Collected Essays, Volume 2: Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E

Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Collected Essays Volume 2 Nadav Naªama...

Author: Na'aman | Nadav

204 downloads 1743 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E.

Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Collected Essays Volume 2

Nadav Naªaman

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2005

01-FrontMatter-Naaman-vol.2 Page iv Monday, September 12, 2005 8:39 AM

ç Copyright 2005 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Typeset by Susan Efrat , Rehov Ben-Gurion 38/4 POB 5039, 70800 Gan Yavne, Israel

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Naªaman, Nadav. Ancient Israel and its neighbors : interaction and counteraction : collected essays / by Nadav Naªaman. v. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-57506-108-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Jews—History—To 70 A.D. 2. Palestine—History—To 70 A.D. 3. Jews—History—953–586 B.C. 4. Assyria—History, Military. I. Title. DS121.3.N33 2005 933—dc22 2005009376 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

Dedicated to the memory of my father Prof. Shlomo Na’aman

Contents Preface .....................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments .................................................................................................xi List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................... xiii 1. The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine........... 1 2. The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence ................................................. 25 3. Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology.......................................................................................... 40 4. Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment........................................................... 50 5. The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters............................................................................................... 65 6. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters................................................................................................... 82 7. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan.......................................................................................................... 99 8. The Canaanites and Their Land...................................................................110 9. Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan ........................................ 134 10. The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod.................................................................................................145 11. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millennium BCE............................................................................... 173 12. Yeno‘am........................................................................................................... 195 13. Rubutu/Aruboth............................................................................................ 204 14. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan .....................216 15. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age ............. 232 16. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters ......................... 242 17. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere.............................................................................................. 252 18. The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the ‘Apiru and the Shasu....... 275 19. Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt (“Rural Settlements”)................................................................................... 280 20. The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh...................................................................... 285 vii

viii

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

21. A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court........ 293 22. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) .................................................................................................... 303 23. The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History..........317 Index of Ancient Personal Names .................................................................... 393 Index of Places..................................................................................................... 398 Index of Biblical References .............................................................................. 407

Preface This volume is the second in a series of three, each containing a number of my articles that deal with particular well-defined periods and themes. The present volume focuses on the theme of the Land of Canaan in the second millennium BCE. Most of the articles deal, at least in part, with the Canaanites and their land, but a few focus entirely on the history of northern Syrian kingdoms (nos. 3, 20-21). One article deals with the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age (no. 1); two discuss themes of the early Iron Age (nos. 22-23); and the rest are devoted to problems of the Late Bronze Age, in particular, the Amarna period. The variegated themes discussed include political history, geographical history, historiography, literature, economy, society, administration, cult and religion. One article discusses in detail the conquest tradition of the Book of Joshua (no. 23), and another is devoted to the literary and topographical problems of the battle of Kishon (no. 22). Others deal with the relationship of Canaanite and biblical terms, such as Canaan and the Canaanites in the second millennium documents and the Bible, and the ancient Near Eastern Ḫabiru and biblical Hebrews (nos. 8, 17, 19). The choice of period and theme is meant to lend the collection a certain coherence. There is some overlap, because articles discuss related matters. This is due to the length of time over which the collected articles were written, as new archaeological and documentary evidence came to light and new questions arose that called for new discussions of old problems. The articles were published beginning in the mid-1970s; the earliest were written nearly thirty years ago. The question always arises, in these circumstances, of whether or not to revise the articles to take account of more recent works and the present state of knowledge. I have decided against revision, except in a few instances, and the revisions are acknowledged in the first note to a few articles (nos. 16, 21). Similarly, I did not update the bibliography either, except for a few cases in which I considered it necessary to point out a more recent innovative work on the subject under discussion. As is well known, not only the state of knowledge has changed in the last decades, but also the fundamental approach to texts, whether biblical or Near Eastern. Leaving the articles unrevised should enable readers not only to read them in the state of knowledge in which they were originally published, ix

x


but also to look into the more general developments that have taken place in the study of the ancient Near East and the Bible in recent years. All the articles in the volume were edited according to a unified style for references and bibliography. The system selected was that of Tel Aviv, so only articles previously published in this journal did not receive some modifications. In many articles, this has meant changes in the enumeration of the footnotes, because strictly bibliographical references that appeared in the original publications are now included in the text. The preparation of the book for publication was made with the generous financial support of the Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies of Tel Aviv University, and its directors, Prof. Yair Hoffman and Prof. Ziva Shamir. It remains for me to thank those who have helped me carry out the project. The initiative to collect the articles came from Dr. Oded Lipschits — my former student and now colleague — who was also instrumental in bringing current technology into this endeavor. Ms. Liat Steir undertook the task of unifying the style for references and bibliographies. Ms. Susan Efrat prepared a camera-ready version of the volume. Ms. Rachel Yurman prepared the indices. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Jim Eisenbraun for accepting the book for publication and for bringing the project to fruition. Nadav Na’aman

Tel Aviv University

Acknowledgments Thanks are due as indicated below for permission to republish the following articles: To the Council for British Research in the Levant for 1. The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Levant 26 (1994), 275–291. To the Johns Hopkins University Press for 2. The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence, in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds.), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations, Baltimore and London 2000, 125–138. To the editor of Aula Orientalis for 3. Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology, Aula Orientalis 14 (1996), 251–257. To the editors of Revue d’Assyriologie for 4. Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment, Revue d’Assyriologie 90 (1996), 145–159. To the editors of Ugarit-Forschungen for 5. The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters, Ugarit- Forschungen 11 (1979), 673–684; 6. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz ‘Apiru Letters, Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988), 179–194; 8. The Canaanites and Their Land, Ugarit-Forschungen 26 (1994), 397–418; 10. The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997), pp. 599–626; 11. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E., Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992), 275–291; 13. Rubutu/Aruboth, Ugarit-Forschungen 32 (2000), 373–383; and 16. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna letters, Ugarit-Forschungen 22 (1990), 247– 255. To Eisenbrauns Publishers for 7. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to Canaan, in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Atlanta 1990, 397–405. To the Publication Office of the American Schools of Oriental Research Publications for 9. Four Notes on the Size of the Land of Canaan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313 (1999), 31–37. To the editor of Tel Aviv for 12. Yeno‘am, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), 168–177. To Israel Exploration Society for 14. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan, Israel Exploration Journal 31 (1981), 172–185; and 23. The xi

xii


“Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History, in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem 1994, 218–281. To Peeters Publishers for 15. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age, in M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.), Leuven 1988, 177–185. To the University of Chicago Press for 17. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), 271–286; and 20. The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (1980), 209–214. To the managing editor of Göttinger Miszellen for 18. The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the Apiru and the Shosu, Göttinger Miszellen 57 (1982), 27–33. To the editor of Zeitschrift für Althebraistik for 19. Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt (“Rural Settlements”), Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4 (1991), 72–75. To the editor of Oriens Antiquus for 21. A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court, Oriens Antiquus 19 (1980), 107–116. To the editor of Vetus Testamentum for 22. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5), Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990), 423– 436.

List of Abbreviations JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Kbo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1916–. Leipzig and Berlin KUB Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1912–. Berlin MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft MVAG Mitteilungen der VorderasiatischÄgyptischen Gesellschaft New Enc Arch. Exc. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem 1993 OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Or Orientalia PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, continuation of PEFQSt PJb Palästinajahrbuch QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale RB Revue Biblique RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie VT Vetus Testamentum WO Die Welt des Orients ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAS Zeitschrift für die ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature ANET Pritchard, J. B. ed. 1955. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton. AnOr Analecta Orientalia AnSt Anatolian Studies AOAT Alte Orient und Altes Testament ARM Archives Royales de Mari. ARMT Archives Royales de Mari Transcrites et Traduites ArOr Archiv Orientálni BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society; continuation of BJPES BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BMB Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth CAD Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago CAH Cambridge Ancient History EI Eretz-Israel Enc. Miqr. Encyclopaedia Miqra’it (Encyclopaedia Biblica). Jerusalem (Hebrew) ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

xiii

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine1 Introduction In Palestine, the transition from the Middle Bronze II to the Late Bronze Age was marked by a severe settlement crisis. All urban centers were destroyed, some were abandoned and resettled only much later, and others suffered serious regression. The destruction was particularly severe in the hill country. Of 120 Middle Bronze II settlements in the northern section of the north-central hill country, only about twenty-one survived into Late Bronze II (“hill country of Manasseh”; Zertal 1986:199–203; 1990:59–60; Bunimovitz 1989:112–117). Five LB II settlements, among eighty-seven MB II sites, were discovered in the southern section of the north-central hill country (“hill of Ephraim”; Finkelstein 1988:119–204; 1990:109–110; Bunimovitz 1989:117– 118). One settlement (Jerusalem) out of forty-two remained in the central section of the hill country (“hill of Benjamin”; Bunimovitz 1989:119; Finkelstein 1993). Three settlements, compared with eight, were discovered in the south hill country (“hill of Judah”; Kochavi 1972:20, 83; Bunimovitz 1989:120; Ofer 1990:196–198). Altogether, about thirty Late Bronze II sites, out of 257 Middle Bronze II sites, have been recorded in the central hill country. Eighteen LB II sites, compared with fifty-six MB II, were discovered in the Lower Galilee (Broshi and Gophna 1986:75–76, 86; Bunimovitz 1989:106–109; Gal 1990:29– 56, 101–104). Four or five LB II settlements, compared with twelve MB II, were located in the Upper Galilee (Broshi and Gophna 1986:75; Bunimovitz 1989: 105–106). There was rural decline in the Lebanese Beqa‘ between the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze (Marfoe 1979, 12). Throughout the country there is a dramatic decrease in the number of settlements during the transition from the Middle Bronze II to Late Bronze II. Even in the coastal areas and the northern plains, where destruction was relatively less severe than in the other parts of the country, about 60–65% of the sites were abandoned (Gonen 1984; Bunimovitz 1989:81–86). The num1. Reprinted with permission. Levant 26 (1994), 175–187.

1

2


ber of settlements in certain parts of the country (the coast, the Shephelah and the northern plains) approached the Middle Bronze II level only in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries BCE (Gonen 1984:66–69; Bunimovitz 1989:86– 89). In other areas, the process of re-settlement took much longer. All these data are an indication of the severe crisis during the transition from Middle Bronze II to Late Bronze II and the long enduring outcome of the destruction and abandonment that took place during this transitional period. The traditional explanation for the destruction and abandonment of the Middle Bronze II urban system is that it was mainly the result of the Egyptian campaigns during the early decades of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The conquest of Palestine was regarded as the continuation of the war with the Hyksos directed against their Canaanite allies, and this conquest culminated in the establishment of the Egyptian Empire in Asia under Thutmose III. Several early Eighteenth Dynasty documents referring to Egyptian campaigns into Asia were thought to provide textual support for the assumption of a gradual conquest. This hypothesis was formulated long before the overall picture of destruction of the Middle Bronze II urban system was fully understood. At that time, scholars were aware only of the destruction and temporary abandonment of several cities. The Late Bronze Age city-state system, as reflected in both documents and archaeological research, was regarded by scholars as the direct continuation of the urban culture of the Middle Bronze II. The Egyptians (and, in particular, Ahmose), who are known to have been the lords of Canaan from the time of Thutmose III onward, therefore were the natural candidates for the destructions (Albright 1949:96; Wright 1961:91; Kenyon 1973:555–56; Aharoni 1978:115). However, Kenyon (1973:531) was well aware of the precarious stratigraphic situation and wrote: “There are no certain criteria for connecting the stratigraphical sequence in most sites with the reconquest of Palestine by the Egyptian rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” The many new excavations and the extensive surveys of the hill country have demonstrated the true nature of the MB/LB transition, but the traditional explanation for the transition was uncritically sustained, and the Egyptian military campaigns of the early Eighteenth Dynasty were regarded as the major (or even exclusive) cause for the utter destruction of hundreds of settlements throughout Palestine in the sixteenth-early fifteenth centuries BCE (Weinstein 1981:1–12; 1991; Gonen 1984:61, 70; Dever 1985:69–74; 1987:173–75; 1990). Recently, several scholars have criticized this interpretation: Redford (1973:224–25; 1979a) and Hoffmeier (1989; 1990; 1991) demonstrated that there is not enough textual support for the assumption of widespread devastation of cities and villages all over Palestine by the Egyptians. Kempinski (1983:222– 23) suggested that several Palestinian sites had already been destroyed at the

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine

3

end of the seventeenth century BCE. Seger (1975) suggested that the conclusion of the Middle Bronze II was gradual and extended over nearly a century. Recently, Bunimovitz (1989:11–34) systematically examined forty-two Middle Bronze II sites all over the country, suggesting that they were destroyed over a period of more than a century and that the settlement crisis was a continuous, locally differentiated phenomenon. He attributed some of the destruction to internal Canaanite conflicts, also emphasizing the possibility of an economic crisis resulting from the growth of the Middle Bronze population in the hill country (Bunimovitz 1989:34–40; 1990:264–66, 272–73). The concept of a long process involving a combination of factors (internal strife, conflicts between neighboring states, the Egyptian campaigns, economic crisis, etc.) increasingly is gaining a foothold among historians and archaeologists of Palestine (Bienkowski 1986:127–28; Hoffmeier 1989:190; 1990:87; 1991:122; Finkelstein 1993); due to the flexibility, this concept offers a much better explanation for the MB/LB transition than the one-sided “Egyptian hypothesis.” Missing in these new suggestions is a convincing answer to the intriguing question of how the MB II urban system began to break up. What happened in the course of the sixteenth century BCE to start the chain of events at the end of which so many large and small sites were destroyed and abandoned? The main advantage of the “Egyptian hypothesis” — simplistic and one-sided as it might be — is that it supplies some explanation both for the beginning of the process (Ahmose’s struggle with the Asiatics), and for its progress and historical results: the establishment of the empire under Thutmose III (see Dever 1990). Inner strife, inter-state conflicts and economic crises are not documented and present only a very general explanation for the destruction of so many sites. A better solution should be sought for the deep urban crisis at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. In what follows I will dismiss the “Egyptian hypothesis” and, instead, suggest a different reconstruction for the course of events. I will try to demonstrate that there is a coherent historical-archaeological explanation for the destructive nature of the MB/LB transition in the sixteenth century BCE.

The Hurrian Infiltration into the Land of Canaan The earliest indication of the presence of “northern” (i.e., Hurrian and other elements of northern origin) people in the Land of Canaan came from several cuneiform tablets unearthed in Palestine (Anbar and Na’aman 1986– 1987:7–11). A few names appear on an envelope fragment from Gezer (Shaffer 1970), one on a letter from Shechem (Birashena) (Shaffer 1988), one on an account tablet from Hebron (Intu) and probably one on a legal document from Hazor (Ḫanuta). The overall number of names from seventeenth century Palestine is too small for any definite conclusion, but it is clear that the ma-

4


jority of names were West Semitic (Amorite) and that elements of northern origin are nevertheless detected in all four Palestinian cities in which cuneiform tablets were uncovered. We may conclude that the infiltration by northern groups into Canaan had begun by the late-Middle Bronze IIB and that the newcomers mingled with the autochthonous Semitic population (Anbar and Na’aman 1986–1987:10-11). In this context, one may further mention the group of metal objects from Shiloh, which have clear northern associations (Finkelstein and Brandl 1985). The archaeological conclusion that “This should apparently be connected with the presence of northern groups in Canaan in that period” (ibid., 25) agrees nicely with the documentary evidence. In the sixteenth century BCE, there is a gap in documentation, and when the mist lifts once more in the second half of the fifteenth century BCE, we find that the number of people of northern origin in the population of Palestine has increased significantly. About one-third of the personal names in the Taanach tablets are of northern, mainly Hurrian origin (Gustavs 1927; 1928; Albright 1944; Landsberger 1954:59 nn. 123–124; Glock 1971; Na’aman 1988a). The presence of a distinctive Hurrian elements in the neighborhood of Taanach is indicated by the name of the addressee of letter TT 1 (Eḫli-Teshub) and by the appearance of Hurrian words in letters sent to the king of Taanach (zarninu, uppašiannu (Na’aman 1988a:179). A document from Shechem attributed to the same period also indicates an appreciable presence of migrants of northern origin (Böhl 1926:322–25; Albright 1942:29–30; Landsberger 1954: 59 n. 123). It is hardly accidental that, from the time of Thutmose III onward, the Egyptians applied the tern Ḫ3rw (i.e., Ḫurru) to the inhabitants of SyriaPalestine and that Ḫ3rw as a geographical name is known since the time of Thutmose IV (Gardiner 1947:180–187; Helck 1971:269–270; Vernus 1978). The penetration of large numbers of Hurrians into Canaan was dominant enough to justify the designation “Ḫurru” for the land and its inhabitants. The term Ḫ3rw is sometimes used quite vaguely, particularly after the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty. As a geographical name, Ḫ3rw usually designated the Asiatic territory under Egyptian control, i.e., the Land of Canaan, and was parallel to the older geographical names of Djahi and Retenu. The thousands of Ḫurru-people mentioned in the booty list of Amenophis II apparently were captured in Canaan (Spalinger 1983). Thutmose IV mentioned Ḫurru-people who were captured at Gezer and settled in Egypt. These and other examples make it clear that the people of Canaan were sometimes regarded by the Egyptians as “Hurrians” (see Edel 1953:172–173). The best-known examples of individuals bearing “northern” names in the Land of Canaan are the rulers mentioned in the Amarna letters. The northern origin of many of these names has been recognized since the beginning


5

on research of the Amarna tablets, and this origina provided the foundation for the well-known hypothesis of the Hyksos invasion and the establishment of their Asiatic empire. It is now clear that the entry of these northern immigrants into Syria and Canaan had nothing to do with the Hyksos (Landsberger 1954:51–61; Alt 1959:72–85; Redford 1970:1–17). Many of the names that appear in the Amarna tablets have been regarded, for many years, as derived from an Indo-Aryan language (O’Callaghan 1948:59–63; Albright 1975:108– 109; Hess 1989). By linguistic and cultural analysis, however, it has been demonstrated that there are relatively few Indo-Aryan names in ancient Near Eastern documents and that various names regarded in the past as IndoAryan are either Hurrian or of unknown northern origin (Kammenhuber 1968; 1977; Diakonoff 1972; Mayrhofer 1974). There are a few distinct IndoAryan linguistic elements among the names of rulers of Canaan in the Amarna Age (Mayrhofer 1966:29–30; 1974:29), but Indo-Aryan groups played no part in the history of Syria and Canaan. Splinter-groups speaking an Indo-Aryan language may have played a certain role in the prehistory of the kingdom of Mitanni, but these were quickly absorbed into the Hurrian-speaking society of northern Mesopotamia (Wilhelm 1982:23–27). In the following discussion, I will not use the term Indo-Aryan and refer instead to “northern” names in general (i.e., Hurrian, Indo-Aryan, etc.), as against the term West Semitic, reserved for group of names derived from the local Canaanite language. There are relatively few names of ordinary citizens in the Amarna letters, most of them located on the coast of Lebanon. Names of rulers, on the other hand, are known from all parts of Canaan and, by an analysis of this corpus of names, we may draw a general picture of the linguistic makeup of Canaan in the Amarna Age. Helck (1971:477–482) and Hess (1989) systematically correlated names with locations and language families, and, with the help of Moran’s analytical repertoire of personal names in the Amarna letters (1987: 573–590), we can accurately delineate the linguistic distributional map of rulers’ names in the Amarna Age. To introduce the discussion, we may note that within the royal houses of the Amarna kingdoms there is a remarkable consistency in the selection of names according to language family. This may be demonstrated by an analysis of the fourteen cities in which there are at least two rulers known by name. Of these cities, the names of rulers of ten cities clearly belong to the same language family: Ugarit — Niqmaddu, Ammishtamru Amurru — ‘Abdi-Ashirta, Aziru (Aziru’s three brothers — Pu-Ba‘lu, Ba‘luya and Bet-Ili — also bore West Semitic names). Byblos — Rib-Adda, Ili-rapiḫ

6


Beirut — Yapaḫ-Hadda, Ammunira Sidon — Yab/p[. . .], Zimredda Acco — Surata, Satatna Nuḫašše — Taku, Teshup-nirari Damascus — Ḫa[š?-x-]-tar, Shutarna, Biryawaza Gezer — Milkilu, Yapaḫu, Ba‘lu-shipṭi2 Lachish — Zimredda, Shipṭi-Ba‘lu The city of Ḫasi may fall within this group if one follows my suggestion (Na’aman 1988b:189 n. 41) to derive the ruler’s name AN-da-a-a from a “northern” language (for other suggestions, see Moran 1987:580; Hess 1990:212). The name of Ḫasi’s other ruler is Mayarzana, clearly a “northern” name. The name of the ruler of Shamḫuna is Shum-Adda son of Balume, both names being West-Semitic. Shum-Adda, however also mentions the name of one of his ancestors, Kusuna, possibly derived from a non-Semitic language (EA 224:17). Ayyab of Ashtaroth apparently was succeeded by Biridashwa (Na’aman 1988b:181–182), the two names belonging to two different language families.3 Further, one may note that the ruler of Taanach in the Amarna Age was Yashdata, whereas one of his predecessor was Rewashur, the addressee of TT 1–4, the names of both rulers being non-Semitic. Zalaya of Damascus, who is the addressee of one of the Kāmid el-Lōz letters, like his predecessors to the throne of Damascus has a non-Semitic name (Na’aman 1988b). We may conclude that the tradition of assigning certain names to offspring of the royal house was very much alive in the Amarna Age, the family language possibly indicating the origins of the family reigning in the respective kingdoms. The following may be said of the distribution of names according to region and family language: 1. Rulers on the Lebanese coast, from Ugarit in the north down to Tyre in the south, had exclusively West Semitic names, with only one exception (Miya of Arashni). 2. The identity of the ruler whose name is written dIM.DI.KUD (EA 292–293) and his relation to the addressee of letter EA 294 is debated among scholars. See Moran 1987:522–523, with earlier literature in n. 1. 3. I have suggested (Na’aman 1979:676–682) that ‘Abdi-Ashtarti who sent letters EA 63– 65 and 335 was the heir of Shuwardata of Gath. Provided that the association of the two rulers is correct, then we have another case of a ruler bearing a West Semitic name who succeeded a ruler with a “northern” name.


7

2. The rulers of the Acco plain (Surata, Satatna, Endaruta) were known by names of “northern” origins. 3. “Northern” names predominate in the cities of the Lebanese Beqa‘ and further north (Na’aman 1988b:188). A clear exception is the Egyptian name Amanḫatpi (of Tushulti). ‘Abdi-risha (of Enishazi) is probably West Semitic,4 but the name of another ruler, Shatiya, is “northern” (Na’aman 1988b:188 n. 42). The name Bieri (of Ḫashabu) may possibly be compared with biblical names like b’ry, b’r’, b’rh, but is more likely to be a hypocoristic form of the noun/adjective bira/biriya common in “northern” names (Gelb, Purves and MacRae 1943:245; Landsberger 1954:125 n. 294, 130; Gröndahl 1967:298). 4. All names in the area east of the Anti-Lebanon are “northern” (Ḫaš-xtar, Shutarna, Biryawaza, Arzawiya, Tewati). 5. Four out of five names in the Bashan area (Biridashwa, Artamanya, Amayashe, Rusmanya) are of “northern” origin, the only exception being Ayyab, which is a West Semitic name. The sixth name, ÌR-LUGAL (of Shasḫimi), preferably should be regarded as a “northern” name and be transcribed ÌRsharri, rather than ‘Abdi-Milki (as it was transcribed by Moran 1987:440, 574). 6. ‘Abdi-Tirshi of Hazor and Mut-Baḫlu of Piḫilu bore West Semitic names. Seven out of nine names of north Palestinian-south Syrian rulers whose place of residence is either missing or unknown are “northern” (Teḫu-Teshup, Bayawa, Ḫibiya, Baduzana, Shutarna [of Mushiḫuna], Zitriyara and Wiktasu). The names Dagan-takala and Balu-mer are West Semitic. 7. In the Jezreel Valley. the rulers of the western towns (Megiddo and Taanach) had “northern” names, but the ruler of Shamḫuna, which lies east of the Kishon river, had a West Semitic name. The neighboring western ruler of Ginti-kirmil had a Hurrian name (Tagi). Two other neighboring rulers, whose residence is unknown, had West Semitic names (Shipṭuriṣa, Bayadi). The main kingdom in the plain of Sharon was Gath-padalla and, although the decipherment of its ruler’s name (dIM.UR.SAG) is uncertain (Rainey 1968:11; Na’aman 1975:34, 14* n. 25; Moran 1987:475), it may well represent a West Semitic name. 8. In the hill country, Lab‘ayu of Shechem had a West Semitic name. Ba‘lumeḫir, possibly his neighbor, also had a West Semitic name. Another possible neighbor, Dashru, bore a name of unknown origin. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem had a Hurrian name. 9. Almost all the south Palestinian rulers had West Semitic names. The only exceptions are Shuwardata of Gath and Shubandu. Whether the name 4. Moran (1987:574, 593) regarded it as a West Semitic name (with a unique divine name Rishu). Hess suggested (1989, 212 n. 22) combining the second element with the West Semitic r’š “head.”

