The Northern Levant: A Window into the Middle to Late Bronze Ages

[This is a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Fall 2023 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bibliographical material will be posted under Research on this site.]

The Middle Bronze Age

As was the case all across the northern hemisphere (Rieh 2017: 245), the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant is a transition from drought and famine to security, as those affected adapted to and overcame the circumstances of the drying phase. The Southern Levantine proto-city-state systems had collapsed during Early Bronze IV, and the region of the Southern Levant was sparsely populated (Mazar 1990: 151). Rather than urban centers, the Southern Levantine populace mainly consisted of mobile pastoralists and village dwellers (Mazar 1990: 151) living in either small, undefended settlements or transitory encampments, a move in the south that actually benefitted the wool industry of the north (Schloen 2017: 64).

The Early Bronze IV period in the north was quite different. Likely due to the relative protection of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains, during EB IV, walled cities along the coast survived (Charaf 2013: 434), and in fact the region went through a second type of urban revolution (Greenberg 2013: 275).

Whereas a second urban revolution occurred in the Southern Levant only at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Dever 2006: 153), some urban centers (Alkhalid 2015: 16) in the Northern Levant continued in development from EB IV, the northern coast generally being rather unfazed by the collapse (Charaf 2013: 434), having their own internal agricultural and pastoral production systems well established (Greenberg 2013: 275).

Second Urbanism.

Though many of the northern coastal cities survived EB IV, for example Tell Arqa showing no stratigraphical differences between EB IV and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Charaf 2013: 436), other cities faced crises (Morr and Pernot 2011: 2613). The Eblaite trade emporia came to an end along with the city’s destruction ca. 2250 B.C. (Matthiae 1978: 2), but social complexity and urbanism continue (Höflmayer 2017: 4). Ebla was reduced from its former status, but it was rebuilt and continued into the Middle Bronze Age (Milano 1995: 1228), and although no longer the capital of the region, Ebla played a key role during this period (Casana 2017: 167-68). In fact, early Middle Bronze remains show a large-scale reorganization of the city, including the construction of new temples and palaces and a sense of continuity in the material culture from before the destruction (Alkhalid 2015: 15).

Other sites also show changes. The number and size of sites in the plain of Akkar increased, previously uninhabited swamps now showing signs of settlement (Charaf 2013: 437). Additionally, rather large areas of Arqa, Sidon, and Tell el-Ghassil appear to have been converted into cemeteries early in the Middle Bronze, followed by an uninterrupted period of urban development (Charaf 2013: 437), an urban development that no doubt influenced the re-urbanization of the rest of the Levant (Akar 2009: 1).

It was around this time that the Northern and Southern Levant became greatly intertwined to the point that both together made up the greater Canaanite culture, a concept well documented in literary texts (Dever 1987: 150). The concept of a ‘Canaanite’ culture was developed in Lebanon and most likely carried from Byblos to Egypt via trade; from Egypt, the land between Egypt and Byblos naturally became a part of Canaan (Tammuz 2001: 533-534). This was not a unified region (Dever 1987: 165), as no single Canaanite city held power over all of the rest (Tammuz 2001: 532), but something of a unified culture where concepts were diffused from the north into the south and vice versa.

Innovation.

One of those concepts that rapidly spread from the north to the south was the use of tin-bronze, where up to ten percent tin was alloyed with copper, the result of which gave a sturdy yet malleable metal that could be cast into new forms and even hold a sharper edge (Dever 1987: 160). New weapons now included the fenestrated axe and socketed spearheads, weapons displaying different shapes and new hafting systems (Morr and Pernot 2011: 2613).

This is, perhaps, the most important innovation during this period; while tin-bronze is known minimally from earlier periods, only here is it so widespread (Kan-Cipor-Meron 2018: 2), having been introduced in a rather large scale (Morr and Pernot 2011: 2613). Before the Middle Bronze Age, the copper alloys used consisted mainly of copper and arsenic (Shalev 2009: 77), the arsenic copper having superior qualities when compared to copper itself (Dever 1987: 160).

