Lably
Skip to content

Baalat Gebal

Tutelary goddess of Byblos

  • 13 min read
  • 3 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Roman Empire

Name and identity

The Phoenician theonym Baalat Gebal (b’lt gbl) can be translated as “Lady of Byblos”. A direct Akkadian translation, dNIN ša uruGub-la, read as Bēltu ša Gubla, occurs in the Amarna letters. Shortened variants dNIN-nu (bēletnu, “our lady”) and dNIN are also attested. The name was meant to highlight her connection to the city. It has been proposed that a male deity with a similar name, the “Lord of Byblos”, also existed, and can be identified with the figure of AN.DA.MU from the Amarna letters, but this proposal is not universally accepted. Nadav Na'aman instead suggests interpreting AN.DA.MU as a “honorific title” of Baalat Gebal herself, “the living goddess”.

In the past researchers have often attempted to prove that “Baalat Gebal” should be understood as an epithet rather than a proper name. She has been variously identified as a local form of Asherah, argued to be an appropriate tutelary goddess for a port city due to being addressed as “lady of the sea” in Ugarit, Anat (as suggested by Edward Lipiński) and especially commonly Astarte. Frank Moore Cross argued that Baalat Gebal might have been identical with Qudshu, who he identifies as an alternate name of Asherah (Elat) according to him used in Ugarit and Egypt. However, Christiane Zivie-Coche describes Qudshu as an Egyptian invention, with no forerunners in the Ancient Near East. Izak Cornelius also considers her to be a separate deity, and rejects an association between Baalat Gebal and Asherah, noting that a link to Astarte is more plausible. Evidence for the presumed identification of Baalat Gebal with Astarte is limited to three late, unprovenanced inscriptions; in one, which is bilingual, Astarte occurs in Greek and Baalat Gebal in Phoenician, which appears to indicate the former served as interpretatio graeca of the latter, while in the other two Astarte is addressed as the goddess of Byblos, though with the title rbt gbl rather than b’lt gbl. Direct evidence on the contrary comes from Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History, where Astarte and Baaltis (Baalat Gebal) are two separate goddesses, portrayed as sisters, and only the latter is linked to Byblos.

As argued recently by Anna Elise Zernecke (2013), it is not impossible that inhabitants of Byblos saw “Baalat Gebal” as a proper name, with no other “true name” designating the local goddess. She points out that in Phoenician inscriptions her name is left undivided, while a divider occurs between the two elements of the title mlk.gbl (“king of Byblos”), which she assumes indicates the former was understood as a proper name rather than a title like the latter. Zernecke’s approach has also been adopted by Michael J. Stahl in his study of the goddess (2021). It has been pointed out that most of the explicit evidence for the identification of Baalat Gebal and other deities is limited to Egyptian and Greek sources, which makes it possible that such texts constitute an example of interpretatio graeca and analogous phenomena. Frances Pinnock has suggested that the vagueness of her name might have resulted in foreign rulers from Egypt, and possibly also Ebla and elsewhere, being able to identify her as an aspect of their own deities.

Due to contacts between Byblos and Egypt, Baalat Gebal came to be identified with Hathor. Egyptians referred to the latter goddess as the “Lady of Byblos” (nbt kpn), a reflection of Baalat Gebal’s name. She could also be referred to as “Lady of Dendera who dwells in Byblos”. The oldest attestation of the connection between the two goddesses occurs in the Coffin Texts. In the relevant passage, Hathor is addressed as the “Lady of Byblos” while she is invoked as a protector of the passengers of the solar barque. This association finds parallels in instances of linking the same Egyptian goddess to various other distant areas, including Sinai, Punt, Wadi el-Hudi and Gebel el-Asr. It is possible that this phenomenon had an ideological dimension, as interpreting foreign goddess as Hathor made it possible to present payments made to local temples in areas such as Byblos and Punt, possibly made to acquire local goods, as a display of piety towards an Egyptian deity. In a text from the reign of Thutmose III, the official Minmose lists the temple of “Hathor, Lady of Byblos” among these belonging to Egyptian deities, and it is possible that the connection was reinforced by Egyptian involvement in local construction projects. No references to the connection between Baalat Gebal and Hathor postdate the New Kingdom, both due to less frequent contact with Byblos and due to the latter being partially replaced by Isis in Egyptian religion. These two Egyptian goddesses were also partially identified with each other, and there is evidence that Baalat Gebal might have been identified with Isis as well, including an inscription on a statue of Osorkon II found in Byblos, which mentions Isis, and to a reference to a connection between Isis and the city of Byblos in Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride. Marwan Kilani notes that the inhabitants of Byblos might have attempted to accommodate the changes occurring in the religion of Egypt by identifying their goddess with Isis. Depictions of Baalat Gebal from the Achaemenid period show similarity to images of “Hathor-Isis” from Egypt, which might indicate she was specifically identified with the syncretic form of these two goddesses. She was portrayed holding an Egyptian scepter and wearing a horned crown decorated with the sun disk.

Greek authors seemingly regarded Baalat Gebal as analogous to Aphrodite. Philo of Byblos instead equates her with Dione. According to Alan I. Baumgarten, due to lack of evidence it is impossible to determine what factors guided this choice. Frank Moore Cross suggested that the identification of Baalat Gebal as Dione reflected the parallel between the names Zeus and Dione and El and Elat. This has been criticized by Baumgarten, who points out the name Elat was never used to refer to Baalat Gebal, and that even if Cross’ theory was adjusted to apply to names Baalat and Baal, it would remain impossible to prove.

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Ancient history