8


S/Zurashar is West Semitic (see Moran 1987:585) or “northern” is uncertain. It is not clear whether Turbazu, who bore a non-Semitic name, was a citystate ruler or a local prince (EA 288:41; 335:10). We may conclude that there is a marked predominance of “northern” names on both sides of the Syro-African rift, i.e., in the Bashan and the AntiLebanon areas to the east, as well as in the Lebanese Beqa‘ and south of it, including the western Jezreel Valley and the Acco plain, to the west. The names of most of the inland southern Syrian and northern Palestinian rulers are of “northern” origin, with relatively few exceptions (notably the rulers of Hazor, Piḫilu and Ayyab of Ashtaroth). On the coast of Lebanon and in southern Palestine, on the other hand, there is a great majority of West Semitic names, with only few exceptions (notably Shuwardata of Gath and Shubandu). The names in the central hill country are mixed, but the number of names known from this area is too small for “statistics.” Few other West Semitic names appear in the Sharon plain and the Lower Galilee. Are there signs of solidarity among rulers of common background? This question has no unambiguous answer. A remarkable case that may support the hypothesis of solidarity is the coalition that was formed among the rulers of the Acco plain (Surata and Endaruta), the Shephelah (Shuwardata) and the southern hill country (‘Abdi-Ḫeba), all having distinctive “northern” names, against the “‘Apiru” (EA 366) (Thureau-Dangin 1922:98–99; Alt 1924:26–30; Na’aman 1975:120–121). Lab’ayu and his sons made an alliance with the rulers of Piḫilu and Gezer, who both had West Semitic names, and their adversaries were the rulers of Megiddo, Taanach and Acco, all having “northern” names. Moreover, the latter three rulers took part in the operation in the course of which Lab’ayu was captured and killed (EA 245). On the other hand, pressure by ‘Abdi-Ḫeba in the Shephelah region was opposed by a coalition that included Milkilu of Gezer, Tagu of Ginti-kirmil and Shuwardata of Gath (EA 289– 290). Tagu of Ginti-kirmil, incidentally, was also the father-in-law of Milkilu of Gezer (EA 249). We may conclude that a common background may have played some role in political relations, but other factors doubtlessly played no lesser role in the complicated political situation of the Amarna Age. Is there archaeological evidence for the entry of these northern groups into Canaan in the sixteenth century BCE? The problem of “pots and people” (Kramer 1977) was much discussed recently, and it is clear that there are no firm rules for their inter-relation: In some cases immigrants can easily be detected by their material culture (e.g., the Khirbet Kerak-people, the Hyksos, the Philistines), and in others there are only scanty archaeological traces of the new-comers (e.g., the Assyrian merchants in Cappadocia, the Assyrian exiles of the eighth-seventh centuries BCE). Archaeological evidence may


9

corroborate the presence of such groups, but lack of positive evidence is not enough to deny migration to a certain place. The best evidence that I can offer comes from Late Bronze I tombs at Megiddo and Taanach. Gonen (1987:89) has indicated several unusually rich tombs from Megiddo, suggesting that these were the burial places of the town nobility. Similar rich tombs were uncovered at Taanach, and at both sites the rich offerings were deposited not long after extensive destruction of the cities, when settlement at the sites had significantly decreased (Bunimovitz 1989:158). Differences in burial customs are sometimes an indication of the arrival of new population groups, and I would suggest (with all due caution) that the tombs unearthed at Megiddo and Taanach may belong to the new northern nobility who conquered and destroyed the two cities, subsequently becoming lords of the rebuilt towns.

The Migration of Northern Groups into the Land of Canaan — The Broader Context To understand the southward migration of these northern groups, we must look more closely at the history of northern Syria and Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period. A network of kingdoms whose rulers were called by West Semitic names spread in the Mari Age from Babylonia along the Fertile Crescent as far as southern Canaan. The population of northern Mesopotamia and Syro-Canaan consisted mainly of West-Semitic; Hurrianspeaking groups at that time were situated in Upper Habor, eastern Tigris and eastern Anatolia (Kammenhuber 1977; Kupper 1978; Wilhelm 1982:17– 21). Hurrian groups later migrated into northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria, until at the time of Level VII at Alalakh about half of all attested names in the local archive were Hurrian (Draffkorn[-Kilmer] 1959:17, 117– 18; Gelb 1961:39). Hurrian elements also appear at Alalakh in the pantheon and cult terminology (Draffkorn[-Kilmer] 1959; Haas and Wilhelm 1974:138– 139). Ḫalab (Aleppo) was the most powerful kingdom of northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia in the Late Old Babylonian period; Ḫalab’s population, religion and cult were apparently similar to Alalakh. Members of the royal house of Ḫalab and Alalakh bore West Semitic names, as the society and culture in both kingdoms were an Amorite-Hurrian mixture. Two powerful Hurrian kingdoms, Urshum and Ḫashum, emerged in eastern Anatolia. A bloc of Hurrian or Amorite-Hurrian kingdoms, thus, was established west of the Euphrates, and small Hurrian kingdoms flourished in Upper Mesopotamia (Kupper 1973:36–39; Astour 1978:5–9; Wilhelm 1982:21–23). The campaigns of Ḫattushili I and Murshili I into eastern Anatolia and northern Syria brought in their wake profound changes in the political situation. The Hittite rulers conquered and annexed the Hurrian kingdoms of

10


eastern Anatolia, destroyed the great kingdom of Ḫalab and attacked the Hurrian principalities east of the Euphrates. Bloody wars of succession weakened the Hittite kingdom and prevented the emergence of a major power in the regions conquered by Ḫattushili and Murshili. Several kingdoms in the area regained their independence, with wars of attrition between the Hittites and rulers of eastern Anatolia continuing for a long time (Gurney 1973a:239– 251; 1973b:659–668; Wilhelm 1982:28–32, with earlier literature; Kempinski 1983:14–57). It is my opinion that these long and devastating wars during the Old Hittite period provided the impetus for the large-scale migration that pushed northern population groups into many parts of the Near East, reaching as far as the Land of Canaan. In the region of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria, many cities were destroyed and large population groups were uprooted. In their search for subsistence, they spread to neighboring regions, despoiling their cities and villages and forcing other groups to move on — in what may be called a “domino effect.” Small northern groups may have migrated as far as Egypt, as indicated by a few names in Egyptian documents of the Second Intermediate period (notably Śmqn) (Helck 1971:100–101). The large-scale migration and nomadization of large groups of population inter alia led to the cessation of writing in many parts of the ancient Near East, thus, starting the period called by Landsberger (1954) “ein dunkles Zeitalter.” When did it start, and how long did it last? The observant reader may have noticed that in the above discussion no dates have been suggested for the chain of events; this is due to the present state of chronological research of the Old Babylonian period. On the one hand, Huber (1982; 1987) has demonstrated that the low and middle chronologies are wrong and that a strong scientific case can be make out in favor of the high chronology, according to which Ammiṣaduqa year 1 = 1701. The campaigns of Hattushili and Murshili, accordingly, were conducted in the first half of the seventeenth century BCE. On the other hand, Egyptologists now agree that the most likely date for the accession of Thutmose III is 1479 (Hornung 1987:27–32; Kitchen 1987:40–41; 1989:155, 158) and that the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty is either 1550 or 1539 (Hornung 1964:14–23; 1987:31–32; Kitchen 1987:42–43, 52; 1989:158). The date of Shuppiluliuma’s accession was brought forward to the 1340s (Boese and Wilhelm 1987:79–95, 117); likewise, the beginning of the Alalakh IV archive was advanced to the second half of the fifteenth century BCE (Kühne 1982:210–224; Stein 1989:56–60). It is difficult to accommodate the high dates of the Old Babylonian period with the low dates of the Late Bronze Age, or to account for the gap in documentation of about 200 years between the archives of Alalakh levels VII and IV and for the historical and archaeological synchronisms among the various parts of the ancient


11

Near East. The problems involved with the assumed long “dark age” must be investigated in detail before any conclusions are drawn. In the present state of research, it is better to avoid exact dating and to speak in general chronological terms on the date of arrival of these northern groups into the Land of Canaan. The historical process of the emergence and consolidation of the kingdom of Mitanni in northern Mesopotamia is not my concern here (see Klengel 1978; Wilhelm 1982:33–40). The profound changes in the political set-up of northern and central Syria took place during the transition from the Old Babylonian to the Late Bronze Age. The great kingdom of Ḫalab in northern Syria and the kingdom of Qatna in central Syria were replaced by a network of new kingdoms. In the 15th century, the area of northern Syria was divided among the kingdoms of Alalakh, Niya, Nuḫašše and Ḫalab, when this last lost its hegemonic standing in the area. Qadesh was the most important kingdom in central Syria, and other prominent kingdoms were Tunip and Qatna (Klengel 1969:18–177; Astour 1978, 8–22, with earlier literature). The majority of the population in these kingdoms, as well as their rulers and the elite class, were Hurrians. The Alalakh tablets indicate that profound changes were taking place in the structure of society, institutions and economy during the transition from Level VII to Level IV. A military elite known by the name Mariannu appeared in the regions where the majority of inhabitants was Hurrian; many of the Mariannu acquired horses and chariots and occupied central positions in the army. There were other important changes in religion, cultic practices and culture. The few documents known to us from these kingdoms indicate that the native language of the scribes was Hurrian. This large bloc of Hurrian kingdoms had a clear “northern” orientation and played an important role in the Great Powers’ struggle over the hegemony in Syria during the fifteenth-fourteenth centuries BCE. It is against this background that we can better appreciate the presence of northern groups in the interior of southern Syria and northern Palestine. It has already been noted that the Canaanite rulers called by “northern” names were located on both sides of the Syro-African rift, whereas the coast of Lebanon and southern Palestine remained almost entirely West Semitic. A similar situation is known from northern and central Syria, where the Hurrian states were located on both sides of the Syro-African rift, whereas the coast south of Alalakh remained mainly Semitic. Thus, we may suggest that the Hurrian migration mainly flowed along the Syro-African rift, i.e., on both sides of the Orontes river and the Lebanese Beqa‘ as far as the Upper Jordan Valley. The new migrants reached the Acco plain by the road running from the Jordan Valley through the plains of Jezreel and Beth-shean, reaching the central hill country by way of the middle Jordan Valley, and this

12


would clarify the distribution of “northern” names in the plain of Acco, in the western Jezreel Valley and in the central hill country. Other groups reached the areas of Damascus and Bashan. We may conclude that the distribution of “northern” names, as is evident from both the Amarna archive and from the tablets of Taanach and Shechem, is explained fully by the “Syro-African rift migration” hypothesis. Two additional migrations into Palestine from Anatolia via the Orontes and the Jordan Valley may be recalled in this context, both having a significant impact on the urban life of the land. The first is that of the Khirbet Kerak-people, whose origins are in Transcaucasia and east Anatolia (Mellart 1966:173–189; Yakar 1990, with earlier literature in 99* n. 1). There is little doubt that this was a massive migration, in the course of which northern people brought architecture, pottery and various other artifacts to the ‘Amqi, the Orontes valley, the Golan heights and northern Palestine. Although the effect of the migration on Palestine remains unknown, due to the total lack of documentation from this period, one could assume that the flourishing of urban culture in the Gilead, the Golan heights and northern Palestine in the Early Bronze III may be attributed to these northern people, who possibly took the leadership and became the ruling class in the major cities; they may well have established a powerful central kingdom in these regions with its capital located at Beth Yerah. The second migration is that of the “Sea Peoples” and other groups of northern origin. The “Sea Peoples” reached Palestine by the coastal roads and by sea, and the other groups — notably including the Hittites, Hivites, Girgashites and Jebusites — migrated along the Syro-African rift (destroying cities and villages on their way) and reached Palestine via the Jordan Valley (Mendenhall 1974:142–163; Görg 1976; Mazar 1981:76–79). Subsequently, they settled in the mountainous parts of the land (and the Jezreel Valley? see Beck 1990:442–444) and were gradually absorbed into the local Semitic population of the hill country. Examining the longue durée discloses that the massive migration of the sixteenth century along the Syro-African rift to Palestine was not an isolated phenomenon and that, at various historical periods, other groups did the same, settling sites along this natural “channel” of migration, sometimes establishing kingdoms and gaining power over vast areas. As suggested above, the migration of northern elements to Canaan already had begun in the seventeenth century BCE. This coincides well with the assumed date of the beginning of the wars between the Hittites and the Hurrian states in eastern Anatolia and northern Syria. Therefore, one may assume that the migration was at first slow and gradual and that the earlier newcomers were at least partly absorbed within the autochthonous population of Canaan. Larger northern groups who entered the country later on,


13

probably in the course of the sixteenth century BCE, became major factors in internal relations; this is suggested in the discussion below.

Egypt and the Middle Bronze II/Late Bronze I Transition I believe the penetration of northern groups into various parts of Palestine started the historical process that brought about the destruction of the Middle Bronze II urban civilization. Middle Bronze IIB Palestine must have been a highly organized political and economic system, with a developed network of supply; with symbiotic relations between the urban and rural populations, including neighboring pastoral groups; with intensive exploitation of agricultural and grazing lands; and with a developed organization of commerce. Such a highly organized system was dependent on the network of roads and paths that connected the cities and villages, and the disruption of traffic over a protracted time span must have brought serious consequences. There are enough analogies from ancient Near Eastern documents to illustrate the dynamics of the process: such was the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur, as a result of the penetration of the Amorites (Jacobsen 1953; Buccellati 1966; Wilcke 1969; 1970; Gadd 1971:609–617, 625–628), or the decline of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms, due to the penetration of the Arameans in the eleventh-tenth century BCE (Brinkman 1968:387–389; Postgate 1974:233–240; Wiseman 1975:460–471; Neumann and Parpola 1987). Other internal factors, such as the rivalry between neighboring city-states or between mountain and lowland dwellers, may well have contributed to the destruction. The process must have been long, probably starting with the gradual devastation and abandonment of the countryside and continuing with the destruction of numerous urban centers. What is the relationship between the Egyptian campaigns into Asia of the early eighteenth Dynasty and the destruction of towns by northern groups? The problem of the Egyptian campaigns was recently discussed in great detail (Redford 1979a; Hoffmeier 1989; 1990; 1991; Dever 1990; Weinstein 1991) and will be discussed here only briefly. We may assume that Ahmose’s first Asiatic campaign was conducted when the urban system in Palestine was already suffering from decline — when parts of the countryside were deserted and numerous towns had been sacked and/or destroyed. The Egyptian conquest of Sharuhen (better Shir/lḥon; see Albright 1924:134– 135; Na’aman 1980:147–148),5 the capital of the major Canaanite kingdom

5. Tell el-‘Ajjul is located far west of the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah and should be dissociated from biblical Sharuhen/Shilhim, which was included in the town list of Simeon/Judah (Josh. 15:32; 19:6) (Na’aman 1980:147–148). It is preferable to adopt

14


of southern Canaan in the seventeenth-sixteenth centuries (today Tell el‘Ajjul)6 (Kempinski 1974; 1983:146–148), significantly weakened the system of Canaanite cities. Until then, southern Palestine had remained outside the flow of migrants of northern origin and was able to maintain its integrity and prosperity. The destruction of the city of Shir/lḥon and other neighboring towns and villages deprived the Palestinian urban system of its richest and most prosperous entity. However, it would be a mistake to assume that, following the conquest of Shir/lḥon, the Egyptians conquered the rest of Palestine (Weinstein 1981, 1– 12; 1991; Dever 1985:71–74, 79–80; 1987:173–175; 1990). There is no evidence to support such a claim, and all written sources indicate instead that the pharaohs of the early Eighteenth Dynasty concentrated their efforts on the coast of Lebanon and in the interior of Syria. The a-priori assumption that the Egyptian conquest of the Lebanese coast and of the Syrian interior necessarily implied an early conquest of Palestine (Dever 1990, 76–79) ignores the historical lesson that must be learned from the longue durée. During the time of the third Dynasty, Egypt established close relations with Byblos and until the end of the Old Kingdom maintained a permanent presence on the coast of Lebanon. Close economic (and political?) relations also existed between Egypt and Syria (Drower and Bottéro 1971, 343– 51; Scandone-Matthiae 1982). In the time of the third-sixth Dynasties, on the other hand, Egyptian artifacts are almost non-existent in Palestine, and this indicates the severance of close relations between the two countries (Ben-Tor 1982, with earlier literature; Ben-Tor 1986). A similar pattern of relations developed in the early twelfth Dynasty: Egypt established close relations with Byblos at the beginning of the twentieth century BCE and sent expeditions to the coast of Lebanon for timber, precious metals, agricultural products and luxurious items. On certain occasions, the pharaohs also dispatched armed forces, and two military expeditions can be attributed to the first kings of the Dynasty (Farag 1980; Posener 1980). Egyptian artifacts from the time of the twelfth Dynasty, on the other hand, are very rare in Palestine. The first known Albright’s old proposal and read the name of the Canaanite city “Shir/lḥon,” thereby separating it altogether from the biblical town. 6. The Soleb, Aksha and Amarah topographical lists were recently discussed in detail by Edel (1980). Hoffmeier’s discussion of the Amarah list (1991, 119–20) should be updated in light of Edel’s work. The lists are not based on itineraries, as is evident, for example, from the mention of Ashkelon after Taanach, of Socoh before Joppa and the separate recording of Taanach and Megiddo. It is clear that Shir/lḥon is mentioned with a group of sites situated along the main road from northern Sinai to the Jezreel and the Beth-shean plains (Weinstein 1991:106); its location, however, can hardly be decided on the basis of these lists.


15

Egyptian campaign into Palestine was conducted at the time of Sesostris III, and Palestinian cities are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the late twelfth/early thirteenth Dynasties (Posener 1940; Posener, Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:540–541, 544–549, 555–558; Helck 1971:38–76). It seems that during the twelfth Dynasty, Palestine played only a secondary role in the overall Egyptian commercial and diplomatic activity in Asia (Helck 1976; Weinstein 1975; Scandone-Matthiae 1984). The Egyptian main efforts were concentrated on the coast of Lebanon and the inner Syrian interior, with Byblos serving as the point of departure for all these activities. In the time of the New Kingdom, the Egyptian kings often sailed as far as the Lebanese coast and launched campaigns from there, via the Nahr el-Kebir (Eleutheros), to the Orontes river and northward (Alt 1950; Helck 1971:137– 156). Travelling by sea, they shortened the travel time and avoided exhaustion of their forces in a long march from the Egyptian border to the battlefield in Syria. Only the occupation of a few ports along the coast was essential for these operations, and control of inner Palestine was hardly necessary. The same policy is known from the time of the Saitic (Twenty-sixth) Dynasty. The Egyptian campaigns under Psammetichus I and Necho II into northern Syria and the Euphrates were conducted by sea up to the Lebanese coast and then along the Orontes river and northward (Yoyotte 1960:372, 375); indeed there are clear indications for Egyptian domination of the Lebanese coast during the late years of Psammetichus and the early days of Necho (Spalinger 1977: 227–229, with earlier literature). Egypt may well have gained control over the coast of Palestine at that time, but it is hardly conceivable that Egypt effectively dominated the inner regions of the land (Na’aman 1991, 38–41, 51– 55, with earlier literature). Finally, in the time of the Libyan (Twenty-second) Dynasty, Egypt established close relations with Byblos and dispatched forces to the battle of Qarqar (853 BCE). An examination of the longue durée clearly indicates that only the occupation of the Lebanese coast and a few ports in Palestine was necessary for conducting campaigns into inner Syria. Moreover, in various historical situations Egypt occupied the coast of Lebanon prior to the conquest of Palestine, controlling the former area without effectively dominating the latter. We may conclude that the references to Egyptian campaigns into the coast of Lebanon and inner Syria in the early Eighteenth Dynasty and the absence of such references to Egyptian campaigns into the interior of Palestine accurately reflect the overall Egyptian activity in the Land of Canaan at that time. Egypt conquered and held Shir/lḥon (Tell el-‘Ajjul), as well as neighboring areas on the southern part of the coast, and may have conquered some other towns along that coast, but its efforts were mainly concentrated on the Lebanese coast and inner Syria. Only with the campaign of Thutmose III (c.

16


1457) was Palestine conquered and effectively controlled by the Egyptians for the first time. Thutmose III’s campaign into Canaan was conducted against a coalition of Syro-Canaanite kingdoms headed by the king of Qadesh and supported by Mitanni and her allies (Helck 1971:118–119); this coalition threatened to drive Egypt back beyond the Sinai peninsula. The antecedents to the Egyptian campaign are described in a damaged passage that was discussed several times by scholars (Redford 1979b; Murnane 1989, with earlier literature). The passage has recently been restored to read (Murnane 1989:186–188): Now for a long period of years con[ten]ti[ousness was in Asia], plundering, each man showing hostility towards his neighbour [. . .]. (But) it was in the times of others that it happened (that) the troops that were there (were) in the town of Shir/lḥon; while (the region) from Yurza to the end of the earth had fallen into rebelling against his Majesty.

In my opinion, Redford (1979b) was correct in his assumption that the anarchic conditions described in the first (damaged) part had developed in Asia and has nothing to do with the Hyksos. When reconstructed in this way, there is a direct continuity between the two past events: both refer to historical situations “there,” i.e., in Asia, where Thutmose launched his campaign, and the two-part passage fits the literary parallels suggested by scholars much better (Redford 1979b:340; Murnane 1989:186–187). The first part coincides with the days of the early Eighteenth Dynasty and, in my opinion, it refers to the anarchy caused by the destruction of cities by northern groups and the struggle for survival of the local rulers. The second part refers to the consolidation of the coalition under the hegemony of Qadesh and the efforts of the northern groups to unite their forces to defeat Egypt and drive her out of the Land of Canaan. Details of the campaign are not my concern here, but the topographical list of Thutmose III is of the utmost importance for understanding its main outlines (Aharoni 1967:143–152; Helck 1971:120–135). The sources from which the list was drawn must have been the records of the surrendered, despoiled or destroyed cities: records that were written by the scribes who accompanied the task-forces sent by the Pharaoh. It is essential to adhere to the concept of a main force under the king plus various task forces sent to different parts of the land (Kitchen 1973:442–447). The structure of the topographical list, which is made up of a short itinerary (no. 60–71) plus toponyms grouped by geographical regions (Aharoni 1967:144–145) exactly matches this concept.7 7. Redford’s suggestion (1982:56–60) that Thutmose’s topographical list was drawn from itineraries is, in my opinion, untenable. First, the suggestion is methodologically


17

Remarkable in the topographical list is the absence of cities situated in the Shephelah (with the exception of Gezer) and the central hill country. This is hardly accidental and may reflect the destruction and desolation in these areas at that time. The majority of toponyms are located in the same areas where rulers of “northern” origin were in power in the Amarna Age, and it is evident that the coalition under the leadership of Qadesh mainly included those towns in which “northern” rulers were in power. This may well explain the exclusion of the towns on the Lebanese coast, where West Semitic rulers had remained in power. The quick surrender of large parts of Canaan to the Egyptians also indicates that the area was militarily weak and not well fortified. It was a country already desolated and exhausted that Thutmose III conquered following his decisive victory at Megiddo. The Pharaoh was quick to take advantage of the situation, subjugate the land and establish the foundations for permanent Egyptian rule in the conquered area.

Conclusions The conquest of Canaan by Thutmose III came at the end of a long period during which the urban culture of Palestine had gradually crumbled. The infiltration of northern groups since the seventeenth century, and in particular during the sixteenth century BCE, was a major factor in the collapse of the Canaanite urban system. The newcomers gradually sacked and ruined towns and villages in the inner parts of Canaan, blocked the roads and disrupted trade, despoiled the crop of the fields and finally conquered and destroyed major Canaanite centers. The fall of the Hyksos Dynasty, a close ally of the south Canaanite centers of Palestine, and the conquest of the city of Shir/lḥon

problematic, because the most controversial section of the list (no. 92–101) was selected to prove the assumption. There are dozens of identifiable sites in Canaan that are included in the list, and even a superficial examination will show that they were not recorded in sequential order (as is necessary for the itinerary hypothesis). Second, no other Egyptian topographical list is drawn from an itinerary; they may reflect the principle of “main force plus flying columns” (Kitchen 1973:445) or may even be arranged in haphazard order. Third, Redford’s suggestion (1982:60–74) that toponyms nos. 90–101 are arranged in a north-to-south order along the Transjordanian “King’s Highway” is not beyond doubt. Toponyms nos. 92–101 were identified either by similarity of names with sites that have no Late Bronze I remains or with Late Bronze Age sites whose names are different. In no site is there both similarity of name and Late Bronze I pottery (cf. Knauf 1984; Lenzen and Knauf 1987:59–62). Fourth, the Transjordanian town of Piḫilu (no. 33) is not included in this section of the list. Suggesting the identification of central Transjordanian sites with toponyms mentioned in Thutmose III’s list is no more than a possibility (for different suggested identifications, see Görg 1979:168–173) and can hardly support the assumption that the list was drawn from itineraries.