Additionally, ceramic technology advanced during the Middle Bronze Age. The rather primitive slow-wheel had been utilized throughout the Early Bronze Age, but during the Middle Bronze, the fast-wheel appears to have been introduced, creating a new repertoire of advanced and sophisticated pottery (Dever 1987: 161). The introduction of the fast wheel, lessening the time it takes to create pottery, ultimately lead to flourishing local industries, including working with gypsum and the development of bone and ivory inlays (Sparks 1991: 45).

These new industries motivated the development of trade networks across the region (Kan-Cipor-Meron 2018: 2), including both tin and ceramics (Dever 1987: 161). Interestingly, a representation of a sailboat at Tell el-Dab’a and bronze models of ships from Byblos confirm that this trade occurred over sea as well as over land (Marcus 2002: 244), a concept assumed due to Cypriot and Aegean-influenced ceramics in the Levant (Casana 2017: 162).

The Late Bronze Age

Many sites were destroyed, abandoned, or reduced in size, but at certain sites, such as Sidon and Arqa, there was a rather smooth transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Northern Levant (Charaf 2013: 437-38). In many of the sites retained in the Late Bronze Age, the shift from Middle to Late Bronze Age is somewhat tricky, particularly as the ceramic assemblage in the Orontes Valley and eastern plains was dominated by plain wares (Casana 2017: 162), pottery that had nothing particularly special about it to differentiate between the two periods. The coastal sites showed more distinct ceramics; as noted above, these coastal sites were influenced by both Cyprus and the Aegean, containing wares that can be more easily dated, but finding Cypriot or Aegean-influenced wares inland is quite rare (Casana 2017: 162).

Confrontations

Perhaps a characterization of the Late Bronze Age in the northern Levant is that of multiple confrontations. Throughout the entirety of the Late Bronze Age, conflicts occurred in the region, particularly between the Hittites, Mittanians, Egyptians, and Assyrians (Matthiae 2015: 5). As a matter of fact, it might be easiest to link the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the region with the Hittite expansion around 1600 B.C. (Herrmann et al. 2023: 4), making the Late Bronze Age more of a period of internationalism (Skourtanioti et al. 2020: 1158).

Between ca. 1550 and 1350 B.C., two main powers, Mitanni and Egypt, sought to hold control over the Levantine kingdoms, Egypt specifically attempting to repel Mitanni from the Levant; Thutmose III defeated a coalition of Levantine kings at the Battle of Megiddo ca. 1457 B.C, and later crossed the Euphrates, erecting a stele on the banks of the river claiming dominance over the Levant (Pfälzner 2012: 771), a sort of warning sign should Mitanni attempt to venture further. The Battle of Megiddo set the stage for a permanent Egyptian presence in the Levant (Spalinger 2005: 83).

A second major conflict arose between Egypt and Hattusa. Around the mid-fourteenth century B.C., the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I embarked on an expansionist policy, claiming new territories in both Anatolia and the Northern Levant (Durusu-Tanrıöver 2021: 5). Beginning after his defeat of Mitanni, the Hittites moved to conquer northern Syria, overpowering cities from Ugarit and Alalakh in the north to Qatna in the south, forcing Egyptian influence southward below the kingdom of Qadesh in Mid-Western Syria (Pfälzner 2012: 771). Of note, several cities, such as Ugarit, survived the Hittite expansion and even prospered under their control, but others, such as Qatna, were reduced in size and splendor (Casana 2017: 167-68) or simply destroyed and abandoned (Pfälzner 2012: 771).

The expanded kingdom of the Hittites was quite diverse, including Luwian, Hurrian, and other language speaking peoples, as well as differing political entities with varied beliefs and practices (Durusu-Tanrıöver 2021: 5). Frictions within the kingdom were many, and with the Ramesside armies pressing, a major battle soon took place at Qadesh (Casana 2017: 167). Information concerning the battle was recorded in the Poem of the Battle of Qadesh, located at Luxor and linked to Ramesses II where the scribe records the greatness of the king and how he routed the enemy (Wilson 1927: 271). In reality, no real winner could be determined (Pfälzner 2012: 771-72).

