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 2019, p.
112-132.
[27] MATTHEWS V.H., “Entrance ways and
threshing Floors: Legally Signicant Sites
in the Ancient Near east”, Fides et historia
19.3, 1987, p. 25-40.
[28] CURVERS H.H., STUART B., “The BCD
Archaeology Project, 1996-99”, Bulletin
d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises
3, 1998-9, p. 13-30.
[29] JAMIESON A.S., “The Iron Age pottery
from Tell Beirut 1995”, in C. SAGONA
(ed.), Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic
world: Collected Essays (Peeters), Leuven,
2011, p. 7-276.
[30] JAMIESON A.S., “Bey 032”, in H.H
CURVERS, B. STUART, The BCD
infrastructure archaeology project, 1995
(Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture
Libanaises 2), 1997, p. 182-183.
[31] STUART B., “Cemeteries in Beirut. ARAM
Conference, Beirut: History and Archaeology,
Conference April 13 - 15, 1999”, Aram 13-
14, 2001-2, p. 87-112.
[32] BIRAN A., “Tel Dan: Biblical Texts and
Archaeological Data”, in M.D COOGAN
(ed.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays
on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of
Philip J. King (KY: Westminster/ John Knox
Press), Louisville, 1994, p. 1-17.
[33] DAVIAU P.M. et al., “Excavation and Survey
at Khirbat al-Mudayna and its Surroundings:
Preliminary Report of the 2001, 2004 and
2005 Seasons”, Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 50, 2006, p. 249-84.
[34] DEVER W.G., Did God have a Wife?
(Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient
Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing),
2005.
[35] RENFREW C., “The archaeology of
religion”, in C. RENFREW (ed.), The ancient
mind: elements of cognitive archaeology
(Cambridge University Press), 1994, p. 47-54.
[36] NORBERG-SCHULZ C., Existence, space
& architecture (Praeger), New York, 1971.
[37] GRAESSER C.F., “Standing stones in ancient
Palestine”, The Biblical Archaeologist 35.2,
1972, p. 33-63.
[38] BLOCH-SMITH E., “Will the real massebot
please stand up: Cases of real and mistakenly
identied standing stones in ancient
Israel”, in G.M. BECKMAN, T.J. LEWIS
(ed.), Text, artifact, and image: Revealing
ancient Israelite religion (Brown Judaic
Studies 346), Providence, Rhode Island,
2006, p. 64-79.
[39] RENFREW C., “Production and consumption
in a sacred economy: the material correlates
of high devotional expression at Chaco
Canyon”, American Antiquity 66.1, 2001, p.
14-25.
[40] BOER R., The sacred economy of Ancient
Israel (KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press),
Louisville, 2015.
[41] ALTMANN P., Economics in Persian-
Period Biblical Texts: Their Interactions
with Economic Developments in the Persian
Period and Earlier Biblical Traditions (FAT
1/109, Mohr Siebeck), Tübingen, 2016.
[42] DIAKONOFF I.M., “The rural community
in the ancient Near East”, Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient/
Journal de l’histoire économique et sociale
de l’Orient 18, 1975, p. 121-133.
[43] CHIDESTER D., “The poetics and
politics of sacred space: Towards a critical
phenomenology of religion”, in A.T.
TYMIENIECKA (ed.), From the sacred
to the divine: a new phenomenological
approach, Analecta Husserliana, Vol 43,
1994, p. 211-231.

 C partakes of a long
tradition of Mediterranean cos-
mopolitanism that crossed millen-
nia, a Mediterraneism with an Eastern soul,
(what Gibbon called an “Oriental”sensibil-
ity).ey wrote in the cultural lingua fran-
ca of the most sophisticated population at
the time, that is, in succession Greek, Latin
(for a brief period), Aramaic-Syriac, Ara-
bic, French —and some have started doing
so in English. ey were, even to their de-
tractors, such as Gibbon who complained
of their “soness”, the most sophisticated
people on the planet. Writing in French did
not mean to feed Gallocentric nationalism
of Barrès or Maurras, but to connect to
worldly Russian, Greek, Ottoman, or Tus-
can minds.
For Corm, self-identifying as Phoeni-
cian (that is, a sea-oriented Canaanite) is,
principally, to commit to tolerance: to be
multicultural, localist, urban, and focused
on trading merchandise and ideas instead
of arrows, reballs and bullets. is brand
of urban non-aggressive localism is re-
markably t for the modern world, aer
the waves of repressive monocultural and
militaristic nationalism that have wrecked
Europe and former Ottoman dominions in
recent history.
– Nassim Nicolas Taleb