18


(Tell el-‘Ajjul) by Ahmose further contributed to the collapse of the Canaanite urban system. Inner Canaan, however, remained outside the area conquered and dominated by the Egyptians in the time of the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Pharaonic efforts in these years were mainly concentrated on the Lebanese coast and inner Syria. The collapse of the state system of the Old Babylonian period in inner Syria enabled them to expand their territories up to its northern parts. There they encountered the growing power of Mitanni and its Syrian allies, and, despite initial success, they were defeated and pushed back to the south. Mitanni gained supremacy in northern Syria and apparently operated in the Canaanite areas through the center of Qadesh, a kingdom whose ruler was the strongest in the area. With the support of Mitanni, the king of Qadesh was able to organize a vast coalition whose members were mainly rulers of northern origin. A prominent member was the king of Megiddo, whose city served as headquarters for the coalition. This alliance succeeded in pushing Egypt back into southern Canaan and threatened to drive the Egyptians all the way back to their homeland. This expansion occurred during the reign of the Egyptian queen Hatshepsut and forms the background for Thutmose’s first Asiatic campaign (c. 1457 BCE). Thutmose’s success in the campaign brought Canaan under Egyptian domination for the first time, and after that Canaan became an Egyptian province. But it was a weakened, partly desolated and ruined country that the Pharaoh was able to conquer and subdue. The central hill country, formerly densely populated and strongly fortified, was sparsely inhabited at that time and fell into Egyptian hands without a battle. The same is true of the Shephelah region (with the exception of the area of Gezer). Details are missing and nothing, for example, is known of the urban situation at Hazor, formerly the foremost kingdom in Canaan. Dever (1990:76, 78) suggested that “All archaeological evidence points to a long, homogenous, peaceful period of development and expansion throughout the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine (phases IIA-C) of nearly 500 years, with the zenith at the very end”; and that “a major cultural-historical change had taken place by the end of the fifteenth century BCE, when Palestine . . . was completely subdued, pacified, and actually incorporated into the New Kingdom empire.” Not only that the assumed 500 years assigned by Dever to the Middle Bronze Age may be significantly reduced in light of new data obtained from the excavations at Tell ed-Dab‘a (Bietak 1984; 1989), but the assumedly peaceful end of the Middle Bronze II is questionable in light of the evidence offered here. The crisis in the urban system of Palestine started during the sixteenth century and lasted for many years, possibly culminating with the Thutmose campaign of c. 1457 BCE. Each destruction of a Middle Bronze IIB city in Palestine should be examined in its own right before a def-


19

inite date is suggested; no a priori date should be assigned in light of an assumed overall Egyptian conquest. Once the destruction of the urban system of Palestine is detached from either the campaigns of Ahmose or Thutmose III, it is difficult to assign an exact date for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Thus, for example, Megiddo IX is certainly the city conquered by Thutmose III in his campaign, and Megiddo X is apparently the city conquered by the “northern” ruler whose heir fought the Egyptians at Megiddo c. 1457. The date of the latter event is unknown, and the same is true for many other cities in Palestine conquered during this period. The best point of departure for a chronological discussion is the destruction of Shir/lḥon (Tell el-‘Ajjul), which occurred in the time of Ahmose. Terminologically, the entire period of 100–120 years during which the urban system of the Middle Bronze IIB was gradually destroyed is best treated as one unit, to be called Late Bronze I. The term Middle Bronze should be reserved for the period from the re-establishment of cities in Palestine in the second millennium and until the beginning of the collapse of the Canaanite culture some time in the sixteenth century BCE.

References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1978. The Archeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia. Albright, W.F. 1924. Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb. JPOS 4: 131–161. Albright, W.F. 1942. A Teacher to a Man of Shechem about 1400 B.C. BASOR 86: 28–31. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Albright, W.F. 1949. The Archeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth. Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98–116. Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175). Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 107–140). Alt, A. 1959. Die Herkunft der Hyksos in neuer Sicht. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 72–98. Anbar, M. and Na’aman, N. 1986–1987. An Account Table of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13–14: 3–12. Astour, M. 1978. Les Hourrites en Syrie du Nord: rapport sommaire. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 1–22. Åström, P. ed. 1987–1989. High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium of Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Parts 1–3. Gothenburg. Beck, P. 1990. The Taanach Cult Stands: Iconographic Traditions in the Iron I Cult Vessels. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. 1990: 417–446 (Hebrew).

20


Ben-Tor, A. 1982. The Relations between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium B.C. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 3–18. Ben-Tor, A. 1986. The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age, JESHO 29: 1–27. Bienkowski, P. 1986. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. Bietak, M. 1984. Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. AJA 88: 471–485. Bietak, M. 1989. The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant — A New Approach to Relative and Absolute Chronology. In: Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, Part 3. Gothenburg: 78–120. Böhl, F.M.Th. 1926. Die bei den Ausgrabungen von Sichem gefundenen Keilschrifttafeln. ZDPV 49: 321–327. Brinkman, J.A. 1968. A Political History of the Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B.C. (Analecta Orientalia 43). Rome. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. BASOR 261: 73–90. Buccellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples. Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a complex Society. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Bunimovitz, S. 1990. Cultural Processes and Socio-Political Change in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. 1990: 257–283. (Hebrew). Dever, W.G. 1985. Relations between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the ‘Hyksos’ Period. In: Tubb, J.N. ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Age. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: 69–87. Dever, W.G. 1987. The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. BA 50: 149–177. Dever, W.G. 1990. ‘Hyksos’, Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age. Levant 22: 75–81. Diakonoff, I.M. 1972. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient: Ende eines Mythos. Orientalia 41: 91– 120. Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor. Drower, M.S. and Bottéro, J. 1971. Syria before 2200 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History I/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 315–362. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Edel, E. 1953. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97–176. Edel, E. 1980. Die Ortsnamenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan. Biblische Notizen 11: 63–79. Farag, S. 1980. Une inscription Memphite de la XIIe Dynastie. Revue d’Égyptologie 32:75–82. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E. In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement. Jerusalem: 110–131. Finkelstein, I. and Brandl, B. 1985. A Group of Metal Objects from Shiloh. The Israel Museum Journal 4: 17–26. Gadd, C.J. 1971. Babylonia c. 2120–1800 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History I/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 595–643. Gal, Z. 1990. The Lower Galilee: Historical Geography in the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).


21

Gardiner, A. H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-III. Oxford. Gelb, I. J. 1961. The Early History of the West-Semitic People. JCS 15: 27–47. Glock, A.E. 1971. A New Ta‘annek Tablet. BASOR 204: 17–30. Gonen, R. 1984. Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. BASOR 253: 61–73. Gonen, R. 1987. Megiddo in the Late Bronze Age — Another Reassessment. Levant 19: 83– 100. Görg, M. 1976. Ḥiwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ugarit-Forschungen 8: 53–55. Görg, M. 1979. Identifikation von Fremdnamen: Das methodische Problem am Beispiel einer Palimpsestschreibung aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. In: Görg, M. and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 152–173. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome. Gurney, O.R. 1973a. Anatolia c.1750–1600 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 228–255. Gurney, O.R. 1973b. Anatolia c.1600–1380 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 659–683. Gustavs, A. 1927. Die Personennamen in den Tontafeln von Tell Ta‘annek (Fortsetzung). ZDPV 50: 1–18. Haas, V. and Wilhelm, G. 1974. Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna. (AOAT Sonderreihe 3). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägypten zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Helck, W. 1976. Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland — ein chronologisches Problem. UgaritForschungen 8: 101–115. Hess, R.S. 1989. Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution in the Amarna Texts. UgaritForschungen 21: 209–216. Hoffmeier, J.K. 1989. Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 21: 181–193. Hoffmeier, J.K. 1990. Some Thoughts on William G. Dever’s “Hyksos, Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze.” Levant 22: 83–89. Hoffmeier, J. K. 1991. James Weinstein’s “Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition”: A Rejoinder. Levant 23: 117–124. Hornung, E. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden. Hornung, E. 1987. “Lang oder Kurz?” — das Mittlere und Neue Reich Ägyptens als Prüfstein. In: Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, Part 1. Gothenburg: 27–36. Huber, P.J. 1982. Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III. (Occasional Papers on the Near East I/4). Malibu. CA. Huber, P.J. 1987. Astronomical Evidence for the Long and against the Middle and Short Chronologies. In: Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, Part1. Gothenburg: 5–17. Jacobsen, T. 1953. The Reign of Ibbi-Suen. JCS 7: 36–47. Kammenhuber, A. 1968. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg. Kammenhuber, A. 1977. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient und die historischen Wohnsitze der Hurriter. Orientalia 46: 129–144. Kempinski, A. 1974. Tell el-‘Ajjul — Beth Aglayim or Sharuḥen? IEJ 24: 145–152. Kempinski, A. 1983. Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650–1570 v. Chr.). Wiesbaden. Kenyon, K.M. 1973. Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 526–556. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). Warminster.

22


Kitchen, K.A. 1987. The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age. In: Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, Part 1. Gothenburg: 37–55. Kitchen, K.A. 1989. Supplementary Notes on the Basics of Egyptian Chronology. In: Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, Part 1. Gothenburg: 152–159. Klengel, H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. II. Mittel- und Südsyrien. Berlin. Klengel, H. 1978. Mitanni: Probleme seiner Expansion und politischen Struktur. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 91–115. Knauf, E.A. 1984. Abel Keramim. ZDPV 100: 119–121. Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 17–89. (Hebrew). Kramer, C. 1977. Pots and People. In: Levine, L.D. and Cuyler Young, T. eds. Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archeology of Greater Mesopotamia. (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7). Malibu: 91–112 Kühne, C. 1982. Politische Szenerie und internationale Beziehungen Vorderasiens um die Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends vor Chr. In: Nissen, H.J. and Renger, J. eds. Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn I. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 1). Berlin: 203–264. Kupper, J.R. 1973. Northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 1–41. Kupper, J.R. 1978. Les Hourrites à Mari. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 117–128. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106–133. Lenzen, C.J. and Knauf, E.A. 1987. Notes on Syrian Toponyms in Egyptian Sources I. Göttinger Miszellen 96: 59–64. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria. BASOR 234: 1–42. Mayrhofer, M. 1966. Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden. Mayrhofer, M. 1974. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient — ein Mythos? Wien. Mazar, B. 1981. The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country. BASOR 241: 75–85. Mellart, J. 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut. Mendenhall, G.E. 1974. The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13). Paris. Murnane, W.J. 1989. Rhetorical History? The Beginning of Thutmose III’s First Campaign in Western Asia. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26: 183–189. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1980. The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV 96: 136–152. Na’aman, N.1988a. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B. C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–185. Na’aman, N. 1988b. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz ‘Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 19: 3–71. Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. 1990. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Neumann, J. and Parpola, S. 1987. Climatic Change and Eleventh-Tenth-Century Eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia. JNES 46: 161–182.


23

O’Callaghan, R.T. 1948. Aram Naharaim. A contribution to the History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Second Millennium B.C. (Analecta Orientalia 26). Rome. Ofer, A. 1990. The Judean Hill Country-from Nomadism to a National Monarchy. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. 1990: 155–214. (Hebrew). Posener, G. 1940. Princes et Pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles. Posener, G. 1980. A New Royal Inscription of the XIIth Dynasty. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 7–8. Posener, G., Bottéro, J. and Kenyon, K. M. 1971. Syria and Palestine c. 2160–1780. B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History I/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 532–590. Postgate, J.N. 1974. Some Remarks on Conditions in the Assyrian Countryside. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17: 225–243. Rainey, A.F. 1968. Gath-padalla. IEJ 18: 1–14. Redford, D.B. 1970. The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition. Orientalia 39: 1–51. Redford, D.B. 1973. Review of C. Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIe Dynastie. BiOr 30: 223–225. Redford, D.B. 1979a. A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia during the Early 18th Dynasty. JAOS 99: 270–287. Redford, D.B. 1979b. The Historical Retrospective at the Beginning of Thutmose III’s Annals. In: Görg, M. and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 338–341. Redford, D.B. 1982. A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos 89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic Toponyms). Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74. Scandone-Matthiae, G. 1982. Inscriptions royales égyptiennes de l’ancien empire à Ebla. In: Nissen, H. J. and Renger, J. eds. Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. Bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 1). Berlin: 125–130. Scandone-Matthiae, G. 1984. La statuaria regale egiziana del Medio Regno in Siria. UgaritForschungen 16: 181–188. Seger, J.D. 1975. The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel 12: 34*–45*. Shaffer, A. 1970. Fragment of an Inscribed Envelope. In: Dever, W.G. Lance, H.D. and Wright G. E. eds. Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Jerusalem: 111–114. Shaffer, A. 1988. Cuneiform Tablets from Palestine. I. The Letter from Shechem. In: Cogan, M. ed. Linguistic Studies in Memory of Moshe Held. (Beer-Sheva 3). Beer-sheva and Jerusalem: 163–169. (Hebrew). Spalinger, A. 1977. Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 B.C.–550 B.C.). Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 5: 221–244. Spalinger, A. 1983. The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 13: 89–101. Stein, D. L. 1989. A Reappraisal of the “Sauštatar Letter” from Nuzi. ZA 79: 36–60. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1922. Nouvelles Lettres d’El-Amarna. RA 19: 91–108. TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Vienna: 113–122. Vernus, P. 1978. L’apport des sources égyptiennes au problème hourrite. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 189–197. Weinstein, J.M. 1975. Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom. BASOR 217: 1–16.

24


Weinstein, J.M. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1–28. Weinstein, J.M. 1991. Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine. Levant 23: 105–115. Wilcke, C. 1969. Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III-Zeit. WO 5: 1–31. Wilcke, C. 1970. Drei Phasen des Niedergangs des Reiches von Ur III. ZA 60: 54–69. Wilhelm, G. and Boese, J. 1987. Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Åström, P. ed. High, Middle or Low, part 1. Gothenburg: 74–114 Wiseman, D.J. 1975. Assyria and Babylonia c. 1200–1000 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 443–481. Wright, G.E. 1961. The Archeology of Palestine. In: Wright, G. E. ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Garden City: 73–112. Yakar, J. 1990. The Chronology of the Transcaucasian-East Anatolian Early Bronze Age. Eretz-Israel 21: 94*–100*. Yoyotte, J. 1960. Néchao. In: Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement VI. Paris: 363–393. Zertal, A. 1986. The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Zertal, A. 1990. “In the Land of the Perizzites and of the Giants” – The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. 1990: 53–100. (Hebrew).

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence1 Introduction Although the two sides to the correspondence are symmetrically presented in the title of the chapter, there is a marked difference in the number of their respective letters. Only six or seven Pharaonic letters sent to his vassals are known from the archive (EA 99, 162–163, 190, 367, 369–370), as against hundreds of letters sent by the vassals to Pharaoh and his officials. Moreover, there is a unified form to most of the Pharaonic letters (save for EA 162), as against a great variety among the vassal letters. Most of our information of the Egyptian diplomacy in negotiating with its Asiatic province is gained from the vassal letters. Details of the Egyptian messages are known from direct and indirect references in these letters. The many citations of written and verbal orders are due to the scribal practice of citing them briefly and then referring to them in detail. These references match the extant royal letters in word and contents, indicating that they accurately reflect the nature of the Egyptian correspondence with its vassals. When reading the letters, it becomes clear that a considerable part of the relationship between Egypt and Canaan was conducted by verbal orders and verbal negotiation. We may ask, when did the Egyptian court find it necessary to send written messages rather than verbal orders? Did the king sent letters routinely, with no particular message, or did he sent them only for a purpose, each letter carrying a specific message to the addressee? Also, how many letters did each vassal receive during a reign? Was the reception of royal letter a frequent occurrence, or was it quite infrequent and an “event” for the recipient? A new line of investigation of the vassal letters was outlined recently by Liverani (1990a:337–48). He suggested what he calls a “procedure paradigm” in the historical interpretation of the letters. Rather than written occasionally, whenever the situation demanded such action, there was a seasonal pat1. Reprinted with permission. In Cohen, R. and Westbrook R. eds., Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations. Baltimore and London (2000), 125-138, 252-253.

25

26


tern for the correspondence. “The seasonal (or modular) patterning is based on the assumption that the administrative procedure into which the letters are set was basically a yearly procedure” (Liverani 1990a:39). The key to the procedure was the preparation of goods in Canaan and their transfer to Egypt. The preparation of the tribute and specifically requested items would have taken place in the spring and their transfer in the late summer. Liverani calls letters preparing the collection tour “spring letters” and those closing the procedure “late-summer letters.” He recognized that there existed other occasions for epistolary contacts than the standard collection tour, but, in his opinion, these were less frequent, and they, too, were assimilated into the standard tour in their epistolary language and procedure. In the same volume in which Liverani published his thesis, I (1990:397– 405) suggested an entirely different interpretation for a certain part of the assumed group of “spring letters.” My analysis was based on chronological considerations and on the contents and literary expressions common to this group of letters. In my opinion, these letters refer to a specific event, the preparation of an Egyptian campaign to Asia in the late years of Akhenaten. It remains to be seen whether most of the Amarna letters were written on a routine seasonal basis, or whether they were drafted occasionally, whenever the rulers found it necessary to send a message to their lord. The letters of Byblos pose a special problem. Their number far exceeds that of other cities, and most of them are long and detailed. We may ask, could the corpus of Byblian letters serve as a model for other Canaanite centers? Or does this corpus, with its narrative patterns and personal tone, reflect mainly the exceptional historical relations of Byblos with Egypt and the personality of its author, Rib-Hadda? Another problem is the enormous difference in language, cultural background and ideology between Egypt and Canaan. The divergence of the two sides of the correspondence raises the problem of communication. Did the Canaanite rulers fail to understand the intention of the Pharaonic letters and thus, interpreted them in a way that was markedly different from that of their author? Are there clear examples of misunderstandings of messages? Or did they understand the Egyptian messages quite well, and what looks like a misunderstanding is a deliberate representation of the situation? Also, how did the differences in ideology and perspective between Pharaoh and his vassals influence their perception of their mutual obligations? Were there considerable gaps in the interpretation of the obligations, and, if there were, in which specific areas can they be located? These problems, which are crucial for the interpretation of the vassal correspondence and the diplomatic measures taken by both sides, will be systematically analyzed below.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence

27

Frequency of Royal Letters Of the six or seven letters sent to vassals by Pharaoh, two order the preparation of supplies or troops before the arrival of Egyptian army (EA 367, 370); one orders the dispatch of a bride with her dowry (EA 99); and one deals with the acquisition of female cupbearers (EA 369). Two letters were written to Aziru, reflecting the Egyptian diplomatic pressure on the king of Amurru (EA 162–163). The seventh letter, sent either to Damascus or Qadesh (EA 190), is fragmentary, but possibly deals with the preparations for a military campaign. Two royal letters sent to the rulers of Damascus and Shazaena and dated to the post-Amarna age were discovered at the Egyptian center of Kumidi (Kāmid el-Lōz). They order the deportation of groups of cApiru from Canaan to Nubia (Edzard 1970:55–60; Na’aman 1988:179–193). Evidently, all royal letters carried a specific message to the addressee. Pharaonic letters are often cited or alluded to by the vassals. The best known are the commands to be on guard or to guard oneself, to guard the place where the vassal is, and to obey the Egyptian commissioner (Moran 1992:xxx-xxxi). Similar commands appear in all the Pharaonic letters, but in addition to these elements, all the extant royal letters have a distinct message. We may ask, did the Egyptian court also send nonspecific letters that included nothing more than stereotyped phrases? The answer to this question is linked to another — on what occasions were royal letters sent to the vassals? The Egyptian court expected answers to its letters, so there is a good chance that we will be able to identify clear references to lost royal letters. It goes without saying that the investigation is marked by uncertainty, because it is founded mainly on inferences from something that is lost. However, I believe that even though some of the inferences may be disputed, the overall picture that emerges is sufficiently unified to justify clear answers to the above questions. Before starting the analysis, something must be said about the use of the verb šapāru in the Amarna letters. The verb has two basic meanings: “to write” and “to send” (CAD Š/1 430–448). In the current translations of the letters, the verb usually is rendered in the sense of “to write,” except in passages where this interpretation is excluded by the context. This rendering gives the impression that the Egyptian court sent a large number of letters to its vassals. However, in many references in which the object of the verb is missing, the translation “to send (a message)” suits the context better than the common translation “to write (a letter).”2 2. For example, among the Amarna references cited in CAD Š/1 444a, at least four (EA 280:7; 53:60; 234:23; 82:12) should be translated “to send (a message)” rather than “to

28


We may further note that on many occasions, vassals sent several letters in response to a single royal letter. This is typical of the correspondence of Rib-Hadda, but may easily be demonstrated in the dossiers of other Canaanite rulers (e.g., Abi-Milki, Ammunira, Aziru, Yidya, Milkilu, Shuwardata, Shubandu). An analysis of the letters of Rib-Hadda indicates that he alludes to no Pharaonic letter in his correspondence with Amenophis III. Evidently, Pharaoh did not reply to the stream of Byblian letters. However, unlike his heir, Akhenaten, he showed no annoyance at the flood of letters. During Akhenaten’s reign, Rib-Hadda received a few royal letters, each sent for a purpose. Many orders and instructions were received verbally through messengers. The examination of many other letters from the coast of Lebanon and Palestine supports this conclusion. Royal letters arrived infrequently and, when dispatched, were always designed for a specific purpose. Apparently, yhey were sent only when the Egyptian court sought to emphasize the importance of a particular command. Routine messages were delivered verbally by Egyptian officials. Remarkably, the news of Amenophis III’s death and Akhenaten’s accession were not delivered in writing. The main group of royal letters concerns the preparation for the arrival of the Egyptian archers. Only on that occasion were letters sent to all quarters of the Egyptian province in Asia, and direct answers arrived from southern Canaan (EA 65, 292, 324–325, 337), from northern Canaan (EA 55, 191, 193, 195, 201–206, 216–218, 227, and possibly 213), and from the coast of Lebanon (EA 141–142, 144, 147, 153, 362, and possibly 223 and 233). Other royal letters instructed the execution of certain military missions, the transfer of information, or the dispatch of special commodities to Egypt. Letters of admonition were addressed to rulers whose deeds endangered the stability of the Egyptian province in Asia (e.g., Lab’ayu and Aziru). It is clear that most of the letters were written at the vassals’ initiative. This conclusion may help explain the difference in the number of letters sent by individual vassals. No vassal received more than a few letters throughout his reign. Some rulers preferred to send only what was necessary, that is, responses to royal letters and sometimes also a reference to the visit of (important?) Egyptian officials. As a result, the number of their letters is minimal. Others took the opposite course and, for their own reasons, sent many

write.” Also, in Rib-Hadda’s early letters, the verb šapāru sometimes refers to verbal messages rather than to writing (e.g., EA 73:26; 74:30; 92:35-40). When the verb šapāru appears with no object, context alone is our guide for deciding which translation should be preferred. My analysis is based on this contextual approach.


29

letters to the Pharaoh. Most remarkable is Rib-Hadda of Byblos. Other examples are the letters sent by Abi-Milki of Tyre and ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem, both educated in Egypt and enthroned by the Pharaoh, thus, having connections in the court and trying to make the best of it. It goes without saying that the number of letters does not necessarily reflect the political importance of Canaanite rulers. Some strong and influential rulers (i.e., those of Shechem, Hazor and Damascus) sent only a few letters, whereas others, less important, sent quite a number of letters to the Pharaoh.

Seasonal Procedure and the Vassal Correspondence Are the payments of tributes and gifts to Egypt the key to the distribution of the vassal letters? To answer this question, I will first analyze the data concerning tributes and gifts in the vassal letters. A remarkable feature in the correspondence of Rib-Hadda is the almost total absence of references to tributes and gifts. A payment of copper is probably mentioned in EA 69:25–30 and a request for copper and ingots? (sinnu) is discussed in EA 77:6–15.3 It is, rather, Rib-Hadda who, again and again, asks for silver and provisions for subsistence, and for troops and horses to guard his city. It is hardly conceivable that he expected Egypt to send him all these for nothing. His words should be interpreted as a request for provisions in return for payment. Ammunira of Beirut and Zimredda of Sidon do not mention either tribute or gift. At the request of the Pharaoh, Abi-Milki of Tyre sent one hundred shekels of glass to Egypt. In another letter he reports sending a tribute (five talents of copper and mallets) and a gift (a whip) (EA 151). The elders of Arwad, in contrast, ask the king to send them a gift as a sign of favor (EA 100). Somewhat exceptional is Aziru of Amurru. He undertook to send everything requested by Pharaoh and his officials (EA 157:25–27; 158:17–19) and prepared a rich tribute to be sent to Egypt (EA 160:14–19, 41–44; 161:55–56). On his visit to Egypt, he brought a special gift to Pharaoh (EA 168:9–10) and received in exchange a royal gift, about which he complained that half of it was unlawfully taken by an Egyptian official (EA 161:41–46). The place of tributes and gifts in Aziru’s correspondence is easily explained. He started from a low position and sought the Pharaoh’s recognition. Later on he expanded, gained political and military strength, and occasionally operated against the Egyptian interests. He tried to appease Pharaoh

3. EA 126:4 should, in my opinion, be rendered SI.LA (for SI.IL.LA) = piqittu, “delivery (of goods).” The letter does not refer to an Egyptian request of taskarinnu wood, as scholars assumed on the basis of Knudtzon’s decipherment (gišK[U-m]a). See Moran 1992:206, n. 2.