Sea Peoples

Perhaps the most well known conflict in the region dating to the Late Bronze Age is that of the coming Sea Peoples. In a letter to the prefect of Ugarit, the Hittite king refers to the “Shikila who live on boats,” questioning there existence in fear that they may become a threat (Demand 2011: 200). Interestingly, these boat people, some of whom had already been in the land since the fourteenth century, did become a threat as they helped Egypt in their fight against the Hittites, but with the Egyptian withdrawal from the land, they took advantage of the power vacuum in order to establish their own kingdom (Dothan 1995: 1267-68).

These “sea peoples” are somewhat of a mystery. We know from Egyptian iconography (fig. #) that they traveled by both sea and land (McCandless 2016: 236), and as early as Akhenaten, there were attacks on the Anatolian coast and in Cyprus (Demand 2011: 201). In the Northern Levant, these invaders, according to Egyptian sources, attacked and destroyed the Amurru in western Syria, establishing a base from which to launch an attack on Egypt (Pfälzner 2012: 772), their former allies.

Rather than a large, organized group of plunderers, though, the Sea Peoples were likely small but unified groups of migrants seeking shelter after being driven out of their homes due to differing crises (Pfälzner 2012: 772). Some scholars even suggest that the large, full-scale invasion of Egypt by the Sea Peoples was simply Egyptian propaganda (McCandless 2016: 35). In fact, some note that the Sea Peoples appear to have peacefully settled in the Jordan Valley as early as the 13th c. B.C.

Yet, evidences of destruction are seen all throughout the Levant (Pfälzner 2012: 772). Beyond the famous Year 8 Inscription of Ramesses III mentioning the destruction of the Amurru kingdom, quite a few coastal polities in the Northern Levant were also destroyed, including Ugarit, Gibala, Tell Kazel, and possibly even Carchemish further inland (Jung 2018: 291). It appears, then, that these Sea Peoples at least in some ways attributed to the collapse of the region (Casana 2017: 159).

After an unsuccessful attempt to move into the prosperous land of Egypt, which was seen as a military invasion by the Egyptians (McCandless 2016: 161), many of these displaced peoples found a home along the coast of the Southern Levant in what had been termed Philistia, a land which, according to Joshua, housed five ruling Philistine cities as early as the Biblical Conquest (Dothan 1995: 1269). Interestingly, these Philistines would later become a major enemy of the young state of Israel, chasing the king, Saul, into the Jordan Valley and ending his life on Mount Gilboa (Novak 2015: 181).

Collapse

The collapse of the region at the end of the Bronze Age was not an isolated event. Most major eastern Mediterranean cities in the Near East and the Aegean were either destroyed or abandoned (Drake 2012: 1862), and many central Mediterranean polities, such as those along the eastern coast of Sicily which were founded on Aegean trade, were largely abandoned (Singleton 2024: 60). More to the point, this collapse is particularly illustrated in the Northern Levant where major kingdoms, such as the Hittites, found an end (Casana 2017: 159), and in fact the Levantine political system of city-states itself appears to have crumbled, marking the end of the era (Pfälzner 2012: 772).

The end of this palatial system is directly linked to the end of the Mycenaean palatial system of which many Mediterranean coastal polities had become intertwined, from Italy to the Levant. Mycenaean models created a series of long distance trade networks consisting of multiple and often complex short distance networks with various indigenous communities participating (Knapp, Russell, and van Dommelen 2021: 93). When the Mycenaean trade empire ended, very many polities that had established themselves as these short distance, indigenous networks by trading in Mycenaean wares simply could no longer exist as their life source, Mycenae, had been uprooted. The loss of trade necessarily ended the livelihood of very, very many people, and it is likely these who caused devastation throughout the known world as they attempted to find new homes, displacing others, culminating in the above mentioned rise of the Sea Peoples. Thus, whether it was the fragility of the partial system, environmental factors, or the Sea Peoples, the Northern Levant, and in fact the entire region, collapsed (Casana 2017: 159).

Of particular interest, not all polities ended in the Northern Levant. For whatever reasons, but likely due to the isolation of the Phoenician coast, the cities of Tyre and Sidon were spared from the almost global cataclysm that occurred. Because of the insular nature of the Phoenician coast, and because of the lumber that those mountains provided, Tyre would eventually build ships and replace the lost trade networks, bringing wealth to the Phoenician coastal cities that would last until the Roman era.