30


by sending him rich gifts, thereby emphasizing his loyalty. The same policy was followed by his father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 60), and by Lab’ayu of Shechem (EA 253–254), both of whom expanded their territories and tried to appease Pharaoh by emphasizing that they were fulfilling all their obligations to Egypt. Aziru’s policy of sending contributions did not go unnoticed by other rulers. Thus, Ili-rapiḫ of Byblos wrote to Pharaoh as follows: “The king is to take no account of whatever Aziru sends him. The property that he sends is things that he coveted. It is property belonging to royal mayor(s) whom he has killed that he sends you.” (EA 139:33–39). Tribute and gifts are rarely mentioned in the letters of north Canaanite rulers. An unknown ruler (EA 173) sent 10 prisoners of war. The ruler of Enishazi sent his daughter to Pharaoh (EA 187), probably after receiving a letter similar to EA 99. Almost all the reports to prepare for the arrival of the archers refer to the planned Egyptian campaign to Canaan. Finally, in a letter sent from Shamḫuna, its ruler protested against an imposition of grain tax, claiming that it had not been imposed on his city since old time (EA 224). Tribute and gifts are more frequently mentioned in letters from southern Canaan. A series of letters report the preparation of unspecified commodities at the request of Pharaoh (EA 247, 267, 275–278). Four letters report the preparation of glass at the request of Pharaoh (EA 314, 323, 327, 331). The internal textual identity in each group is remarkable, and it seems that either a single scribe wrote them, or that the Egyptian messenger dictated all these reports. Many other letters report the arrival of an Egyptian official, but preparations at his command are only sporadically mentioned (EA 302, 329). Biridiya of Megiddo sent cattle and sheep, “what the king, my lord, requested” (EA 242). Tagi of Ginti-kirmil prepared a caravan (EA 264) and sent a gift (equipment for a chariot; EA 266) to the Pharaoh. Milkilu sent various kinds of servants (EA 268) and complained about the extortion of the Egyptian commissioner, who had requested 2000 shekels of silver (EA 270). ‘Abdi-Ashtarti sent women (EA 64). ‘Abdi-Ḫeba sent a caravan that was robbed (EA 287), and secondly gave the commissioner(s) various kinds of servants (EA 288). Shubandu sent girls and cattle (EA 301). Another ruler sent silver and servants (EA 309). And a southern ruler (possibly Shubandu) paid fourteen hundred shekels of silver as compensation for murdered Egyptian merchants (EA 313). Summing up the discussion, it is clear that the payment of tribute does not play a major role in the letters. It appears sporadically throughout the correspondence and is more frequent in the south Canaanite letters than from other parts of the Egyptian province. There is not enough data in the Amarna archive to build a picture of the contributions imposed by the


31

Egyptians on their vassals (Na’aman 1981:172–185). Moreover, it seems that the routine payments of tribute were left out of the correspondence. What we have are reports of irregular payments, sent either after a special request from the Pharaoh, after a certain delay in the delivery of the tribute, or in an effort to gain the favor of the Pharaoh and his officials. Redford (1990:40–42; 1992:209) suggested that the tax-system imposed on the Canaanites was that of Egypt transported abroad. Egyptian procedures were extended to Asia, and the Canaanite mayors, like their Egyptian counterparts, were obliged to hand over their personal gifts (inw) every New Year’s day, as well as to give a portion of the product of their labor. However, there is no evidence for this assumption in the Amarna letters. The Canaanite rulers were neither part of the regular Egyptian system of tax collection nor were they part of the Egyptian redistributive organization. Liverani (1990b: 259) is certainly correct when he suggests that there seems to be an opposition between directly administered areas, whose revenues are regular in amount and time; and an external area with its own political authorities, from which goods come to Egypt more or less frequently . . . but cannot be planned ahead of time in amount, in time, or in their substance.

Indeed, the expression “year by year” does not appear in the EgyptianCanaanite correspondence. I would question the assumption that the contributions to Egypt were paid on a yearly basis. True, the inw-contributions of Asia were presented in the parade of tribute offered by foreign emissaries on New Year’s day, but the yearly display does not indicate the regularity of the payment of contributions. The criteria according to which the Egyptians imposed tribute in the different areas of Canaan remain unknown. These conclusions contradict the assumption that the correspondence reflects a seasonal procedure of any kind. There is no evidence that the letters refer to a yearly preparation of the tribute or to any other periodical procedure. On the contrary, the correspondence is mainly concerned with the irregular and reflects the reaction of the vassals either to unexpected events in their immediate neighborhood or to verbal and written instructions from Pharaoh and his officials.

The Vassal Correspondence as “Business” Letters The Akkadian title used to describe the local rulers of Canaan is ḫazannu, “mayor,” which is the equivalent of Egyptian ḫ3ty-c, a mayor of an Egyptian town. It goes without saying that Egypt and Canaan were separate entities and that the vassals were never regarded as Egyptian mayors in the full meaning of the term. The court administration treated them as Egyptian mayors in one important aspect: They held full responsibility for everything that happened in the town (or rather city-state) in their charge.

32


The self-image of the Canaanite rulers was quite different. They considered themselves to be kings (šarru) in their relations with their subjects and with their neighbors and sometimes applied the title unintentionally either to other city-state rulers or to themselves.4 Even the kings of Babylonia (EA 8: 25) and Mitanni (EA 30:1) called them kings. However, the Egyptian conception of the Canaanite rulers was strictly maintained in all the formal contacts with Egypt and is reflected in the official aspects of the correspondence. The most prominent obligation of the mayors was the defense of the city put in their charge by the Pharaoh. There are innumerable variants of the reports of guarding the city and its territory. But the statements of guarding are only one aspect of the theme of defense. All the complaints of vassals about encroachments on their territories and their neighbors’ expansion, about attacks by the ‘Apiru and Sutu and the general insecurity in the land, and statements about the expected arrival of Egyptian archers and garrisons — all these are aspects of the major theme of guarding. The vassals interpreted the obligation to defend their towns and territories in a very broad sense and developed it as a central theme around which they directed all their complaints concerning the state of insecurity in their territory and in neighboring areas. Closely related to the theme of defense is another: the mayor as a loyal servant (arad kitti) of Pharaoh. Moran (1985:173–181) has convincingly demonstrated that the ideal of loyalty unifies the entire correspondence of RibHadda. Such self-presentation appears in many other letters, though not expressed in so many words and details or in such a dramatic tone as in RibHadda’s letters. Even rulers who operated against the Egyptian interests in Canaan praised their own loyalty and condemned the treachery and faithlessness of their enemies. No ruler ever admits his disloyalty, no matter what he has actually done. To judge from their letters, all the mayors were loyal servants, devoted to their posts in their towns, and it was their enemies who conspired against Egypt and broke their oath to the Pharaoh. If guarding the city and territory was the major theme in the vassal letters, some other obligations, all derived from their status as mayors, are sporadically mentioned. These include the payment of contributions, the housing and feeding of Egyptian troops and officials, the dispatch of military units and ships to help the Egyptians in their campaigns northward, the safe passage of foreign caravans, the cultivation of the lands of the Egyptian garrison cities, and the guarding of certain installations therein. Most (if not all)

4. Na’aman 1988:182-183, n. 18. For the correspondence of Ugarit with the Phoenician coast, see Arnaud 1992:179-194, with earlier literature.


33

of these obligations were performed on irregular basis, and their execution is mentioned in the letters. With this background in mind, it is possible to define the circumstances in which vassals may have written to the Pharaoh. A letter from Pharaoh was answered immediately, and we may assume that the messenger who brought it carried back the reply. The execution of verbal orders may have also been reported. However, unexpected events in their neighborhoods were the most important motive for writing. The vassals believed that the theme of guarding was reciprocal and all-inclusive, comprising all aspects of security and territorial integrity. They also knew that their rivals might send a contradictory account of the new event. They, therefore, dispatched their own version of the episode in an effort to justify themselves, to emphasize that they were the victims of aggression, and if possible to persuade Pharaoh to intervene in their favor (or at least to gain his neutrality). They learned from experience that attracting the attention of Pharaoh was not an easy task. They, therefore, aggrandized the episode and emphasized that what looked like a local event was a threat to the Egyptian control of the land. Some vassals repeated the same message in several consecutive letters, much like the repetition of a single message in the modern mass media. We may conclude that local events were the main impetus for dispatching letters to Egypt. The vassal letters are mainly genuine “business” dispatches, written in an effort to deliver certain messages and, if possible, to gain the support (or, in other instances, the neutrality) of Pharaoh and his officials. This would explain why, unlike the international correspondence, they refer so often to political and military events.

Egyptian Obligations: Two Conflicting Viewpoints As is well known, Egypt adhered to a mono-centric ideology, in which Pharaoh occupied the central position. Liverani (1990b:230–239) has demonstrated that, in accordance with its ideology, Egypt conceived its relationship with its vassals to be one-sided, the latter being regarded as outsiders to the Egyptian system. The supply of nourishment was confined only to the Egyptian redistributive organization. Indeed, all vassals acknowledged their status as outsiders; the only requests for provisions from Egypt appear in the letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos. It is possible, of course, that in situations of severe famine and shortage of grain, some vassals would also appeal to Pharaoh for help. After all, even the king of Hatti, by then an ally of Egypt, appealed to Pharaoh in such a situation. But these would have been ad-hoc requests and did not reflect an effort to be integrated into the Egyptian distributive system. Egypt and Canaan were separate economic entities, and the vassals were never regarded as Egyptian mayors in the full meaning of the term.

34


Of the many differences in ideological and political outlook between Pharaoh and his vassals, the one that had the most important consequences for their relationship was the disagreement on the guarding issue. As Liverani (1990b:205–266) has shown, there was a large gap between the Egyptians’ and the vassals’ perception of the relationship. The latter’s interpretation of the theme of guarding as reciprocal and all-inclusive was not agreeable to Pharaoh. This is clear from the correspondence of Rib-Hadda, in which the impatience of Akhenaten with the former’s requests is vividly expressed. Liverani suggested that the vassals misunderstood the Egyptian viewpoint due to linguistic differences: the divergent connotations of the Akkadian verb naṣāru (“to guard” “protect”) and its equivalent in Egyptian (s3w). “The bureaucratic pressure of Egyptian origin was completely misunderstood as we can see in the answers” (Liverani 1983:49–51 [cited from p. 51]). The evidence presented in support of this argument is taken entirely from the correspondence of Rib-Hadda, but Rib-Hadda’s rhetoric is exceptional and does not properly represent the corpus of vassal letters. The letters of other mayors answered the command to guard in clear terms and occasionally elaborated on it, for the reasons explained above. As far as I can see, there is no evidence to support the assumption that by the verb naṣāru the Egyptian bureaucracy meant anything other than “to guard.” Moreover, the order to guard was part of a formula that appears again and again in pharaonic letters and in official verbal instructions. It is inconceivable that this formal request, which carried no operative command, remained unclear to any mayor in Canaan.5 The administrative measures taken by Egypt to rule Canaan were already about a century old in the Amarna period. After such a long experience, the Canaanites must have become well acquainted with the Egyptian system of government and its requests. Egyptian orders were delivered mainly verbally, by officials, and even royal letters were brought by experienced messengers, who were able to elaborate on obscure points. Given this situation, I very much doubt the assumption that, due to cultural and ideological gaps, the vassals frequently misunderstood the Egyptian orders (occasional slips are self-evident). What looks like a misunderstanding is no more than deliberate manipulation by the vassals, who tried to get the maximum results from their correspondence with Egypt, while refusing to adopt the Egyptian mono-centric view of the relationship. 5. For a systematic discussion of Liverani’s arguments and an entirely different interpretation of the evidence, see Moran 1995:559-572. Unfortunately, Moran’s article (whose conclusions on this point are similar to my own) was available to me only after this article was sent for publication.


35

Finally, it is evident that the Pharaoh’s silence about local matters does not always means “no.” There is evidence for Egyptian intervention in local affairs (e.g., EA 92:30–37; 126:4–6; 155:35–45; 245; 280:36–40), and this may be the result of either verbal instructions of the royal court in Egypt (messages exchanged between the royal court and the Egyptian commissioners in Canaan did not come down to us), or of the initiative of local commissioners in Canaan. How indifferent the Egyptian court was to vassals’ complaints cannot accurately be established.

Egyptian Officials as Translators of the Royal Commands The Egyptian commissioners (rābiṣu) played a central role in the negotiations with the local rulers. Royal letters being infrequent, they were responsible for the transmission of orders and their implementation. To carry out their mission they traveled from the Egyptian garrison cities to the seats of the vassals, conveying messages or collecting contributions. Other messengers arrived from Egypt, and, after transmitting their messages, they returned home. These agents translated the Pharaonic policy and commands into action, and their role as mediators gave them much power and influence. This is not the place to discuss the role of the commissioners in the chain of events, or to analyze the opposing stands that they adopted in local conflicts. What matters are the reports of the vassals on the functioning of those agents and how the vassals reacted to situations in which they did not see eye to eye with the Egyptian authorities. On many occasions, vassals reported to Pharaoh about particular instructions they had received from officials. Such reports must have had a double message: on the one hand, to confirm that they obeyed the transmitted orders and thereby manifested their loyalty, and on the other hand, to check on the commissioner. Accusations against certain officials, or efforts to persuade Pharaoh to reverse their decisions, appear quite frequently in the correspondence. The best-known examples are the many accusations raised by Rib-Hadda against Egyptian officials who operated in his area. Rib-Hadda’s letters are exceptional and have been extensively discussed; thus, I will restrict my analysis to letters sent by other mayors. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem was in conflict with the Egyptian authorities in southern Canaan (Addaya, Puwuru, Yanḫamu), and his whole correspondence is overshadowed by these muddy relationships. The bone of contention was the Egyptian garrison stationed in his town. Following the conflict, the garrison was transferred to Gaza and later sent back to Egypt (EA 285; 286:25–33; 287:32–52, 71–75; 289:30–36), and ‘Abdi-Ḫeba was denounced before Pharaoh (286:16–21). He fought back by denouncing the Egyptian commissioners (notably in the words in EA 286:17–19 “I say to the commissioner

36


of the king, my lord: ‘Why do you love the cApiru but hate the mayors?’”) and recounted in detail his version of the garrison’s episode. He further emphasized that he had been elevated to the throne of Jerusalem by the intervention of Pharaoh, that he bore Egyptian titles, and that he was a loyal servant of Pharaoh (Moran 1975:155–156). Thanks to his background, he had former connections in the Egyptian court. Four of his letters have postscripts addressed to the royal scribe, asking him to support his case before the Pharaoh. Finally, he strove to appear before his lord in order to bypass the barrier of the Egyptian authorities in Canaan (EA 286:39–47; 288:30–32). The complaints of Abi-Milki of Tyre are associated with the coastal town of Usu, once in the possession of Tyre and later captured by Zimredda of Sidon (EA 149:47–53). The conquest severed the island of Tyre from the continent, depriving it of its sources of water, grain and wood. Abi-Milki of Tyre wrote again and again to the Pharaoh, asking him to restore his captured town. He emphasized the severe situation of his city, deliberately using words and images derived from the Egyptian vocabulary (EA 147:65–66; 148:11–13; 150:14– 21; 151:37–40; 155). He further tried to denounce his enemy, Zimredda, accusing him of conspiring against the king’s land and against the city of Tyre (EA 147:66–69; 148:38–45; 149:57–70; 151:64–67; 152:7–8; 154:11–23). When at last Abi-Milki of Tyre appeared before the Pharaoh, the latter ordered the restoration of the town to Tyre. However, his order was not carried out by the commissioner, and Abi-Milki of Tyre reported the non-performance of the command to his lord (EA 155:7–13, 31–46). Another set of complaints came from the stylus of vassals who operated against Egyptian interests in Canaan. In an effort to vindicate themselves, they blamed certain commissioners of slandering them before Pharaoh. The accused rulers are ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 62:42–49), Aziru (EA 158:20–31; 161:4– 10, 35–46; 171), and Lab’ayu (EA 252:13–16; 254:10–19). Each of the three had a commissioner who supported him and who was cited as a witness to his innocence. Thus, ‘Abdi-Ashirta was supported by Paḫamnata (EA 60; 135:34–36; 132:41), and Lab’ayu by an unnamed rābiṣu (EA 253:32–35; 254:10–15). Aziru was supported by Ḫaip, who was accused of treacherous deeds by the mayors of Byblos and Tyre (EA 131:47–48; 132:42–43; 149:37–40). Several letters reflect disputes between mayors and commissioners and the efforts of the former to persuade Pharaoh that they were justified. The points of disagreement vary: a failure to execute a commissioner’s order (EA 207) and the arbitrary decisions or unlawful deeds of particular commissioners (EA 234, 239, 270, 292, 294). Some of these accusations suggest corruption on the part of Egyptian officials (EA 161:41–46; 270; 292:41–52; 294:16–26). However, it is difficult to verify accusations, and, in some situations, we can do no more than present the conflicting claims of the two rivals.


37

The many charges directed against the Egyptian officials reflect, above all, the complexity of the situation in Canaan, where so many elements were involved in the chain of events. The commissioners were caught in the middle of many local and external powers, and there was no likelihood that their decisions would be accepted by all parties to the conflicts. The contradictory positions of officials on various issues, and the denunciations or approval of their decisions voiced by rival vassals, were the direct result of this situation. Corruption and incompetence, which are inseparable from any bureaucracy, were secondary to the basic problems that emanated from the structure and political culture of Canaan at that time.

Conclusions The complex nature of the Egyptian-Canaanite relationship sometimes worked in favor of those who were able to manipulate it and make the most of their remoteness from the center of government. It enabled some vassals to expand their territories and strengthen their power. Pharaoh was slow to react, but once he made up his mind and decided to operate, he was able to implement his decision with no real opposition. Following such a decision, ‘Abdi-Ashirta was caught and killed, and ṣumur was restored to Egyptian hands. At roughly the same time, Lab’ayu was caught and killed on his way to Egypt. On the other hand, when Egypt was less determined, as in the early years of Akhenaten, some rulers were able to gain power and even dared to contact a rival empire (i.e., Hatti). The number of internal conflicts increased at that time, in particular in southern Canaan. Again, once Pharaoh decided to operate and start organizing a campaign to Asia, internal conflicts abruptly ended. Only the northernmost vassals were able to carry out their former plans then, though not openly, because they could rely on the power of another empire (Hatti). Real power was in the hands of Egypt, and its policy decided the internal affairs in Canaan. Egypt concentrated on major issues and the exploitation of its province, ignoring minor episodes that occurred in many parts of Canaan. The lack of response to so many vassal letters exactly reflects the order of priorities at the Egyptian court. The perspectives of the ruler of the empire were entirely different from those of his vassals, and differences of political perspective, combined with a unique ideology and distinctive cultural tradition, produced conceptual gaps between the two sides of the correspondence. Royal letters played a secondary role in the current administration of Canaan. They were sent infrequently, when it was deemed necessary to emphasize the importance of a message. Verbal orders by officials played a central role in the administration of the province, but the majority of these remain unknown, other than orders to which vassals referred in their letters.

38


The Egyptian officials operated at the juncture of two different cultural and administrative systems. The center of government was in Egypt, and these officials functioned as Egypt’s ears and eyes and executed its orders. The province of Canaan was divided among many entities, each with its own interests and policy. Each city-state had its social structure, economic resources and cultural background. The set of prohibitions incumbent upon the vassals was oral and subject to different interpretations and political manipulations. The vassals were able to bypass certain officials, either by direct communication with Pharaoh or through the support of other officials. In such a multicenterd system, with so many players and no strict rules of the game, it is no wonder that conflicting voices were always heard and that there was no consensus about the officials and their functioning. Different officials sometimes implemented their missions in opposite directions. The job of these officials must have been quite difficult, and the letters clearly illustrate the many problems that confronted the Egyptian authorities in Canaan. Vassals had a direct line of communication to the Pharaoh, but this line was quite ineffective in view of the Pharaoh’s silence. Ostensibly, they could appear before him and submit their claims in person. However, there are no indications that the direct approach was effective. Also, a long absence from home might have been dangerous, as is evident from letter EA 263, in which a mayor complains that he was robbed of everything when he appeared before Pharaoh. The complaints of many vassals that they were unable to leave their towns to appear before the Pharaoh, on account of external or internal threats, are quite understandable. Appearance before Pharaoh and the reception of gifts might bring prestige in external and internal relations, but diplomatically, it was quite ineffective. What effective channels were open to the vassals? No single channel could guarantee success, and vassals operated by combining all channels, but probably with little illusion. The dispatch of tributes and gifts to Pharaoh and his officials might occasionally have been effective, but there is no concrete data to evaluate its effect on decisions. Moreover, this channel was open to every ruler, and the gift of one could be neutralized by that of his adversary. The situation invited all kinds of manipulations, and reading the letters makes it clear that some rulers found their way in spite of the many obstacles, whereas others lost their way and paid the full price for their failure.


39

References Arnaud, D. 1992. Les ports de la ‘Phénicie’ à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV-XIII siècles) d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30: 179– 194. Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kamid el-Loz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz –Kumidi. Bonn: 55–62. Liverani, M. 1983. Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus 31: 41–56. Liverani, M. 1990a. A Seasonal Pattern for the Amarna Letters. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. (Harvard Semitic Series 37). Atlanta: 337–348. Liverani, M. 1990b. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. Padova. Moran, W.L. 1975. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Moran, W.L. 1985. Rib-Hadda: Job at Byblos? In: Kort, A. and Morschauser, S. eds. Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Winona Lake: 173–181. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Moran, W.L. 1995. Some Reflections on Amarna Politics. In: Zevit, Z. Gitin, S. and Sokoloff, M. eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake: 559–572. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters. UF 20: 179–193. Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to Canaan. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. (Harvard Semitic Series 37). Atlanta: 397–405. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-Sheva IV). Beer-sheva. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology1 I The Amarna letter EA 45 was sent by Ammishtamru I, king of Ugarit, to an unnamed Pharaoh. Some scholars dated it to the late years of Amenophis III (Kitchen 1962:34–35; Klengel 1969:340; Astour 1981:17–19; Drower 1975: 133). Kitchen (1962:34–35, 40) and Astour (1981:17–19; 1989:72) attributed it to the time of Shuppiluliuma’s “first Syrian foray.” Houwink Ten Cate (1963: 272–273), on the other hand, attributed it to Shuppiluliuma’s “second Syrian foray,” hence, to the early years of Akhenaten. The main problem in the discussion of EA 45 is its fragmentary condition. Knudtzon (1915) restored LUGAL KUR [ḫa-at-te] in lines 22 and 30, a restoration that makes a good sense and was accepted by other scholars.2 Further advance in the study of the letter was made by Huehnergard [1989 (see index)] and by Moran (1992:117–118). I believe that some other parts of the letter may be reasonably restored and that these restorations may contribute to a better understanding of its contents and a re-evaluation of its place in the international relationships of the Amarna period. In what follows, I shall suggest first a transcription and translation (followed by textual notes) for letter EA 45 (except the introductory lines, which are omitted), and then examine the letter’s place in the Egyptian-Hittite relations of the 14th century BCE. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

[x x x ]x-ni-šu-nu ak-š[u-ud-šu-nu] [ù a-k]ánan-na-am a-na-ku [aq-ta-bi-(ma)] [an]-nu-tu4 šu-nu LÚmeš [KUR Amurri?] am-mi-ni-im-ma a-na [KUR Ḫatti? Illiku?] ù u-še-ser9 an-n[u? -tu4? a-na? . . .] ù i-ra-aš-ši x [. . . ù] ad-din-šu-nu-ma a-[na dUTU-ši EN-ia] ù DUMU ši-ip-ri á[š-ta-par ? ù] a-na pa-ni DUTU-ši [EN-ia . . .]

1. Reprinted with permission. Aula Orientalis 14 (1996), 251–257. 2. A different opinion was expressed by Liverani 1962:24.

40

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology

41

21. i-na-an-na ad-di[n-šu-nu] ---------------------------------------22. [ša]-ni-ta 5 LUGAL KUR [Ḫatti iš-pur-ma] 23. am-mi-ni-mi [LÚmeš an-nu-tu?] 24. ta-ṣa-bat-mi [ù DUMU ši-ip-ri-šu] 25. iš-pur-ma 2-šu [a-na ia-ši?] 26. ù ki-ia-am iq-[ta-bi a-na KUR Mitanni] 27. ù a-na KUR mi-iṣ-r[i LÚmeš an-nu-tu?] 28. šum-ma-mi tu-še-bá-[al ù a-na-ki-ir-ka] 29. a-nu-um-ma [ÌR] a-[n]a d[UTU-si EN-ia a-na-ku] -----------------------------------------------------------30. ša-ni-ta 5 as-sú-ri-im-[ma LUGAL KUR Ḫatti] 31. it-ti-ia i-na-ki-ir [ . . . dUTU-ši EN-ia] 32. TI.LAmeš ba-la-a-ṭá ša-a [uzuZI-ia ù uzupi-šu?] 33. li-iq-bi TI.LAmeš uzuZ[I-ia ù dUTU-ši EN-ia] 34. lu-ú i-de4-mi šum-ma-mi [i-na-ki-ir KUR Ḫatti] 35. [a-n]a KUR URUu-/ga/–/ri/-[ta . . .] [. . . they . . .] them for me (and) I ho[ld them]. [And] I myself [said a]s follows: “These men are the sons [of Amurru?]. Why should [they go] to [the land of Ḫatti?]? So I shall prepare th[ese? for . . . ] and acquire a [ship? . . . , and] hand them over t[o the Sun, my lord].” So I am s[ending] a messenger to the Sun, [my lord, and] now [indeed?] I shall han[d them over]. Moreover, the king of [Ḫatti wrote thus]: “Why do you seize [these men.” And] he sent [his messenger to me] a second time and he sp[oke] thus: “If you sen[d these men to Mitanni] or to Egy[pt, then I will turn against you].” Now I am [a servant] to the S[un, my lord]. Moreover, heaven forbid that [the king of Ḫatti] turn against me. [May the Sun, my lord, send me] the life of [my spirit and may his mouth] speak the life of [my] spi[rit]. [And] may [the Sun, my lord], know (this): If [Ḫatti shall turn against] Ugar[it . . .

Notes: Line 12: The signs ak-š[u] are quite clearly seen in Schroeder’s facsimile (1915:Pl. 17). The first sign in the line is certainly not an [i]n (as suggested by Knudtzon). Tentatively, it may be read as a [d]u and, thus, restored — (with a big question mark) — [ir?-(te)?-d]u?-ni-šu-nu (“pursued them for me”). Lines 14–15: The extradition to Egypt indicates that the men must have come from one of its vassal kingdoms. Amurru is, therefore, the one possible candidate for a country whose messengers could have been detained on their way by the king of Ugarit and extradited to Egypt and whose extradition could have pushed the king of Ḫatti to utter such violent threats. In this light, I restore “Ḫatti” as the assumed destination of the Amurrite delegation.

42


Line 17: The last broken sign may tentatively be read GI[Š] (i.e., a determinative for “ship”). Lines 23, 27: In place of [an-nu-tu], it is possible to restore [KUR Amurri]. Line 25: The restoration was suggested by Huehnergard 1989:200. Line 26: Mitanni is the other possible destination for the extradition, as well as Egypt. Line 28: The restoration [a-na-ki-ir-ka] is self-evident in view of Ammishtamru’s fears, as expressed in line 31. Line 29: Another instance in which the king of Ugarit expresses his subordination to the Pharaoh appears in letter EA 46:22–26. I suggest restoring the broken passage thus: “O Sun, my lord: J[ust as] (k[i-ma]) [formerly] my ancestors [sent things] and the Sun (was) th[eir] lord (be-li-š[u-nu]), [so] I am a servant of the Su[n, my lord, and] to the Sun, my lor[d I will send things].” For the kima . . . kinanna . . . pattern, see CAD K 380b. For the restoration of unūtê (“things”) in lines 23 and 26, see line 12; for the restoration of the verb šūbulu (“to send”) at the end of these lines, see line 13. Assuming that the suggested restorations are acceptable, the following scenario may be proposed: The ruler of Amurru sent messengers to Ḫatti, and they were detained by Ammishtamru I of Ugarit. He started organizing their extradition to Egypt. News of their detention reached the king of Ḫatti, who then sent two urgent messages to Ammishtamru, warning that he would attack him if the messengers were extradited either to Mitanni or to Egypt. As a result of these warnings, Ammishtamru became afraid and sent a full report to the Pharaoh, seeking his help against a possible Hittite assault.

II What is the date of Ammishtamru’s letter, and under what circumstances was it written? As noted in the introduction, some scholars dated it immediately after the Hittite campaign against Mitanni, mentioned in letter EA 75. As the date and historical background of EA 75 are disputed by scholars, I will analyse them in some detail. First to the text of lines 35–42: Of the various attempts to clarify this difficult passage,3 Moran’s translation (1992:145–146) makes the best sense. My translation will follow that of Moran, with some minor changes. May the king be informed that the king of Ḫatti has seized all the countries (KUR.KUR) (that are) the ‘dwelling (KUŠ = āsibāt) of life’ (TI.TI = balāṭi) of the king of Mitta.

3. For a survey, see Singer 1990:124-125.


43

Behold, the king of Nahma [loses?] the land of the Great Kings (LUGAL.LUGAL), [whereas] ‘Abdi-Ashirta, [the servant] and dog, is tak[ing the land of the king].

For the writing of balāṭu by the logogram TI in Rib-Hadda’s early letters, see EA 74:15 and 89:14 (sic!). The exceptional writing of balāṭu by TI.TI does not differ from the exceptional writing of šarrāni by LUGAL.LUGAL. The noun balāṭu has the double connotation of “life” and “nourishment.”4 The restoration “[loses]” in line 39 is ad sensum. Did the scribe intentionally play on the similarity of sounds of the verbs ḫalāqu and leqû? Be that as it may, the reference to the defeat of the king of Mitanni was deliberately chosen by Rib-Hadda to emphasize the misdeeds of his arch-enemy, ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru. What is the date of the Hittite victory over Mitanni mentioned in EA 75? Some scholars erroneously dated it to the early years of Akhenaten.5 However, by the late 60s, Moran isolated a group of letters, all dated to the time of Aziru, in which Rib-Hadda recalls the campaign conducted by the Pharaoh’s father (i.e., Amenophis III) against ‘Abdi-Ashirta and urged the young king to treat Aziru as his father treated ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 108:28–33; 117:21–28; 121:41–44; 131:30–34; 132:12–18; 138:28–34; 362:16–20; note also 116:61–62).6 This point was noted in my Ph.D. dissertation as the safest anchor point for dating Rib-Hadda’s letters (and, by inference, many other Amarna letters).7 The earliest of these letters is EA 108, in which the following passage (lines 25–33) appears : Who are they, the dogs, that they should res[ist] the archers of the king, the Sun? I wrote to your father (ana abika), and he he[eded] my words, and he sent archers. Was not ‘Abdi-Ashirta taken to h[im]?

Letter EA 108 was written after the appointment of Yanḫamu as commissioner of Ṣumur, when the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta started blockading this Egyptian garrison city. Also noteworthy are lines 8–10: “Moreover, is it pleasing in the sight of the king, who is like Ba‘al/Haddu and Shamash in the sky, that. . . .” Evidently, news of the religious reform had not yet arrived, and RibHadda innocently mentions the classical pair of the storm god and the sun god. In his later letters, however, only the sun god is mentioned.8

4. For a detailed discussion, see Liverani 1983:51-53; 1990:230–239. 5. Kitchen 1962:26-27, 41; Klengel 1964:71 n. 79; 1969:39, 186–187, 256; Astour 1981:1920; Wilhelm and Boese 1987:85-86; Bryce 1989:22-23; Singer 1991:148. 6. Moran 1969:98*; see recently, Moran 1992:xxxv-xxxvi, n. 127. 7. Na’aman 1975:207 (Hebrew); English summary p. xv. 8. See Na’aman 1990:250–252; Galan 1992:289-291. For a late reference to Akhenaten’s accession, see EA 116:63-64.

44


Letter EA 104, on the other hand, was still dispatched to Amenophis III. This is indicated by lines 24–29: Previously (pānānu), they would take cities of your mayors, and you did nothing. Now they have driven out your commissioner and taken his cities for themselves.

Rib-Hadda complains about the Egyptian impotence that enabled PuBa‘lu, the son of ‘Abdi-Ashirta, to conquer the Egyptian garrison city of Ullasa and drove many coastal towns to cooperate with the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta (lines 6–13, 30, 40–43). The words “previously, they would take . . . and you did nothing” were necessarily directed to Amenophis III and do not apply to his young heir, Akhenaten. It was only after the death of Amenophis III (1353 BCE) that Rib-Hadda made him an example of leadership, urging Akhenaten to do the same and launch a campaign against Amurru. Letter EA 106 was probably sent to Akhenaten, as suggested by the king’s annoyance at the influx of Rib-Hadda’s letters (lines 13–16, 30–32). This is a distinctive mark of Akhenaten’s messages to Rib-Hadda (note e.g., EA 117:8– 9; 124:35–37), unlike his predecessor, Amenophis III, who showed no annoyance at the flood of letters.9 In lines 16–18 of EA 106, Rib-Hadda wrote as follows: “Look, in my case, there has been a war against me for five years. Accordingly I keep writing to my lord.” The reference to five years of hostility may be compared to similar statements in two of Rib-Hadda’s earlier letters: (a) “Since he has attacked me three times this year, and for two years I have been repeatedly robbed of my grain, we have no grain to eat.” (EA 85:8–11). (b) “For three years I have been constantly p[lundered] of our grain.” (EA 86:38–39).

Letters EA 85–86 were written immediately after the arrival of the troops of Mitanni in Amurru (EA 85:51–55; 86:8–12; see below), shortly before the dispatch of an Egyptian task force to Amurru, to put an end to ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s reign. It goes without saying that Rib-Hadda’s references to time spans should not be taken literally.10 Yet the difference of two years between the events mentioned EA 85–86 and those mentioned in EA 106 fits all the known data quite well. This is indicated by an analysis of Rib-Hadda’s letters written in the period between these letters.

9. The different reactions of Amenophis III and Akhenaten to Rib-Hadda’s letters is a clear indication of their personal involvement (or, at least, of Akhenaten’s involvement) in the vassal correspondence. 10. The words of EA 85:8–10 show a clear literary pattern, a play on a graduating numerals of three and two.


45

The following episodes occurred between the Egyptian campaign against Amurru (which, as noted above, took place shortly after the dispatch of letters EA 85–86), and the beginning of Akhenaten’s reign (i.e., the writing of letter EA 106): (a) The return of the archers to Egypt (EA 105:17–21). (b) The establishment of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s sons in Amurru and the resumption of their offensive (EA 103:8–13; 104:10–13). (c) The capture of the garrison city of Ullasa by Pu-Ba‘lu, son of ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 104). We may conclude that the reign of ‘Abdi-Ashirta ended about 1355 BCE.11 Amenophis III lived one or two years more and, when he died, was succeeded by his son Akhenaten (1353 BCE). Letter EA 75 was doubtless written in the last years of Amenophis III, as correctly suggested by Campbell in his work on the chronology of the Amarna letters (Campbell 1964:77–89, 134). Letter EA 75, together with EA 17, should be dated to an early stage of the struggle between Ḫatti and Mitanni. Following the loss of some of his territories (“the king of Ḫatti has seized all the countries . . . of the king of Mitta“), the king of Mitanni conducted campaigns to Syria, in an effort to curb rebellions and to re-establish his power and prestige in the kingdoms under his rule, reaching southward as far as the land of Amurru (EA 85:51–55; 86:10–12; 90:19–22; 95:27–31; 101:6–10). Evidently, neither Ḫatti nor Mitanni won a decisive victory at that time. Ḫatti remained a remote power that did not make a great impression on the Egyptian vassals in Canaan. This is indicated by two letters of Rib-Hadda, in which he draws a negative comparison between the deeds of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and those of the kings of two great northern powers, Mitanni and Babylonia (EA 76:14–16; 104:17–24), while ignoring the king of Ḫatti. Following Shuppiluliuma’s victories over Mitanni in Rib-Hadda’s late years, the political situation was entirely changed, and Ḫatti won a place of honor in the great powers’ “club.” This newly acquired prestigious position is indicated in two letters (EA 116:70–71; 129:74–79), in which the deeds of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta are again compared with those of the kings of the great powers, including Ḫatti.

11. The dates attributed by Singer (1991:141, 148) for the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and his sons’ accession must be raised by ten years.

46


It remains unclear whether letter EA 75 refers to events in the reign of Shuppiluliuma, or to the time of his predecessor, when he was commander of the troops under his father. The Hittite victory mentioned in EA 75 had no lasting results and was reversed shortly afterward by the campaigns of the king of Mitanni; thus, it is unlikely that the messengers of Amurru were sent to Ḫatti on that occasion. Houwink ten Cate (1963:271–273) was correct in dating letter EA 45 later than EA 17 (and later than EA 75 as well). The episode discussed in EA 45 is best dated some time after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. For its historical background, we must look into the reign of Aziru of Amurru. The treaty concluded between Aziru and Niqmaddu II of Ugarit includes the following passage (lines 5–19) (Nougayrol 1956:284–286): The claims of Aziru against Ugarit, those formerly of Niqmepa against Ammishtamru, those of Ba’luya against Niqmaddu, against ‘Abdi-Ḫebat (and) against Siannu, will not be in force from the day the oath is sworn. Of all claims, just as the Sun is pure, so Aziru is clean concerning Niqmaddu and ‘Abdi-Ḫebat, concerning Ugarit and concerning Siannu. Moreover, 5,000 (shekels) of silver are paid to Aziru and he is as clean as the Sun.

Ba’luya was probably Aziru’s son, who, with his brother Beti-Ili, conducted the affairs of Amurru when Aziru was held in Egypt (EA 170). That Beti-Ili was Aziru’s son is evident from EA 161:20, where Aziru mentions that “my brothers and Beti-Ili were at his service” (Izre’el 1991:18). It seems to me that the two brothers were originally mentioned, together with their father, in letter EA 165:5–9: What m[ore should I seek]? I seek [the sweet and] gracious face of the king, my lord. [I am your servant] forever and [Beti-Ili] and Ba’luya are [yo]ur [servants].12

To judge from EA 170, Ba’luya was the senior of the two brothers, so he must have sent letter EA 169 (note the references to “your father” in lines 19, 32).13 In letter EA 170, the two brothers report to Aziru of the military campaign of the Hittite general Lupakku and that another general, Zitana, with 90,000 infantrymen, is about to arrive to Nuhašše. If the report of the arrival of Zitana is verified, “I (i.e., Ba’luya) will send Beti-Ili to him.” Amurru’s dele-

12. For recent treatments of EA 165, see Izre’el 1991:40-43; Moran 1992:252–253. The facsimile published by Schroeder (VS 11, 1915, Pl. 89) indicates that the lines are longer than the two scholars assume. The text of lines 6–9 may be restored as follows: (6) pani LUGAL EN-i[a DÙG.GA-ta ù] (7) ba-nu-ta ú-ba-’-[i a-na-ku ÌR-ka] (8) a-di da-ri-ti ù [mbe-tiDINGIR] (9) ù mba-a-lu-ia LÚmeš [ÌR-k]a. For the restoration of line 6, compare EA 164:6. 13. For different suggestions, see Klengel 1964:75 n. 102; 1969:280–281; Izre’el 1991:18.


47

gation to the Hittite general would be headed by a senior personage, Beti-Ili, the son of Aziru. In this light, we may interpret the above-cited passage from the treaty of Aziru and Niqmaddu. The claim of Aziru against Niqmaddu of Ugarit and ‘Abdi-Ḫebat of Siannu in reference to Ba’luya probably refers to an episode in which Aziru’s son was either killed in battle or detained in Siannu and later extradited by Niqmaddu to Egypt. I believe that the episode of Ammishtamru I and Niqmepa is the one mentioned in letter EA 45. Niqmepa must have been Aziru’s brother, who headed a delegation to Ḫatti and, following his detention, was extradited to Egypt.14 The treaty refers to two members of the family of Aziru who suffered from the intervention of the rulers of Ugarit and Siannu, hence, the compensation of 5,000 shekels of silver that Aziru received in return for dropping his claims against the two kingdoms. Dating letter EA 45 is important because it marks the earliest stage in Amurru’s contacts with Ḫatti. I agree with Singer (1990:124–128) that the shift in Amurru’s allegiance did not occur before Aziru’s time. The natural date for the letter is after Shuppiluliuma’s decisive campaign against Mitanni, a campaign that is mentioned in several Amarna letters.15 This campaign must have taken place not long after the accession of Akhenaten (1353– 1337), as not many years passed between his accession (shortly after the writing of letter EA 104) and the first explicit mention of the Hittite offensive in Rib-Hadda’s letter EA 126:51–52 (“nd16 the Hittite troops have indeed set fire to the countries”). Ammishtamru I must have died shortly afterward and was succeeded by Niqmaddu II. The latter’s entanglement with Ba‘aluya must be dated to the late years of Akhenaten, toward the end of the Amarna letters. As for the chronology of Shuppiluliuma, much depends on our evaluation of letters EA 17 and 75. Scholars who attribute them to an early stage in the career of Shuppiluliuma should accordingly date his accession to the late years of Amenophis III. Conversely, those who attribute them to the reign of Shuppiluliuma’s predecessor should date his accession to the early years

14. Nougayrol (1956:282) suggested that Niqmepa was an older brother of Aziru who ascended the throne of Amurru after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. He is perhaps included in the general denomination “the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.” A similar opinions were expressed by Houwink ten Cate (1963:273) and by Klengel (1969:204–205). Astour (1989:72), on the other hand, suggested that “it is more plausible to view Niqmepa not as the successor but the predecessor of ‘Abdi-Ashirta in the earlier part of the fourteenth century.” 15. See the references in Moran 1992:390, s.v. Ḫatta/i. 16. The sign in question (see Moran 1992:207, n. 8) is probably a ù, whose first part was omitted due to haplography.

48


of Akhenaten. It is clear that the date for Shuppiluliuma’s accession (1344 or 1343 BCE) attributed by Wilhelm and Boese (1987:105–109) and by Bryce (1989:30) is too low. His offensive against Mitanni took place not many years after the accession of Akhenaten, so that his accession to the throne preceded it by, at least, some years. Thus, Shuppiluliuma must have ascended the throne either in the late years of Amenophis III or in the early years of his heir, Akhenaten.

References Astour, M.C. 1981. Ugarit and the Great Powers. In: Young, G.D. ed. Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Winona Lake: 3–29. Astour, M.C. 1989. Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age. Partille. Bryce, T.R. 1989. Some Observations on the Chronology of Šuppiluliuma’s Reign. AnSt 39: 19–30. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Drower, M.S. 1975. Ugarit. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd edition. Cambridge: 130–160. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Galán, J.M. 1992. EA 164 and the God Amun. JNES 51: 287–291. Houwink ten Cate, P.H.J. 1963. Review of K.A. Kitchen. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs, Liverpool 1962. BiOr 20: 270–277. Huehnergard, J. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. (Harvard Semitic Studies 34). Atlanta. Izre’el, S. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study I. (Harvard Semitic Series 40). Atlanta. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool. Klengel, H. 1964. Aziru von Amurru und seine Rolle in der Geschichte der Amarnazeit. Mitteikungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 10: 57–83. Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien, Berlin. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici. Rome. Liverani, M. 1983. Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus 31: 41–56. Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600– 1100 B.C. Padova. Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*–99*. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1990. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 22: 247–255.


49

Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives Internationales). (Missions de Ras Shamra IX). Paris. Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Singer, I. 1990. Aziru’s Apostasy and the Historical Setting of the General’s Letter. In: Izre’el, S. and Singer, I. The General’s Letter from Ugarit. A Linguistic and Historical Reevaluation of RS 20.23 (Ugaritica V, No. 20). Tel Aviv: 113–183. Singer, I. 1991. A Concise History of Amurru. In: Izre’el, S. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study II. (Harvard Semitic Series 41). Atlanta: 134–195. Wilhelm, G. and Boese, J. 1987. Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In: Åstrom, P. ed. High, Middle or Low (Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987). Gothenburg: 74–117.

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment1 In the vassal letters from Amarna, the noun dīnu (“verdict, case, claim”) appears only in the correspondence of Rib-Hadda of Byblos.2 It appears eight times in reference to the dispute over the property of Rib-Hadda, which has been seized by Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut, and the appeal to the Pharaoh to intervene and settle the matter (EA 105:34,80; 117:64; 118:13; 119:45; 120:30,39). An isolated reference appears in letter EA 89 (line 14). Knudtzon read it ú-ul di-na a-na-ti-šu-nu (“Nicht würden ihre Vergehen gutgeheissen sein”). Ebeling read it ú-ul ki-na a-na TI-šu-nu, and translated lines 13–14 “O König, sind meine Worte nicht recht? Wenn der König fur ihr Leben sorgt, so . . .” (Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1591). In their article on letter EA 89, Albright and Moran (1950:165) read line 14 ú-ul ki-na a-na-ti-šu-nu (“Their words are not true”), suggesting a scribal error of na for wa. This interpretation was accepted by other scholars (Youngblood 1961:322, 330–331; Moran 1992:162; Rainey 1996: 174). However, the sign in Schroeder’s facsimile is definitely di, as Knudtzon read it. In my opinion, line 14 should be rendered ú-ul di-na a-na TI (balāṭi)šu-nu, and translated as a rhetorical question: “Is there no judgment on their lives?” Rib-Hadda requests that the Pharaoh intervene and punish the murderers. In what follows I shall analyze the two episodes in an attempt to clarify their course and shed more light on the way the Pharaoh handled the requests when making decisions in political-judicial incidents.

The Coup d’état in Tyre Letter EA 89 was studied in detail by Albright and Moran (1950:163–168; see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1178–1181). According to their analysis, the prince of Tyre married Rib-Hadda’s sister and is described either by the title 1. Reprinted with permission. Revue d’Assyriologie 90 (1996), 145–159. 2. For the publication of the Amarna letters see Knudtzon 1915. The second volume is a commentary by Weber and glossaries by Ebeling, with additional remarks by Knudtzon. A facsimile of the texts from Berlin was published by Schroeder 1915. A new translation of the Amarna letters, with many notes and remarkable progress in the decipherment and understanding of the letters, was published by Moran 1987. The English translation published five years later (1992) is the basis for the translation offered in this article.

50

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment

51

“mayor” (ḫazannu) or as “my brother.” His wife and sons were also killed, but “the daughters were valuable property and, hence, presumably escaped the massacre.” Rib-Hadda gives his own version of the event and warns the king against accepting the version emanating from the usurper and his followers. However, some of their readings and part of the interpretation are not free of doubts. First, they render lines 22–24 thus: “My sister’s daughs (aḫa--ia) I had sent to Tyre away from ‘Abdi-Ashirta.” How could Rib-Hadda send his sister’s daughters from his town to the island of Tyre, the place where they were born and lived safely, away from ‘Abdi-Ashirta? Second, in lines 39–42, Rib-Hadda wrote thus: “But if you make inquiry about my brother, then the city will say: This man is not a mayor! Inquire, O king, about him!” How should we interpret the city’s claim that the murdered ḫazannu (who is called “brother,” according to Albright’s and Moran’s interpretation) is not a mayor? These difficulties disappear once it is understood that the Tyrians had murdered both their ruler and his family and Rib-Hadda’s brother, who was staying then in the town. The former is called by the title ḫazannu and once (line 33) by the appellation aḫu (a ruler of equal status; see EA 92:44; 106:15,20; 137:13); the latter is called by the familial affiliation aḫu (lines 13,22,39). Line 22 should not be corrected (as did Knudtzon and his followers), but read a-ḫaia (“my brother”). The misunderstanding of the text is due to the use of the noun aḫu in two different meanings and by the omission of the sign u (“and”) in lines 13 and 22. Indeed, there is a relatively large number of small errors in this letter, as will be apparent from the rendering of the text. Following is a new translation of the letter (except the introduction) and a commentary. These will be followed by an analysis of the letter and the presumed reaction of the Pharaoh to the act of usurpation. (7–17) [Though] I keep writing like this [to the pal]ace, my words are not [taken to he]art, and they go utterly un[hee]ded. Look at the deed in Tyre. On this account I am afraid. Even now the king makes no inquiry about his mayor my brother. May the king h<eed> my words. Is there no judgment on their lives? If the king makes inquiry, we will devote ourselves to your service. (17–32) I made connubium with Tyre; they were on good terms with me. Behold, they have killed their mayor, together with my sister and her sons daughters. I had sent my brother to Ty[re], away from ‘Abdi-A[shirta, and they killed] him alo[ng with . . . If the king remains silent about my brother, then all lands will be joined to the ‘Apiru??. But if] the king [makes inquiry about my brother], then all lands [will be joined to the king, my lord]. (33–39) Will the king not [make inquiry] about [my] brother, [for] the ity (RU) [is] without a g[rown heir] (e[ṭ-lu]). [Indeed], he sent again and again to the king, [but h]is words went unheeded. And so he died. I know it!

52

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE (39–43) But if you make inquiry about my brother, then the city will say: “This man is not the mayor. Inquire, O King, about him. We are unable to do anything.” And they are afraid of me! (44–59) Will the king not make inquiry about the mayor of Tyre? For his property is as great as the sea. I know it! Look, there is no mayor’s residence like that of the residence in Tyre. It is like the residence in Ugarit. Exceedingly great is the wealth in it. May the king heed [the word]s of servant. May he send [P]N? that he will stay [in the l]and, and [appoint a man] ([šu-ku-un LÚ]) for the office of mayor (a-na ḫa-za-nu-ti). May [no] property be handed [over to] them. (59–63) Also [make inquiry? about the com]missioner of the king. He is t[aking fr]om the king [the property] of the lands [of the king]. I know ! (63–67) Does the king approve [that ‘Abdi-A]shirta has taken the sea [in] front of them, and so they are at peace? May the king [ter]rify them! Do I not continue to write about ir crime to the king?

Notes to the text: Line 14: The subject of the plural pronoun -šunu is the mayor of Byblos and Rib-Hadda’s brother mentioned in line 13. Line 25: It is possible that some other members of the brother’s family have been killed and were listed after qa[du]. Lines 26–32: The long restoration, which is naturally quite uncertain, is based partly on the similarity in structure to lines 33–43 and partly on the stock of phrases repeated many times in the letters of Rib-Hadda. Line 33: To judge from Schroeder’s facsimile, it is possible that the signs aḫi are written over an erased ḫa-za. Lines 34–35: I restore [ù i-ba-ša-at] URU i-na ba-li e[ṭ-lu ù]. The URU sign was mistakenly written without the first vertical wedge (compare the URU sign in line 41). For ibaššat in reference to a town, see EA 84:38; 105:10; 116: 9,20. The noun eṭlu appears in another letter of Byblos (EA 74:26) and was discussed by Moran in his edition (1992:144, note 7; cf. EA 29:154). It refers in the Amarna letters to a young man, who is grown up and able to sit on the throne (see Moran’s note 1 to EA 17), like ta/erd/tennu in the texts of Nuzi, Ugarit and Ḫattusha (see Wilhelm 1970:277–282). Lines 54–57: For the restoration, see EA 107:11–24. The two texts deal with a similar situation, the appointment of someone to a vacant post. In letter EA 107, Rib-Hadda advises the Pharaoh about the nomination of a commissioner in Ṣumur: “May miḫripita (i.e., the archer-commander) stay (yizziz) in Ṣumur . . . and then . . . appoint (šukun) as its commissioner someone respected by the king’s mayors.” For the verb šakānu in reference to nomination to the office of mayor, see EA 161:51–53.


53

The plural noun “mayors” (ḫazannūti) is consistently preceded in the Amarna letters by LÚMEŠ.3 Only two references lack it (EA 89:57; 124:22), and they refer to the office of mayor (ḫazannūtu; CAD Ḫ 165b–166a). The passage in EA 124:20–22 is broken, but may be restored thus: “Who is t[his fellow, servant (and) dog], that he has taken the ci[ties of the king for himself], and [has cancelled?] the mayorship?” Moran translated “and (even) mayor[s has killed].” But Aziru is never accused by Rib-Hadda of killing mayors. The accusation appears only in the letters of Ili-rapih, Rib-Hadda’s brother and heir to the throne of Byblos, who deceitfully attributed to Aziru some misdeeds of his father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 139–12–15; 140:10–12). Lines 59–62: The corrupt mayor is probably Paḫamnata, the commissioner of Ṣumur, who supported ‘Abdi-Ashirta and whom Rib-Hadda accused of treacherous deeds (see EA 131:34–36; 132:41). Lines 63–67: The translation and restoration follow Moran’s edition. Letter EA 89 is well constructed and Rib-Hadda’s case is clearly stated. He opens with a general account of the event, asking for an inquiry and judgment. He then goes into details and relates how many members of the royal families of Tyre and Byblos have been killed. Investigation and punishment are necessary, because if the murder is left unpunished, more towns may follow the example and attack their mayors (compare EA 73:23–33; 74:25–29; 75: 25–34). Of the following three passages, the first and second discuss the possible results of two opposite reactions of the Pharaoh: if he does not hold an inquiry, and if he does hold one. The first refers to the situation in Tyre, which is left without a grown heir; the second describes the embarrassment of the city, in view of the murder of a foreign prince and its fear of Rib-Hadda’s vengeance. In the third passage, Rib-Hadda alludes to what the Pharaoh may gain from an intervention in the succession. He emphasizes the wealth of the ruler of Tyre, whose residence is “like the residence of Ugarit,” and calls on the Pharaoh to instruct his officer to come

3. Izre’el (1991:118–119) suggested that the final vowel i in LÚMEŠ ḫa-za-nu-ú-ti (EA 162: 13) marks a singular ending. In this light, he translates lines 12–13 as follows: “He was staying in Sidon, and you have appointed him mayor (lit. you have given him to mayoralty) at your initiative.” However, in the next line the Pharaoh wrote thus: “Were you ignorant of the treacherousness of the men.” “The men” (LÚMEŠ) doubtless refer back to LÚMEŠ ḫazannūti, indicating that it is a plural form. Also, an accusation of Aziru of actually appointing somebody as mayor is unlikely. It is evident that the distinction between plural and singular forms of the noun, established by Izre’el for the Amurru Akkadian, is not applicable to Egyptian Akkadian.

54


to Tyre and set a new king on the vacant throne. Citizens who killed their lord should neither enthrone their own candidate nor gain any profit from their crime. The last two paragraphs are directed against his arch-enemy, ‘AbdiAshirta of Amurru, and against his supporter, the commissioner of Ṣumur. Rib-Hadda creates an artificial link between the citizens of Tyre and ‘AbdiAshirta by suggesting that they enjoy his misdeeds and closes the letter with a reminder of their crime. At the center of the letter is Rib-Hadda’s plea for judgment on the murderers, who must have been his political opponents. His letter has a distinct political aspect, namely, a request to promote some other candidate than the one suggested by the conspirators. The title ḫazannu (“mayor”), by which the local Canaanite rulers are called in the correspondence, lacks the concepts of dynasty and succession. There was only one king, the Pharaoh, and according to Egyptian ideology, he could nominate his own candidate for every vacant throne. In reality, the dynastic principle was kept in almost every instance, and the Pharaoh would have confirmed the succession of the heir to the throne. Only in exceptional cases would the Pharaoh intervene and nominate (through his officials in Canaan) his own candidate. Such was the situation after the Egyptian campaign to Amurru and the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. His heir, Aziru, appeared with his brothers in Damascus before the Egyptian authorities (EA 107:26–28). Only after negotiations and an agreement, which included the dispatch of his two sons as hostages to Egypt (EA 156), and the nomination of Yanḫamu to supervise his actions from Ṣumur (EA 157; 171), was Aziru able to occupy his father’s throne. His recognition as mayor is expressed in one of his letters (EA 161:51–53): “But this is the land of my lord, and the king, my lord, made me (iškunanni) one of the mayors.” His rival, Rib-Hadda, describes the nomination in negative terms (EA 103:8–10): “The war of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta against me is harsh. They have entered (the throne) of Amurru, and the entire country is theirs.” (For this interpretation of erēbu, see EA 286:13; 316:20; cf. EA 102:11). Another example of Egyptian intervention in an unusual succession is reflected in letter EA 220. The writer’s father was killed when the city was attacked, and he anxiously awaited the arrival of a commissioner to examine the case and decide whether to approve his reign. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, the mayor of Jerusalem, spent his youth in Egypt and was nominated by the Pharaoh, possibly when circumstances invited a royal intervention in the succession to the throne (Moran 1975:165–166). What was the Pharaoh’s reaction to the crisis of succession in Tyre? It seems to me that the murdered king was [. . .]-DI.KUD, the author of let-


55

ter EA 295,4 and that his successor was Abi-Milki of Tyre, the author of letters EA 146–155 (Na’aman 1979:673–676). Indeed, in several letters Abi-Milki of Tyre emphasizes that he was nominated by a Pharaoh. For example: “My presence will be as pleasing to the king, my lord, as when the king, my lord, charged me (ipqidni) with guarding his city” (EA 148:18–22; compare 149:9– 10; 151:6–7; 155:49–51). Abi-Milki of Tyre was a scion of the reigning dynasty of Tyre (EA 150:34–37),5 and his enthronement took place under Amenophis III (EA 147:57–60).6 He designates himself by two Egyptian titles: rābiṣu (EA 149:14, 47–48) and “soldier” (EA 149:21; 151:69). Moreover, some of his letters, in particular EA 147, show an Egyptian influence in their vocabulary and phraseology.7 It may be assumed that Abi-Milki of Tyre was raised in Egypt, possibly as a hostage (compare EA 156:9–12; 198:27–29; 254:30–35; 296: 23–29), and that, following the murder of the ruler of Tyre, was selected by Amenophis III and nominated as the city’s mayor. How much he paid for that from his property, which, according to Rib-Hadda, was “as great as the sea,” remains unknown. We may also assume that the murderers were punished, though this cannot be verified. Rib-Hadda’s requested “judgment on their lives” must have been carried out, and so he got his revenge for the murder of his relatives.

4. Letter EA 295 possibly refers to the conquest of the town of Usu by Yab[ni- . . . ], Zimredda’s predecessor on the throne of Sidon. Lines 12–18 may tentatively be restored thus: “May the king, [my] lord, be i[nformed] of the de[ed that] Yab[ni- . . . , the ruler of S]idon [d]id to me. W[hen he plotte]d ( i]-[nu-ma i-la-mi-n]a) evi[l, he . . . ] and attacked [the town of Usu?] along with Ka[lbu, the ruler of Hazor??], along with his brothers [ . . . ].” For the association of the rulers of Sidon and Hazor, see EA 148:38–44. 5. EA 150 is, in my opinion, Abi-Milki of Tyre’s earliest letter and was sent to King Amenophis III. It was written shortly after his enthronement, when the Pharaoh sent him soldiers to guard the city (lines 4–7). In his late letters, on the other hand, Abi-Milki of Tyre keeps complaining about the absence of the Egyptian military. Lines 33–37 may tentatively be translated thus: “From the ti[me?] (i-na tar-[ṣi?]) [of P]N? [he br]ought trees. It is much, O king, my lord, (what) you gave (in return) [t]o my fathers, [un]til my fathers br[ou]ght across the c[ity’s] gods before the king, my lord.” Provided that the (highly tentative) restoration of line 31 is correct, it may be compared with EA 224, in which the author (ShumAdda of Shamḫuna) mentions Kusuna, one of his forefathers, in reference to a grain tax. 6. In letter EA 147:57–60 Abi-Milki of Tyre writes thus: “I indeed said to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord, ‘When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?’“ For the date of EA 150, see note 5. 7. For the Egyptian influence on Abi-Milki of Tyre’s letters, see Albright 1937:190–203; Grave 1982:161–183. For a different opinion, see Gevirtz 1973:176–177; cf. Moran 1975:157, n. 3.

56


Royal Judgment on Confiscation of Two Ships Early in the period covered by the Amarna letters, the relationship of Rib-Hadda with Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut was ordinary, though certainly not cordial. Rib-Hadda sometimes complained about the collaboration between Yapaḫ-Hadda and ‘Abdi-Ashirta and his followers (EA 83:24–26; 85:41–43). In other letters, he accused the mayors of some coastal cities, including Beirut, of disobeying the orders of the Egyptian authorities (EA 92:30–41; 101:20–25; 103:16–19; 106:18–21; 114:10–13). Following the dispute over the cargo of two Byblian ships, the relationship grew into open enmity and did not change until the dispute was settled. Shortly afterward, Yapaḫ-Hadda died and was replaced by Ammunira. The latter became Rib-Hadda’s closest ally, with whom he formed an alliance and in whose city he stayed after his throne was usurped by his brother (EA 136–138). What was the background of the dispute, and how did it develop? The main obstacle to the discussion is the documentation. We have only the letters of Rib-Hadda, who is notorious for his biased accounts of events and the extremely one-sided picture he paints. A critical approach to Rib-Hadda’s letters, as well as inferences drawn from other sources, are necessary to clarify the background of the episode and to reconstruct the chain of events. To introduce the discussion, I will translate sections of two letters in which Rib-Hadda describes the early stages of the episode. (A) Letter EA 105 was written some time after Yanḫamu was nominated to replace the former dead commissioner of Ṣumur (EA 102; 106:21–22, 35–40; 107:11–24). Upon his arrival at Ṣumur, he ordered some neighboring rulers to send their ships to the place. In the first part of EA 105:5–31, Rib-Hadda answers that he is unable to get there, because of the blockade imposed by the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and the ships of Arwada. A similar excuse appears in a contemporary letter sent by Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut to Yanḫamu (EA 98). The second part of the letter is partly broken. Following is a translation of and comments on its text. (31–45) Yapaḫ-Hadda is at war with me because of [my] property in his possession. Let us put the case before Amman-m[a]di?, and DUMU-biḫa, and before Yanḫamu, for they are the ones who know what is my due concerning m[y . . .]. Because my property in his possession is considerable, therefore he has waged war against me. When I heard [abo]ut Ullasa, I indeed sent [an offici]al? ([LÚGA]L?-mi to him, but he has [p]lundere[d] [two] of m[y] sh[ips] ([UGU? 2 GIŠ]M[Á]-i[a]) and too[k t]hei[r property (la-q[a]-a [mi-immi š]a-a-[š]u-ni). He has wa[ged war agai]nst me. (46–78 broken) (79–88 [May] the k[ing sen]d [a commissioner that w]e may put the case be[fore him]. May [an]y property of mine in his possession be taken for the king, and let the faithful servant live for the king. The Egyptians who got out of Ullasa are now with me, but


57

there is no [gr]ain for them to eat. Yapaḫ-Hadda does not let my ships [in]to Yarimuta, and I cannot send them to Ṣumur because of the ships of Arwada. Look, he says, “Rib[Hadda] ca[me forth?] (a-[ṣa/i]); [he t]ook it.” And so [he is at war?] against me.

Notes to the text: Lines 34–35: The three commissioners were perhaps known for their support of Rib-Hadda. He did not mention Ḫaip, one of the commissioners of Ṣumur, who supported Aziru, his main adversary. Lines 40–41, 84–85: Ullasa was an Egyptian garrison city that was taken by Pu-Ba‘lu, Aziru’s brother (EA 104; 109:12–15, 44–50). The Egyptians who stayed in the town moved temporarily to Byblos, whose ruler was responsible for their supplies. Lines 40–42: Rib-Hadda emphasizes his loyalty, as opposed to the disloyalty of his opponent, by noting that upon hearing of the fall of Ullasa, he tried to cooperate with an Egyptian commissioner, whereas Yapaḫ-Hadda took advantage of the situation and plundered his ships. Line 43: Half of the MÁ sign is clearly seen in Schroeder’s facsimile. The restoration 2 elippātiya is supported by the parallel to EA 113:14 and by the appearance of the dual personal pronoun ša-a-šu-ni (see Moran 1973:50–53). Line 79: The restoration is supported by EA 113:17; 117:66. Lines 81–82: Compare EA 113:19–21; 117:67–69. Line 88: The restoration is ad sensum. I assume that the episode is concluded with words similar to those with which it opened, and restores [(i-tipu-uš) nu-KÚR] at the end (compare lines 31–32, 39–40, 45). (B) Letter EA 113 is the second of a two-tablet letter. It may have been sent not long after EA 105. Only the relevant passage (lines 11–23) is translated here. What have I done to Yapaḫ-Hadda that he plo[ts] evil upon evil against m[e]? Indeed, he has plundered two of my ships, and my flocks and my property in his possession are very great. May the king [se]nd his commissioner [to de]cide between the two of you. [Everything] that [is ta]ken from him [belongs to the king]. [He (the commissioner) should inquire] concerning [my] property [that] is in [his] possession, [and concerning my? captured?] men. [I]f? ([šum-m]a?) Rib-Hadda [remains silent?, then] [all (of it)] will be s[old] to the ‘Apiru. But there is no one who [can ta]ke anything belonging to him from my [hand].

Notes to the text: Lines 20–21: The restoration [a-na LUGAL] is supported by EA 105:82 and 117:69 and by the dual personal pronoun in line 18.

58


Lines 21–26: Moran’s translation runs thus: “Concerning [my] property [that] is in [his] possession [he should inquire of] my [me]n . . . [. . . fr]om RibHadda [and] for the ‘Apiru has [all of it] be[en acquired].” A detailed list of the seized “things” (unūtē) appears in letter EA 120:1–23. The preciseness of the list shows that the cargo of the two ships was recorded before they sailed. Moran translated line 19 “All of them pertain to [. . .],” and suggested that it may be a summary remark. In this light, the lacuna may be restored [GIŠMÁ], “. . . pertain to one [ship].” Of special interest is the note appended at the end of the list of “things” (lines 22–23): “90–100 maidservants (and) manservants are missing.”8 In view of this, it may be suggested that one ship (lines 1–19) carried only merchandise and the other (lines 20–23) carried servants and some goods. After the publication of Knudtzon’s edition and Weber’s analysis, in 1915, the episode of the plunder of the two ships was never discussed in detail, and the list of goods is missing from all investigations of the trade in the eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. The ships must have sailed to Egypt or to Cyprus and stopped on their way in Beirut. The cargo list may be compared with that found in the wrecks from Cape Calidonia and Ulan Burun. It illustrates the craft and metallurgy of Byblos and its exports in the 14th century BCE, but investigation in these directions is beyond the scope of this article. Rib-Hadda’s description of the episode makes little sense. He does not explain either why Yapaḫ-Hadda suddenly plundered his ships or why the commissioners refused to intervene on his behalf. His words “because my property in his possession is considerable, he has accordingly waged war against me” (lines 38–40) do not make sense. Moreover, his immediate willingness to transfer his property to the Pharaoh does not suit an incident of piracy. His request for arbitration and judgment also indicates that something other than piracy is involved in this case. Yapaḫ-Hadda’s ostensible explanation of the blockade is cited at the end of letter EA 105: “Rib-[Hadda] ca[me forth?]; [he t]ook it.” The subject of “it” is intentionally obscure. Yapaḫ-Hadda must have been afraid that Rib-Hadda would retaliate, and in self-defense cooperated with Aziru, Rib-Hadda’s archenemy. What could have been the reason for Yapaḫ-Hadda’s aggression? I think that it was his reaction to an unpaid debt that Byblos owed his city. Beirut acted as an intermediary in the transport of grain from the land of Yarimuta to Byblos and Ṣumur. Indeed, following its conflict with Beirut, there was 8. A different translation was suggested by Moran 1992:119–200, note 12.


59

a severe shortage of grain in Byblos. Note, for example, EA 114:54–59, “Previously, my peasantry got provisions from the land of Yarimuta, but now Yapaḫ-Hadda does not allow them out” (compare EA 105:83–87). Letter EA 98 further illustrates the role of Beirut in the transportation of grain. Yanḫamu, the Egyptian commissioner, ordered Yapaḫ-Hadda to bring grain to Ṣumur. The latter answered that Aziru stationed ships of Arwada south of Ṣumur, “so grain cannot be brought into Ṣumur.” A passage in letter EA 85:23–30 may further support this assumption. Although it is broken, it may be restored with the help of a parallel passage (EA 86:14–22). Letter EA 85 was sent to the Pharaoh, and EA 86 was sent, at the same time, to the Egyptian officer Amanappa. The two passages are translated one after the other, so that the similarity of vocabulary and contents is apparent immediately. EA 85:25–30: As to Yanḫamu having said: “I [ga]ve grain to Rib-Hadda,” [I ga]ve him [a servant, and da-x-x an]d skins of . . . (KUŠ\ḫu-ta-ri-ma). [And] 40 men [consumed?] the grain. W[ha]t did he give m<e>? And indeed, I deposited their money with Yapaḫ-Hadda. EA 86:14–22: Be[hold], you have [ind]eed said: “Yanḫamu sent yo[u] grain.” Have not you heard? I g[ave h]im a servant, and d[a-x-x and] skins for his [. . .]. There are not ma[ny? troop]s? and not m[uch gold? and s]ilver in [my land]. (la ra-b[a-(a) ERÍNḪI.]A? ù la m[a-id KÙ.GI? u K]Ù.BABBARMEŠ iš-t[u KUR-ia]).

The source of the grain brought from the land of Yarimuta9 was probably the Pharaonic lands in the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys (Na’aman 1988: 177–185; Liverani 1990:238–239). The transport was organized by an Egyptian commissioner and sent northward by Canaanite ships via the port of Acco. Formerly, it was brought to the Egyptian garrison city of Ṣumur, and a certain amount of the grain was sold to Byblos (and possibly to other coastal towns) (EA 85:33–39; 86:31–37). When Ṣumur was conquered by ‘Abdi-Ashirta, the grain was shipped directly to Byblos. The transport under discussion was brought to Byblos by the ships of Beirut. Rib-Hadda gave certain gifts to Yanḫamu, who organized the transport, and paid for the grain to YapaḫHadda of Beirut, who must have paid earlier for the delivered grain. RibHadda got his money back from his citizens. The price of grain must have been quite high at this time, and Rib-Hadda kept complaining that “our sons and daughters and the furnishings of the 9. For the land of Yarimuta, see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1153, 1159; Helck 1971:253, n. 48; Pintore 1972:114–115. Yarimuta is probably a name for a large area in northern Palestine and may be identified with the mount/land of Yarmuta, mentioned in Seti I’s stela of Bethshean (Wilson 1969:255). Its name possibly survived in the biblical toponym Jarmuth in the inheritance of Issachar (Josh. 21:29).

60


house are gone, being sold in the land of Yarimuta for our provisions to keep us alive” (EA 75:11–14; compare 74:15–18; 81:38–41; 85:12–15; 90:36–39). It is evident that some peasants were even forced to give their wives and children in payment of their debt for the purchased grain. This may explain the large number of servants mentioned in letter EA 120 (and the large number of persons sent from Canaan to Egypt, according to the Amarna letters) (Dossin 1934:132–133; Na’aman 1981:176–177). In the face of the grave situation, RibHadda was unable (or unwilling) to pay his debt to Yapaḫ-Hadda. The latter responded by confiscating two Byblian ships anchored in his harbor, an act that touched off the conflict between the two neighboring rulers. This reconstruction, admittedly hypothetical, fits all the known data of the episode well. It explains why the commissioners refused to intervene in the dispute and why Rib-Hadda was willing to transfer the confiscated goods to the Pharaoh. His position was weak, and to regain part of his property, he was willing to make far-reaching concessions. Rib-Hadda’s next letters reflect his failure to regain his property. EA 114: 15–17, 54–59 reiterates what had already been said in letters 105 and 113. In letter EA 116:25–36, he resumes his request for a judicial decision by officials sent from Egypt. “May what is due to me [be gi]ven; it is very much . . . If the king gives (it) to his servant, well and good! Or, on the other hand, let the king take everything for himself ” (lines 28–29, 34–36). The same request is repeated in letter 118:13–20. It is clear that Rib-Hadda, believing that the Pharaoh was interested in obtaining his share of the confiscated property, did not lose hope of regaining part of his property. Letter EA 117 marks a change in Rib-Hadda’s diplomatic efforts. “I have litigation with Yapaḫ-Hadda and Ḫa. May the king send a com[missioner to] decide between us. Everything that is taken from them belongs to the king. Let no one else take it for himself. May it please the king” (lines 64–71). Ḫaip is one of the commissioners of Ṣumur who must have supported YapaḫHadda or even decided the case in his favor. The court official who would come from Egypt is asked to decide against the mayor of Beirut and the commissioner of Ṣumur. In view of this development, Rib-Hadda gave up all hopes for regaining of his property and fought only for justification. The property is due to the Pharaoh, provided the case was decided in his favor. His new diplomatic line is clearly expressed in letter EA 119. “Now this case (dīnu) is a case concerning my justice (dīn kittiya), which I have declared. All (my) property — may the king, my lord, take [everything] for himself ” (lines 44–49). 10. The restoration was suggested by Bonkamp 1939: 274, n. 1.


61

The arrival of ‘Abdi-Hadda, the Egyptian official who was to hear and decide the case, is discussed in letters EA 119 and 120. To persuade him to decide the case in his favor, Rib-Hadda put the following proposal (EA 119:49– 51): “[Bu]t my lord may give the small [things]10 to ‘Abdi-Hadda, for this is not to be taken ( ù annû la laqê).” At this stage, upon the arrival of the royal messenger, Rib-Hadda prepared a detailed list of his things that were in Yapaḫ-Hadda’s possession (EA 119:55– 59; 120:1–23). The messenger was also sent to handle the sending of an unnamed woman, with her belongings, to Egypt (EA 120:23–37). Lines 22–31 of EA 120 are badly broken, but may tentatively be restored thus: 22 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 31

90 me SALÌRMEŠ ÌRMEŠ ia-nu /i/-na pa-nu-te UR-ši-[n]a? /at/-te-[e]r yi-tu-ra-na-ši ù li-qi[t]ḪI.A NITAMEŠ 1 me KÙ.GI [ù?] la? -q[a? -(a)] ḫa-ba-lu-ma zi-[ka? -re? ù/qa-du??] a-ḫu-še [mIa-pa-dIM? ù] dan-na u ia-nu [LÚ] ša-a yi-pu-šu d[i-nu] it-ta-šu mÌR-dIM [DUMU]

Notes to the transcription: Line 23: The reading UR (bašta)-ši-[n]a was suggested by Bonkamp (1939: 275). An alternative reading is UR (bašta) S[I]G5 (damqa), “dignified (and) good-looking (girl).” Line 24: Bonkamp collated the tablet in 1900, and, in his book (1939:275, n. 1), he read the third sign as [L]Ú, noting that “Die Niederschrift, die ich mir damals anfertigte, zeigt ausser den Querkeilen besonders noch die drei Senkrechten . . .” His observation supports my suggestion to read an ir sign. For the verbal form attēr, see EA 148:36; 149:13, 31, 72. Line 25: The mistaken verbal form yitūrāna is probably due to a conflation of the verbal forms yitūra and yitūrūna. Lines 26–27: Compare EA 254:16–17 yikalu karṣiya ḫabalūma (“He denounces me unjustly”). See Moran 1992:307, n. 2. Lines 27–28: The restoration is ad sensum. In letter EA 116, Rib-Hadda complained of Yapaḫ-Hadda’s treatment to his messenger (lines 27–28): “when my man arrived, he bound him.” Line 31: As Bin-azimi played no part in the negotiations, I assume that he was the father of ‘Abdi-Hadda.

62


Translation of lines 22–39: 90–100 maidservants (and) manservants are missing. Beforehand, I ordered the return of the best-looking among them, to bring her back. And the gif[t]s of the men is one hundred (shekels) of gold. [But Yapaḫ-Hadda] to[ok] unjustly the m[en, including?] her brother, [and] he is powerful, and there is no [one] who will bring a c[ase] against him. The king sent ‘Abdi-Hadda [son of] Bin-azimi to fetch her, that she will enter service (tidaggalu pāna). And to ‘Abdi-Hadda the king said, “Send her things to her.” And the king should know (y[i]-di), upon hearing [the case], no decision was announced.

The connection between the best-looking (or, dignified and good-looking) girl and “her things” to the episode needs explaining. It seems to me that the girl was selected as a means by which Rib-Hadda’s property, now in the hands of YapaḫHadda, would be delivered to the Pharaoh. Moran (1992:200, n. 13) noted the resemblance of this episode to the royal letter EA 99, in which an unknown vassal was ordered to prepare his daughter for the king. Along with the girl he was to send her contributions: 20 first-class slaves, silver, chariots, and first-class horses. The list of objects prepared by Rib-Hadda has exactly the same function: brideprice (terḫatu) sent by Rib-Hadda with the girl, who is to enter the royal harem. There was one obstacle to the execution of the plan: the judicial case had not yet been decided. This is what Rib-Hadda states in line 37–39. There should be an official hearing and a royal decision in his favor, and only then can the girl and the property be sent to Egypt. This is the last reference to the case in the correspondence of Rib-Hadda. Obviously, the royal judgment was in his favor and so he obtained the justice which, as he asserted, was the object of his efforts. He made the most of his lost property: he gained the favor of the Pharaoh as a loyal vassal who sent him a girl with a rich dowry (compare EA 99:16–20). But the case did not end there. Yapaḫ-Hadda died shortly after the royal decision and was replaced by Ammunira. In a letter sent to the Pharaoh, the new mayor wrote as follows (EA 143:10–35): The king, my lord, [sent] to his servant and his dirt at his feet. As to his order, wherever that which was commanded by the king, my lord, the breath of my life, may be, I shall search her o[ut] and send her on to the king, my lord, the breath of my life. More[ove]r, note how, as soon as the ships of the king, my lord, [th]at have sailed to Beirut come in, I shall send the maidservant of the king, my lord. Like one dardaraḫ-ornament (tar-[t]a--aḫ) withi[n a . . .], so is Beirut to the king, my lord, and I am like a warmer (LÚtaṣraḫu) of the horses of the king, my lord. [. . .] to the king, my lord. [Just as the king, m]y [lord, the brea]th of my li[fe, ordered?], I shall s[end her i]n the sh[ips of the king], my lord.

For the construction kima . . . kinanna . . . in lines 23–26, compare EA 105: 8–10; 139:8–9; 195:18–23; 232:16–20. It is evident that the maidservant was still in Beirut a short time after Yapaḫ-Hadda’s death. Ammunira, who had just ascended the throne and


63

whose position was delicate, was willing to obey the royal order and send the maidservant to Egypt. Whether the promise included the whole bride-price, or only a part of it, remains unknown.

Conclusions The judgment of the Pharaoh in the affairs of his Canaanite vassals is well illustrated by the two episodes under discussion. The king had his own order of priorities and was not interested in the current affairs in his Asiatic province. Those he left to his commissioners in Canaan. He may have intervened in major events, or in affairs that could increase his property or prestige. RibHadda understood this, and tried to incite the Pharaoh to act by emphasizing the loss of prestige caused by his silence, in view of what happened in Canaan. The two episodes discussed in this article show how Rib-Hadda tried to entice the Pharaoh to make decisions by emphasizing the prospect of an easy profit. In the first episode, he stressed the great wealth of Tyre, and in the second he pointed out the way to deliver the confiscated property to the king. No doubt this was the standard of the time,11 and Rib-Hadda was no different from other mayors in the region. The decisions of the Sun God were, to a certain extent, motivated by the prospect of profit, and those who knew how to manipulate him, and what to offer in a given moment, were able to direct his judgment in their favor.

References Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190– 203. Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1950. Rib-Adda of Byblos and the Affairs of Tyre (EA 89). JCS 4: 163–168. Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen. Dossin, G. 1934. Une nouvelle lettre d’el-Amarna. RA 31: 125–136. Finkelstein, J.J. 1952. The Middle Assyrian šulmānu — Texts. JAOS 72: 77–80. Gevirtz, S. 1973. On Canaanite Rhetoric. The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre. Orientalia 42: 162–177. Grave, C. 1982. Northwest Semitic ṣapānu in a Break-up of an Egyptian Stereotype Phrase in EA 147. Orientalia 51: 161–182. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden.

11. A well-known Mesopotamian analogy is the sending of ṭātu, (“bribe”) or šulmānu (“gift”), for political and judicial objectives. See Finkelstein 1952:77–80; Tadmor and Cogan 1979:499–502, with earlier literature in n. 34; Liverani 1982:61–63.

64


Izre’el, S. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study I-II. Atlanta, Georgia. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Liverani, M. 1982. Kitru, Katāru. Mesopotamia 17: 43–66. Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Empire. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. (History of the Ancient Near East/Studies 1). Padova. Moran, W.L. 1973. The Dual Personal Pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. BASOR 211: 50–53. Moran, W.L. 1975. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13). Paris. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UF 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1988. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–185. Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di elAmarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131. Rainey, A.F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan II. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/25). Leiden. Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Tadmor, H. and Cogan, M. 1979. Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations. Biblica 60: 491–508. Wilhelm, G. 1970. Ta/erdennu, ta/urtannu, ta/urtānu. UF 2: 277–282 Youngblood, R.F. 1961. The Amarna Correspondence of Rib-Haddi, Prince of Byblos (EA 68–96). Ph.D. Thesis. Philadelphia.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters1 The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that a group of letters that Knudtzon, in his edition of the Amarna tablets, assigned to the Phoenician coast, belongs to the southern Palestinian region and that, in addition, one of the letters assigned by Knudtzon to the Gezer correspondence actually belongs to the Phoenician coast. Also, the implications of these re-locations will be discussed in detail in light of the chronology and the history of the Amarna letters.

I. An Additional Letter from Tyre (EA 295) Knudtzon combined letter EA 295 with the Gezer correspondence of IM.DI.KUD (transcribed by him as Adda-dāni2) on account of the name of its sender (only partially preserved: [. . .]-DI.KUD). However, he himself noted that the clay of the tablet is different from the clay of the other three tablets that he assigned to Adda-dāni, EA 292–294 and is rather similar to the clay of the Byblos letters (Knudtzon 1915:1345 n. 1). In addition to the type of clay, we might adduce several other characteristics indicating that the tablet is of northern origin or, more specifically, that it originated in the city of Tyre. We shall discuss the revealing features of letter EA 295 in the following four points. (a) The arena in which the letter was written can be established from the following reconstruction of lines 12–15:

d

ù l[i-il-ma-a]d mLUGAL-ru be-[li-ia] a-na i-pí-[ši ša yi-p]u-uš-mi mIa-ab/p-[. . . LÚ uru Ṣ]i! du-na[ki?] a-na ia-ši “May the king, my lord, be informed of the deed which Yab/p[. . .], ruler of Sidon, has done to me.”

161.

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979), 673–684. 2. For the reading of the name, see most recently: Moran 1975b:153–155; Izre’el 1977:

65

66


Knudtzon (1915:887 n. f) has observed two oblique scratches before the sign du that were probably obliterated when Schroeder copied the tablet. They might well belong to the end of the sign zi. uruZI-du-na was the common way of writing the name of the city in the Amarna correspondence. (b) The expression [ep-ru ša] šap-li 2 kušE.SÍR mLUGAL-ri EN-ia (lines 4–5) as part of the introductory lines is found elsewhere only in the letters of Tyre (EA 147:4–5; 149:1–5; 152:3; 154:4–5; 155:45). (c) The appearance of the double Glossenkeil \\ (rev. line 7; see presently) together with the single Glossenkeil \ (line 16) in one and the same letter is known in the Amarna correspondence only from two letters of Tyre (EA 146 lines 15 and 20; 155 lines 10, 46 and 33). The double Glossenkeil itself appears mainly in the area to the north of Palestine (Artzi 1963:33–35). In Palestine, it is known only from tablet EA 65 (line 5) which, as I shall try to show, belongs to the southern Palestinian region. Also, the double Glossenkeil now appears in two tablets from Tel Aphek that were written in the 13th century BCE (Rainey 1975:125ff; 1976:137ff). We should also bear in mind that northern scribal influences were penetrating Canaan during the Amarna period. The clearest evidence of this comes from a comparison of the Aziru letters with those of his father ‘Abdi-Ashirta (Moran 1975a:158 n. 5). Letter EA 65 belongs to the last stage of the Amarna letters from Palestine (see presently); thus, it is not impossible that the use of the double Glossenkeil in this letter is due to the penetration of such northern scribal traditions into Canaan. The Aphek tablets may well indicate that the double Glossenkeil replaced the single Glossenkeil that was common in the Palestinian Amarna letters sometime between the Amarna period and the 13th century BCE.3 (d) A close parallel between our letter and the letters of Abi-Milki of Tyre emerges from the elucidation of rev. lines 5–7 of EA 295.4 Winckler (1896:356 n. 1) read in line 7 a-na na-ṣa-ri URUki and suggested that the following sign is a Glossenkeil denoting a continuation from the end of the previous line. Knudtzon (1915:889 n. c) read it as uru.kiGam-ti-e-ti, rejecting Winckler’s reading on the grounds that a different kind of Glossenkeil already appears in line 16. Rainey (1970b:92 s.v. Ginti-’eti) has suggested that the signs ki+gam be combined as a single sign, ginx (= ḪAR). However, the sign ḪAR on this tablet

3. Moran (1975a:159 n. 14) has observed that considerable changes seem to have taken place along the Phoenician coast in the post-Amarna age with the appearance of northern features in writing. The Aphek tablets corroborate his observation. 4. In lines 10–11 of EA 295 restore ki-[ma a-bu]-ti-ia iš-tu da-ri-ti “Like my ancestors from of old.” For abbūtu in the Amarna letters see Knudtzon 1915:1361.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters

67

(rev. line 8) looks quite different. Moreover, as the syllable ginx does not appear in the Amarna letters from the Phoenician coast (Moran 1975a:151 and 162 n. 40), Rainey’s emendation cannot be accepted. Winckler’s proposal must also be rejected, because the Amarna scribes used the Glossenkeil to denote the continuation of a line for only a few signs at the very end of the next line, but in this case, the Glossenkeil is in the middle of the line. Kundtzon’s syllabic reading of the sign is problematic, too, because the syllable gam first appears in Mesopotamian tablets dated later than the Amarna period and is unknown in the West during the second Millennium BCE (see von Soden and Röllig 1967: No. 210). We noted earlier that the two kinds of Glossenkeils with exactly the same forms as those in our tablet appear in two letters from Tyre. For this reason, it is better to regard the sign in question as a Glossenkeil explaining the next word, ti-e-ti. We shall now quote several parallel references from the Tyrian correspondence to clarify the passage under discussion. EA 148:13–16 EA 149:17–19 EA 151:14–16 EA 152:47–48 EA 295: rev. 5–7

littadin šarru bēliya 10 amēl(ūti) šēpē ana naṣāri ālišu liwaššir šarru 20 amēl(ūti) šēpē ana ṣār ālišu liddinni šarru bēliya 20 amēlūti ana naṣāri āl šarri bēliya liddinni 80 amēl(ūti) w[i-i-ma] ana na-ṣ[a-ri] ti-e-ti-š[u?]5 liddinme šarru bēliya 50 amēlūti . . . ana naṣāri āl (URUki) / ti-e-ti a-[na šarri]

The similarity among all these passages is clear, but the meaning of the word ti-e-ti that appears twice (once with a Glossenkeil) remains obscure. Syntactically, ti-e-ti and āl ti-e-ti stand in place of ālišu (his city) and āl šarri (the city of the king) in the other passages, and the word seems to denote an appellation of the writer’s town. The letters from Tyre even contain an interesting parallel of such an appellation. Several times in letter EA 155 the city of Tyre is called āl míMayāti — “the city of Mayāti (= Merit-aten)”6 (lines 42, 50, 62). See, particularly, lines 49–51: šarru ipqidni ana naṣāri āl Mayāti bēltiya (BE!-ti-ia) “The king appointed me to guard the city of Mayāti, my lady.”7

5. Following is a tentative translation of the broken passage EA 152 lines 45–50: (45) And may [the king, my lord], give (46) [his attention(?)] forever to [me/his servant] (47) [and l]et him give me eighty so[ldiers] (48) to gu[ard] h[is(?)] ti-e-ti [because] (49) the enmi[ty is str]ong (50) again[st me]. 6. For the name Mayāti see Albright 1937:191–194; 1946:16a No. 27; von Soden 1952: 432. 7. The continuation of line 51 is probably a-nu-[ta 5 iq]-bi “that is what he said.” It seems, therefore, that it was the Pharaoh who called the city of Tyre “the city of Mayāti” in his let-

68


Unfortunately, the meaning of the word ti-e-ti escapes us.8 In the meantime, the following translation is suggested for rev. lines 5–7 of EA 295: “May the king my lord give fifty men with an officer x[xx] in order to guard the city of xxx f[or the king] .” Summing up the results of our study, it seems to us that there are several links between letter EA 295 and the correspondence from Tyre. Therefore, we suggest that [xx]-DI.KUD was Abi-Milki of Tyre’s predecessor on the throne of Tyre.9 Abi-Milki of Tyre’s rule in Tyre began in the days of Amenophis III, as is implied by letter EA 147 lines 57–60: “Thus I have said to the sun, the father of the king, my lord: When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?” The letter belongs to the time of the preparations for the Egyptian campaign against Hatti and its allies in Syria and should be dated to the late years of Akhenaten (Na’aman 1975:145–153). Accordingly, the king’s father is Amenophis III.10 It seems reasonable to assume that Abi-Milki of Tyre succeeded the anonymous ruler of Tyre who was killed during a rebellion mentioned in EA 8911 and that our [xx]-DI.KUD is this unfortunate ruler. The hostility between Tyre and Sidon, which is so well illustrated throughout the correspondence of Abi-Milki of Tyre, began in the time of his predecessor (and probably much earlier). His opponent in Sidon is Yab/p[xxx], the predecessor of Zimredda. The latter is first mentioned in letter EA 83, which was dated to a very late stage in the career of ‘Abdi-Ashirta (Campbell 1964:93). We must conclude, therefore, that EA 295 is one of the earliest letters in the Amarna archive and was certainly written during the time of Amenophis III.

II. Shuwardata and the Correspondence of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti The question of the origin of the three letters EA 63–65 has been the subject of extensive discussion ever since their publication. The name of the

ter, and Abi-Milki of Tyre repeats this appellation in his answer. The same writing, Mayāti BE-ti-ia, appears again in line 29 (EA 155:27–30: “I will direct myself to serve him [and] Mayāti, my lady, day and night”). 8. The appearance of a Glossenkeil before the word ti-e-ti indicates that it is a noun and not a personal name. The writing ti-i-ti (ṭiṭṭu “mud”) in EA 148:34 does not help us solve the problem at hand. Also, the legendary lady Elissa/Dido of Tyre mentioned in the Greek and Latin sources (Meyer 1931:111; Katzenstein 1973:187f) can scarcely be considered here. 9. Campbell (1964:101) suggested that the name be restored as Yab[ni-ilu], the last ruler of Lachish during the Amarna period. The discussion above shows that this reconstruction no longer can be accepted. 10. Our date is contrary to Redford (1967:220), who wrote that “there is no possibility that his (Abi-Milki of Tyre’s) rule overlapped with that of Amenhotep III.” 11. For EA 89, see Albright and Moran 1950:163–168.


69

sender is written in three different variations: Ab-di-aš-ta-<ar>-ti (EA 63: 3),12 ÌR dINNIN (EA 64:3), and Ad-ra-INNIN (EA 65:3). However, Knudtzon was convinced that all three letters were sent by the same ruler, and, therefore, he explained the element adra- as a metathesis of arda = abda and read the theophorous logogram INNIN as Ashtartu. Knudtzon (1915:1128–1130, 1329 n. 2) has noted the similarity in the clay, script, and several expressions of these three letters and the late group of letters of Shuwardata (EA 281–284). Nevertheless, on account of the resemblance of names between ‘Abdi-Ashtarti and ‘Abdi-Ashirta, the well-known ruler of Amurru, Knudtzon decided to combine the three letters with the dossier of the latter ruler by suggesting an exchange of the names of the goddesses, Ashtartu and Ashera(t). The similarity to the letters of Shuwardata was explained as the result of the possible movements of scribes from one place to another. While copying the whole group of Amarna letters belonging to the Berlin Museum, Schroeder (1915:293f) noted the similarity of script and formulae between letters EA 65 and 335. Inasmuch as the latter belongs to southern Palestine, Schroeder assigned the former to that area as well, but did not discuss the question of the origin of the other two letters, EA 63–64. Schachermeyr (1932:5) noted briefly that the letters of ‘Abdi-Ashirta should be separated from the letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, and de Koning did likewise (1940:§274, §317). Campbell (1964:107, 110), following Schroeder, separated EA 65 from EA 63–64. He assigned the last letters to ‘Abdi-Ashirta, and the first, together with EA 335, was connected to the correspondence of Shuwardata, despite the obvious difference in names. We must remember that the only argument adduced so far for assigning the three letters to the correspondence of ‘Abdi-Ashirta is the similarity of names. However, the name ‘Abdi-Ashirta is consistently written in the Amarna letters as ÌR/ab-di-a-ši-ir-ta/i/u. The logographic writing INNIN and the syllabic writing Ašta(r)tu for the same name proves only the equation INNIN = Ashtartu. The two goddesses, Ashtartu and Ashera(t), were strictly set apart in personal names.13 It is suggested, therefore, that the writing of the goddess’ name Ashtartu by the logogram INNIN was a southern Palestinian tradition. In any event, it is clear that there is nothing left to connect letters

12. Albright’s (1944:16 n. 20) reading of the theophorous element in this name as aš-rati is not justified by the original tablet (collated). 13. For the goddess Ashtartu see Herrmann 1969:6–52, and particularly p. 43 n. 157; Loewenstamm 1971: 406–412. For the goddess Ashera(t) see Patai 1965:37–52; Bernhardt 1967:163–174.

70


EA 63–65 with the letters of Amurru. All the criteria mentioned so far (clay, script, and language) point to a specific area, namely south Palestine, where the four letters of Shuwardata (EA 281–284) and letter EA 335 originated. To demonstrate the intimate relationships existing among the four letters of Shuwardata and the four letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, we shall tabulate several expressions from the formulae at the opening of those letters. We present the particular expression, its occurrences in our group, and (in parentheses) in other letters. mila anna šibi mila šibi mila anna maqtati maqtiti u kabatūma u ṣuḫrūrma

= 64:6; 283:5,15; 284:18 = 65:4; 282:4; 284:4 (330:7) = 64:6; 283:5 = 63:6; 65:5; 282:4; 283:6 (336:5) = 64:5; 284:4,5,22 (138:4) = 64:7; 65:6; 335:4; 282:7; 284:5 (see. 306:11)

The above expressions, together with the other similarities, clearly show that the same scribe wrote all of these tablets. We must now discuss whether all of these letters were sent from the same place or whether the same scribe served in two neighboring cities. Our discussion will begin with a new transliteration, translation, and commentary on letter EA 335.

5.

10.

15.

20.

[a-na mLUGAL-ri EN-ia qí-bí-ma] [um-ma m Abdi-Aštarti ÌR-ka] [a-na GÌRmeš EN-ia 7 ù 7 mi-la] [ma-aq-ta-ti ù ka-ba-tu-ma ù] ṣú-uḫ-ru-<ma> [a-na GÌRmeš mLUGAL-ri E]N-ia [li-il5-ma-ad mLUGA]L-ri EN-ia [ki-ma 1-en i-ba]-šu-ti li-i[l5-ma-ad mLUGAL-r]i EN-ia ki-ma G[AZ?m]eš \ mi-ḫi-ṣa m Tu-u[r-ba-zu ù?] mla-ap-ti-ḫa-da ù nu-k[i-ir uru L]a-ki-ši li-i[l5-ma-ad mLUG]AL-ri EN-ia ù i[l5 -qé LÚ] ar-ni gab-bi LÚ! MÍ! SIG5!-ia li-il5-ma-ad m LUGAL-ri EN-ia ki-ma na-ki-ra-at uru La-ki-ši ù ṣa-ab-ta-at uru Mu-ú’-ra-aš-ti ù [na-ki-r]a-at [uruÚ?-ru?-sa?-l]imki [ù yu-uš-ši-r]a mLUGAL-ri [EN-ia ERÍNmeš pí-ṭá-ti?]


71

[Speak to the king, my lord; thus says ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, your servant. At the feet of the king, my lord, I have fallen seven and seven times both on the stomach and] on the back, [at the feet of the king], my lord. [May the king], my lord, [be informed that] I am [the only one le]ft. May [the ki]ng, my lord, be informed] that Tur[bazu and] Yaptiḫ-Hadda have been smitten and [the city of L]achish has rebe[lled]. May the king, my lord, be informed] that the traitor has t[aken] all my best men and women. May the king, my lord, be informed that the city of Lachish has become hostile and the city of Mu’rashti has been taken and [the city of Jerusa]lem?? has become hostile. [So, may] the king, [my lord, sen]d [task force . . .

Notes on the text Lines 1–5: For the restoration see Schroeder 1915:293–294. Lines 6–7: The restoration is based on several parallels from the letters of Shuwardata (EA 282:8–9; 283:21; 284:6–8); see particularly EA 284:8–9 i-ba-šuti 1-en. The combination of lilmad . . . kima/u is repeated several times in the letter (lines 6–7, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16). Line 9: In all the eight letters written by our scribe, u is never used as a conjunction. Therefore, Winckler’s suggestion to read it as a Glossenkeil seems preferable (see Knudtzon 1915:948 n. g). My restoration G[AZm]eš\mi-ḫi-ṣa is based on the analogy to EA 288:41, 45 GAZ de4-ka and EA 245:14 da-ku-šu\maaḫ-ṣu-ú. Line 13: For amēl arni see CAD A/2 299a. It is not clear whether there is enough room for the sign LÚ in the gap of this line. Line 14: My restoration is based on the facsimile of Schroeder; amēlu and sinništu are regarded here as collective nouns. Line 17: For the problem of the identification of Mu’rashti with Biblical Moresheth-(gath), see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1356; Kallai 1971:249. Line 20: For the tentative restoration [uruÚ-ru-sa-l]im, it should be noted that the post-determinative ki does not follow the other place names in this letter. Lines 21–22: For the restoration see EA 281:11–12, 27–28; 282:10–11; 283: 25–26; 284:16–17. Letter EA 335 is closely connected with letter EA 288 of Jerusalem. For comparison, the relevant passage in the Jerusalem letter (lines 34–47) is translated here: “The strong arm of the king seizes the land of Naḫrima and the land of Cush; but now the ‘Apiru are seizing the cities of the king! There is not a single governor (left) to the king; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain at the gate of Zilû (but) the king kept silent. Behold Zimredda, the (sons of) Lachish smote him, slaves who have become ‘Apiru. Yaptiḫ-Hadda was slain at the gate of Zilû (but) the king kept silent. Why does not the king call them to account?”

72


Both letters report to the Pharaoh the death of three rulers (Zimredda, Turbazu, and Yaptiḫ-Hadda) and the rebellions in several towns in the Shephelah region (Lachish, Zilû,14 Mu’rashti). Several south Palestinian letters reflect the same state of affairs. Following are translations of the relevant passages. EA 271:9–21 (Milkilu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed that the rebellion against me and Shuwardata is strong. So may the king, my lord, deliver his land from the grasp of the ‘Apiru. If not, may the king, my lord, send chariots to take us lest our servants smite us.” EA 298:20–29 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed that my younger brother rebelled against me and has entered Muḫḫazu and he pledged himself (lit. gave his hands) to the ‘Apiru. And now [the city of Ti]anna is hostile to me.”15 EA 299:17–26 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “Now the ‘Apiru are prevailing over us. So may the king, my lord, take me away (yi-it-ra-ni) from the hand of the ‘Apiru, so that the ‘Apiru will not destroy us.”16 EA 300:10–22 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “[Behold(?) the deed(?)] of [m]y [broth]er(?) that l[os]t(?) is my land out of <my hands(?)>. And now nothing

14. Albright (1924:6–8) suggested that uru Zi-lu-ú of EA 288 be identified with the Sile situated on the Egyptian border east of Qantara and mentioned in the Egyptian sources. In his opinion, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba wrote to the Pharaoh that “two Egyptian governors are slain at the threshold of Egypt, at the very gate of Selle itself — yet the Pharaoh takes no steps to restore the impaired Egyptian prestige in Palestine.” But the fact that two independent rulers, one in Jerusalem and the other in the Shephelah region, connected the death of these two rulers with the death of Zimredda of Lachish clearly indicates that both belong to the same area; therefore, it is preferable to locate Zilû somewhere in the Shephelah region, perhaps even in the neighborhood of Lachish (see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1341). 15. Notes on the text: For line 26 see Greenberg 1955:49. Lines 28–29: ù i-na-an-na [uruTi]an-na[k]i nu-kùr-tu4 UGU-ia. The city name [uruTi-a]n-naki in a similar context appears in EA 306:34 (see note 19 below). The restoration of the place name is based on EA 284:31 uruT[i]i[a-n]a on the one hand, and on the place name tnn (which Helck transliterated as tì-n-ni) mentioned in Papyrus Petersburg, 1116 A, Recto on the other hand (Alt 1916:264f; Helck 1971:166; Artzi 1968:168). Letter EA 298 provides a clue to the location of Tianna: It was only after Yapaḫu’s brother entered Muḫḫazu that Tianna rebelled. Muḫḫazu/Maḫḫazu is generally located in the neighborhood of modern Yibneh (Alt 1925:17; Mazar 1963:140– 141; Kutscher 1970:5–18; Rainey 1970a:183–184). Tianna is to be sought in that same area. We may reasonably assume that letters EA 298 and 306, which both tell of the rebellion of Tianna (and probably also EA 284, where Tianna is mentioned in a badly broken passage), were written approximately at that same time. Therefore, Tianna should be located on the border between the kingdoms of Yapaḫu (Gezer), Shuwardata (Tell eṣ-Ṣafi), and Shubandu (Ashkelon; see n. 26 below). 16. For this passage, see now Izre’el 1977:163–165;.Rainey 1978:96 s.v. tarû. However, the fourth sign in line 22 is clearly ni over an erasure and certainly not nu (collated).


73

(is left) for me. So may send his task force. They [will xxx and] will bring me back to may place. And may I be able to serve the king, my lord, like my father and his companions.”17 EA 281:8–11,22–26 (Shuwardata): “May the king, my lord, be informed that my towns have now rebelled against me . . . So may the king be informed of the rebellion against me. Who will dare [to rebel] against the king; but those dogs indeed dared [to rebel] against the king.”18 EA 282:8–14 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed (that) I am the only one left. May the king, my lord, send a very great task force and may he get me out.” EA 283:18–27 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed that thirty towns have rebelled against me. I am the only one left. The rebellion against me is very strong. . . . May the king, my lord, send a, task force; may the king, my lord, take me out.” EA 272:10–17 (Shum-xxx): “May the king, my lord, be informed that lost are the city-rulers who are in the cities of my lord and all the land of the king, my lord, is going over to the ‘Apiru.” EA 273:8–14 (‘Lady-of-the-lions’19): “May the king, my lord, be informed that war is waged in the land and that the land of the king, my lord, is being ruined by going over to the ‘Apiru.”

17. The translation is necessarily tentative due to the fragmentary state of the tablet. The suggested restoration of lines 10–14 is as follows: (10) [a-mur? ip-ši?] (11) [LÚ.ŠE]Š?-[i]a [i]-n[u-m]a (12) ti-[iḫ? -la?]-qa iš-tu (13) KUR-ia u a-ma ia-nu (14) m[i-im-m]a a-na ia-ši Line 11: The facsimile of Schroeder (1915:pl. 171) favors the reading ÌR for the second sign ([ša Ì]R-[i]a). The suggestion to read LÚ.ŠEŠ is based on letter EA 298:22 of the same author. Line 12: The tentative restoration ti-[iḫ-la]-qa is based on EA 274:14. Line 18: The subject of the (grammatically mistaken form) tu-šu-ru-ba-ni is the ṣābē piṭāti, which is regarded here as a fem. sing. (see Albright and Moran 1948:245f). Further note to EA 300: In line 25 read u iš-ti-mu /gab!/ a-wa-temeš. The sign gab for gabbu is found several times in the Amarna letters (see Knudtzon 1915:1408 s.v. gabbu and EA 286: 36, 287:4). 18. The suggested restoration of EA 281:23–26 is as follows: (23) [me-i]a-mi (24) yi-pu-šu [ar-na] a-na LUGAL (25) ù UR.[GI7 a]n-nu-t[u] (26) |ù| t[i]-pu[š]u [ar-na] a-na LUGAL For kalbu as a term of abuse in the Amarna letters see CAD K 72b. 19. For this lady’s name, written logographically as fNIN.UR.MAḪmeš, see Bauer 1920: 210–211. We should like to call attention to the name nṯt = nēšēti, the queen of Ugarit (see Gröndahl 1967:345, 403). This name may reflect a plural form of Akkadian nēštu “lioness” (see Weippert 1969:41). Could we read the name of the lady as Bēlit-nēšēti?

74


EA 274:10–16 (“Lady-of-the-lions”): “May the king, my lord, rescue his land from the ‘Apiru. Let not the city of Ṣab/puma perish (be captured).”20 EA 306:12–18,28–35 (Shubandu): “Now the king, my lord, wrote: [‘send(?)] your charioteers(?) an[d your xxx to the king, your lord’. [With what shall I [guard(?) my city(?)]? Strong is the rebellion against the servant of the king, who is inspecting the l[and] of the king, his lord, for [the king(?)] . . . And may my lord be informed that they have burnt your towns and your places. [And no]w [the city of Tia]nna [is hostile against] yo[ur servant].”21 Apart from the great similarity of words and expressions among these letters, all of which originated in southern Palestine, there are also some con20. Knudtzon transliterated in lines 14–16 la-a te-eḫ-la-aq la-ki-ta uru Ṣa-bu-maki. Albright (1943:15–17) suggested the reading la-a te-eḫ-la-aq URUki-ka URU Ṣa-pu-naki “Let not your city, Zaphon, perish.” Accordingly, he suggested that the sender of this letter was located in the Jordan Valley. However, such a reading involves several difficulties. Knudtzon (1899: 297; 1915:1328 n. 2) noted that the script and clay of these letters are close to the letters of Milkilu (EA 267–271) and Shuwardata (EA 278–280). And indeed, letter EA 273 describes in detail an event that took place on the border of Gezer, a very unlikely report on the part of a ruler situated in the middle of the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Albright dismissed the reading la-ki-ta in line 15 by claiming that such a verb does not appear elsewhere in the Amarna correspondence. However, this same verb in exactly the same form appears in the letter of Shuwardata EA 284:7. This verb is derived either from West Semitic lakādu (Rainey 1970b:69) or from Akkadian laqātu (CAD L 101a). The verbs teḫlaq lak/qid/ta(t) may have been repeated to give more weight to this sentence, which tells of the impending destruction of the writer’s city. Therefore, it seems that Albright’s suggested emendations are baseless, and we will do better to follow Knudtzon’s interpretation. Accordingly, Ṣab/puma should be located in the Shephelah region, not far from the kingdom of Gezer. 21. The suggested transliteration for EA 306:12–18 is as follows: (12) [i]-nu-ma ša-pár LUGAL b[e-lí] (13) |KEŠDA|-ka-m[e] |ù| [xxx a-na] (14) [LUGA]L be– 1[í]-k[a uššir ?? ištu?] (15) [m]a-an-[n]i e-[naṣṣar ?? āliya??] (16) da-n[a-a]t-[m]e KÚR-n[u a-na] (17) ÌR LUGAL ša yi-mur K[UR] (18) LUGAL be-li-ia a-na [LUGAL/EN-šu?] Notes on the transliteration: Line 13: The first sign in the line (see the drawing in Knudtzon 1915:1007 No. 165) looks similar to the two signs appearing in EA 107:42 and 108:15 (see the drawings in Knudtzon 1915:1003 Nos. 92, 93). Moran (1950:166) suggested that they be read as KEŠDA in the sense of a “charioteer.” Such a meaning fits our passage as well. The enclitic -me here signifies direct speech (citation from the king’s letter). The next sign, which Kundtzon read as ši, might also be the beginning of an ù. Lines 14–15: The restoration is based on several letters from Byblos (EA 112:10, 123: 31–32, 125:11–12), in which ištu manni inaṣṣaruna (“with what shall I guard?”) comes as an immediate answer to a citation cited from the royal letter (Liverani 1971:262–264; Moran 1975a:165 n. 68). Line 17: For the verb amāru in this sentence see CAD A/2 15b. The suggested reading for line 31 is |KISLAḪ| (KI.UD) \ma-aš-ka-n[a-ti-k]a. The restoration maškan[ātik]a was proposed by Albright (1975:106). My translation “places” (and not


75

crete facts that would place them in the same group. Milkilu, Shuwardata, and Shubandu mention rebellions and disturbances in their kingdoms. ‘AbdiḪeba, ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, and the “Lady-of-the-Lions” describe troubles in neighboring kingdoms, and all the city-states’ rulers bitterly complain of distress and serious difficulties in their kingdoms and request that the Pharaoh come immediately to their aid. Most of these letters call the offenders ‘Apiru. This is not the place to enter into discussion of the vexed problem of their identity. Suffice is to say that the accepted opinion of the ‘Apiru in the Amarna letters should be re-examined in this particular context, because none of these letters has ever been discussed as part of a group belonging to a specific period and area (see Na’aman 1975:145–153). Another indication of the seriousness of the situation is the disappearance at this time of several rulers, all from the south of Palestine. Milkilu of Gezer was replaced by Yapaḫu, whose letters reflect the same internal political difficulties. Zimredda, who was killed during the rebellion, was replaced by Shipṭi-Ba‘al. Shuwardata, Shubandu, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, Shum-xxx, and the “Lady-of-the-Lions” disappear from the political scene, and their fate is unknown. In the next stage, which is characterized by reorganization of the Egyptian order in Palestine and by preparations for an expected Egyptian military expedition,22 the names of new city-state rulers appear (Ba‘lushipṭi23 in Gezer, Yabni-ilu in Lachish, Yidya in Ashkelon, ṣi-x-ib? -ni in the neighborhood of Gezer,24 Yaḫtiru, and Ḫiziru). The possibility that these new rulers were the successors of the governors belonging to the former stage should be kept in mind.25 “granaries” as Albright took it) is based on the parallelism to ālāni (line 30). For maškanu in the sense of “site,” “place,” see CAD M/1 370f. Lines 33–35: The restoration is based on a comparison to the roughly parallel passage in EA 298:28–29, as was suggested by Knudtzon in his edition. For further discussion, see n. 16 above. 22. For this problem, see Schulman 1964:51–69; Reviv 1966:45–51; Liverani 1971:259– 260 n. 41; Pintore 1972:101–131; 1973:299-318. 23. For the problem of the transcription of the name written logographically as d IM.DI.KUD, see Moran 1975b:155; Izre’el 1977:161; Winckler 1896:356 n.1. 24. Izre’el (1977:159–163) has recently suggested that the name of the author of EA 294 be read Ṣi-id-qí-lí. However, my collation of the original tablet (now in the British Museum) shows that such a reading is impossible. (For the correct rendering of the signs see Moran 1975b:155.) The second sign looks like da or ri, and the third sign looks very much like ib. However, I could not find parallels for the name ṣi-ri/da-ib-ni. (Reading the ṣi as zí seems unlikely in this area; see Moran 1975b:160 n. 32.) 25. In my doctoral dissertation (1975:137–138), I suggested tentatively that Shubandu was the predecessor of Yidya in Ashkelon. However, as can be seen from the discussion in note 28 above, such a conclusion depends on whether Ashdod was a city-state during the

76


With this information as background, we may now discuss the relationship between Shuwardata and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti. Shuwardata was in power in the days of Lab’ayu (EA 366) and his sons (EA 278–280). Initially, he was an ally of ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem (EA 366), but he later became an ally of Milkilu of Gezer and an opponent of his former partner (EA 280, 290). The last stage of his rule is marked by rebellions and disturbances, and his letters show distress and despair (EA 281–284). As for ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, letter EA 335 speaks of the same period of rebellions. Two other letters, EA 63–64, refer in general terms to internal political difficulties and troubles. Letter EA 65, on the other hand, reflects a new situation. Following is a translation of the relevant passage (lines 7–14): And in accordance with the words that the king, my lord, has sent to me, I have heeded; all the words of the king, my lord, I have heeded. And I am verily guarding the places of the king (which were) assigned to me. And I am preparing in anticipation of the taskforces (ṣābē piṭāti) of the king, my lord, m[y Sun(?)].

Letter EA 65 clearly belongs to the group of letters dealing with the organization of the Egyptian campaign to the north, and, thus, it is later than the other three letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti. Summing up the chronological discussion, it is evident that the last of the letters of Shuwardata is approximately contemporary with the first letter of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti (EA 335). We, therefore, suggest that ‘AbdiAshtarti was the heir of Shuwardata and that the same scribe who wrote the late letters of Shuwardata remained in office in ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s days. Shuwardata presumably disappeared as a result of the rebellions of which he complained so bitterly in his letters. ‘Abdi-Ashtarti faced the same difficulties after ascending the throne (EA 335, and to some extent EA 63–64), but he survived those harsh times. It is interesting to note that Yapaḫu of Gezer, who ascended the throne in that same period, apparently did not succeed in establishing his throne and was replaced by Ba‘lu-shipṭi. ShipṭiBa‘al of Lachish, who probably ascended the throne after the death of Zimredda, also disappeared after a short reign and was replaced by Yabniilu. These examples may well indicate how severe the situation was at that time in southern Palestine. The last problem we shall deal with is the location of Shuwardata’s and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s capital. Several sites were suggested in the early stages of

Late Bronze Age or only a port within the territory of Ashkelon (which would mean that Ashkelon had a common border with the kingdom of Gezer). The clarification of this question is far beyond the scope of this note.


77

research. Some scholars tried to locate it in Keilah (Qilti),26 but this suggestion is impossible, because Keilah was a border town and not the capital of Shuwardata. Albright (1942:37 n.31; 1969:487 n. 15) proposed Hebron as a possible location. Several scholars referred to letter EA 290 as a key to that problem. We translate the relevant passage (lines 5–13) thus: Behold the hostile(?) (KUR) deed which Milkilu and Shuwardata committed against the land of the king, my lord. They have ordered (mu-’ù-ru) troops of Gezer, troops of Gath (Gimti) and troops of Keilah and they have captured the city of Rubutu. The land of the king has gone over to the ‘Apiru.27

Riedel (1920:12), the first to discuss this passage, suggested that Milkilu and Tagu were rulers of Gezer and Gath, respectively, and that, therefore, Shuwardata was the ruler of Keilah. Bonkamp (1939:301 n. 4), on the other hand, proposed that Shuwardata was ruler of the above-mentioned Gimtu (Gath). He was followed by Aharoni (1969:141–145), who suggested locating this Gath at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi. This was accepted by other scholars (Kallai and Tadmor 1969:144f; Rainey 1978:105). A comparison of the lines above with a second and closely related letter from Jerusalem (EA 289) clearly favors Riedel’s interpretation. Milkilu and Shuwardata are accused of capturing Rubutu in EA 290. However, in letter EA 289, Milkilu and Tagu are accused of the same deed. Tagu was ruler of Gathcarmel, and his capital was called either Ginti-kirmil (EA 289:18) or Gimti (EA 289:19). It is clear that this city is identical to the Gimti of EA 290.28 That this Gath was not the capital of Shuwardata is also proved by the end of letter EA 290 (lines 25–28):

26. Ebeling in Knudtzon 1915:1568; Riedel 1920:13; Meyer 1931:95 n. 1. Weber (in Knudtzon 1915:1330) and Alt (1924:27 = 1959:162) took a cautious position and without suggesting a specific location, noted that Keilah was a town of Shuwardata. 27. Notes on the translation: Line 5: Knudtzon in his edition omitted the sign KUR, but this sign is clearly visible in the facsimile published by Schroeder (1915:No. 166). Furthermore, the same expression, epšu KUR anni’u, is repeated in line 25 of this letter. KUR seems to be an adjective describing the “deed.” The translations of Knudtzon (1915:877) and Moran (1975a:152) take KUR as mātu (“land”), but this does not fit well into the context. One should remember that KÚR and KUR.KUR (Reading GUDIBIR2) both meaning nukurtu = “hostility.” It seems to me that here the scribe confused the trio KUR (mātu), KÚR (nukurtu), and KUR.KUR (nukurtu). Accordingly, epšu KUR is translated as “hostile deed.” A parallel semantic expression appears in letter EA 137: 95 from Byblos: epši marṣi annû “this evil deed.” Line 8: For the correct understanding of the verb mu-’ù-ru, see Moran 1975a:151 and n. 42. 28. Aharoni (1969:144), confronting this difficulty, suggested that Tagu and Shuwardata succeeded one another in the same place. However, such a proposal seems impossible, because both of them ruled in the time of Lab’ayu (EA 263:33–34,366) and his sons.

78


“This hostile(?) deed (was done) at the command of Milkilu and at the command of [Shuward]ata [and wi]th Gath.”29 The passage clearly shows that the two allies, Milkilu and Shuwardata, captured Rubutu with the aid of troops sent by Tagu of Gath-carmel. The unfortunate conclusion, which was reached on the basis of the discussion described above, was that Shuwardata’s capital is mentioned nowhere in the Amarna letters. The point of departure for locating Shuwardata’s (and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s) capital is Keilah, situated on his border with the kingdom of Jerusalem. This was the basis for Albright’s proposal to locate his seat in Hebron. But the site of Hebron was hardly occupied during the Late Bronze Age, and, therefore, it could not be considered as the center of a city-state at that time (Hammond 1965; 1966; 1968). Furthermore, the survey conducted in the Judean Hills showed that the whole region around Hebron was almost devoid of settlements during the Late Bronze Age (Kochavi 1972:20, 83). Shuwardata, on the other hand, complained that thirty towns rebelled and fought against him (EA 283:18–21). It is clear, therefore, that Shuwardata’s territory was situated in a densely populated area, which eliminates the possibility of locating this territory in the hill country. The close connection between Shuwardata and Milkilu of Gezer and their partnership in the capture of Rubutu points to their geographical proximity (although we must bear in mind that their third ally, Tagu, was apparently situated far to the north). Also, Milkilu complains in EA 271:9–21 of strong hostility against him and Shuwardata, which again alludes to their propinquity. Accordingly, Aharoni’s proposal to locate Shuwardata’s seat at Tell eṣṢafi, an important site during the Late Bronze Age, seems acceptable. Shuwardata’s and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s neighbors will then be: Gezer in the north, Jerusalem in the north-east, Lachish in the south, and Ashkelon (and Ashdod? see note 26 above) in the west.

29. Our transliteration and commentary on these lines is as follows: (25) ep-šu KUR an-ni-ú (26) a-[n]a KA-i m Mil-ki-[li] (27) [ù] a-na KA-i [mŠu-ar-d]a-ti (28) [ù it]-ti uruGinx-t[iki]. Line 25: see note 27 above. Lines 26–27: The entity ana pí PN, “after the order of PN,” appears several times in the Amarna letters (EA 79:11–12,22; 81:18; 138:116; 161:38). The closest parallel is letter EA 79: 11–12 of Byblos: a-na KA \ pi-í m Abdi-Aširta “according to the command of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.”


79

References Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145. Albright, W.F. 1924. The Town of Selle (Zaru) in the ‘Amarnah Tablets. JEA 10: 6–8. Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190– 203. Albright W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish, with Some Remarks on the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38. Albright, W.F. 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley. BASOR 89: 7–17. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B.C. JNES 5: 7–25. Albright, W.F. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490. Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98–116. Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1948. A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter from Byblos (EA 82). JCS 2: 239–248. Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1950. Rib-Adda of Byblos and the Affairs of Tyre (EA 89). JCS 4: 163–168. Alt, A. 1916. Tenni. ZDPV 39: 264–265. Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175). Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58. Artzi, P. 1963. The “Glosses” in the El-Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit). Bar-Ilan: Annual of Bar-Ilan University 1: 24–57. Artzi, P. 1968. Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318). JNES 27: 163–171. Bauer, H. 1920. Die “Löwenherrin” der Amarnabriefe Nrr. 273 und 274. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 74: 210–211. Bernhardt, K.-H. 1967. Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 13: 163–174. Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome. Hammond, P.C. 1965. Hébron. RB 72: 267–270. Hammond, P.C.1966. Hébron. RB 73: 566–569. Hammond, P.C.1968. Hébron. RB 75: 253–258. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Herrmann, W. 1969. Aštart. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 15: 6–55. Izre’el, S. 1977. Two Notes on the Gezer-Amarna Tablets. Tel Aviv 4: 159–167. Kallai, Z. 1971. The Kingdom of Rehoboam. Eretz Israel 10: 245–254. (Hebrew). Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bīt Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).

80


Katzenstein, H.J. 1973. The History of Tyre, from the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem. Knudtzon, J.A. 1899. Ergebnisse einer Kollation der El-Amarna Tafeln. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 4: 101–117, 279–337, 410–417. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung and Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 17–89. (Hebrew). de Koning, J. 1940. Studiën over de EI-Amarnabrieven en het Oude-Testament inzonderheid uit historisch oogpunt. Delft. Kutscher, E.Y. 1970. Ugaritica Marginalia. Leshonenu 34: 5–19 (Hebrew). Liverani, M. 1971. Le Lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1971. ‘Ashtoreth. Enc. Miqr. VI: 406–412. (Hebrew). Mazar, B. 1963. Dor and Rehob in an Egyptian Topographical List. BIES 27: 139–144 (Hebrew) Meyer, E. 1931. Geschichte des Altertums. II/2 — Der Orient vom zwölften bis zur Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts. (2nd ed.). Stuttgart and Berlin. Moran, W.L. 1950. A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets. Ph.D. Thesis. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Moran, W.L. 1975a. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Moran, W.L. 1975b. Amarna Glosses. RA 69: 147–158. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Patai, R. 1965. The Goddess Asherah. JNES 24: 37–52. Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di elAmarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131. Pintore, F. 1973. La prassi della marcia Armata nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 12: 299–318. Rainey, A.F. 1970a. Notes on the Syllabic Vocabularies from Ugarit. Leshonenu 34:180–184. (Hebrew). Rainey, A.F. 1970b. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-AmarnaTafeln. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Rainey, A.F. 1975. Two Cuneiform Fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2: 125–129. Rainey, A.F. 1976. The Tri-lingual Cuneiform Fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3:137–140. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2nd revised ed. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Toronto. Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew). Riedel, W. 1920. Untersuchungen zu den Tell-el Amarna Briefen. Tübingen. Schachermeyr, F. 1932. Abdi-Aširta. RLA I: 4–5. Schroeder, O. 1915. Zu Berliner Amarnatexten. OLZ 18: 293–296. Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69. von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das akkadische Syllabar. 2. Revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia 42). Rome.


81

von Soden, W. 1952. Zu den Amarnabriefen aus Babylon und Assur. Orientalia 21:426–434. Weippert, M. 1969. Ein ugaritischer Beleg für das Land “Qadi” der ägyptischen Texte? ZDPV 85: 35–50. Winckler, H. 1896. The Tell-El-Amarna Letters. London and New York.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters1 Introduction The four letters unearthed at Kāmid el-Lōz (Kumidi) in the 1969 season were soon published by Edzard 1970:55-62 and discussed at length by Hachmann (1970:63-94). Three more tablets were uncovered at the site during later seasons and were published by Wilhelm (1973; 1982:123-129) and Edzard (1976; 1980; 1982:131-135). Of the seven tablets discovered so far, the two identical letters sent by the Pharaoh to Zalaya of Damascus and ÌR.LUGAL of Shazaena are the most important, both for historical research and for dating the site. The historical background of these two letters was discussed and clarified.2 Their date, however, is controversial and has yet to be decided. It is the purpose of this article to discuss this at length, in an effort to shed more light on the date and historical background of the letters. At the focus of the historical and chronological discussion stands Biryawaza, a ruler who is mentioned many times in the Amarna letters. His role and, in particular, his seat are debated among scholars. Weber (in Knudtzon 1915:1113-1114) regarded him as an Egyptian commissary, a suggestion that was adopted by others (Edel 1953b:55; Redford 1967:219-220; Goetze 1975:16). Other scholars identified him as ruler of Damascus (Campbell 1964:124; Helck 1971:179, 283-284; Albright 1975:101-102; Kühne 1973:62, n. 301). This suggestion was rejected by Hachmann (1970:73), who emphatically concluded that “Seine Hauptstadt war Damaskus nicht, and Biriawaza kann daher auch nicht als König yon Damaskus gelten.” Hachmann (1970:7576; 1982:151) generally defined Biryawaza as ruler of the land of Upi (Api), but suggested no specific location for his seat. Such a noncommittal position was also adopted by others (Klengel 1969:165; 1970:98: Pitard 1987:67-70). In one of his letters (EA 194:9-10), Biryawaza mentions his forefathers. Shutarna and Ḫa[š? . .]tar. Thus, Zalaya of Damascus, mentioned in the Kāmid el-Lōz letters, could not have been his immediate predecessor. Identifying 1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988), 179–193. 2. Edzard 1970; Hachmann 1970; Ahituv 1973:87–89; Klengel 1977:230–231; Hachmann 1982:156–161; Schulman 1982:314–315.

82

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters

83

the seat of Biryawaza is crucial for establishing the date of Zalaya. Provided that Biryawaza ruled outside Damascus, then Zalaya may be dated to any time. On the other hand, if Damascus were Biryawaza’s seat, then Zalaya either ruled long before him or was one of his successors. The position of Biryawaza in the Egyptian government of Canaan and his residency were discussed in great detail by Hachmann (1970:65-76; 1982:145151). His works will be taken as a point of departure for the historical discussion, in which an effort will be made to elaborate on Biryawaza’s historical role and, particularly, his place of residence. Moran’s new authoritative translation (1987) (including many important philological notes) of all the Amarna letters is the basis for all textual discussions in the article.

Biryawaza’s Residency and Zalaya of Damascus 1. Biryawaza’s reference to his forefathers (EA 194:5-11) in a badly broken letter is the first to be investigated. The key to the passage may be found in a letter of Shechem (EA 253), where Lab’ayu answered a serious Egyptian charge of disloyalty. He opened his defense by a reference to his ancestors (lines 11-15): “Behold: I am the servant of the king, as was my father and my grandfather, servants of the king from long ago.” Only then he answers the Egyptian accusation, emphasizing his innocence (Campbell 1965:196-198: Moran 1975a:147-151). Biryawaza opened his letter in almost identical words (lines 5-11): “Behold, we are servants of the king from of old like Shutarna my father (and) like Ḫa[š? ..]tar my grand[father].” This is an indication that, like Lab’ayu, he answered serious Egyptian charges.3 What might have been these accusations? One may tentatively suggest that he was accused of robbing the Babylonian caravan as mentioned in letter EA 7:75. He opened his defense by emphasizing the loyalty of his dynasty and continued (in the badly broken parts of the letter) to answer the charges, claiming (inter alia) that he faithfully guarded the caravans sent from Egypt to Mitanni (lines 22-23; compare EA 199, 255).4 If this analysis is correct. letter EA 194 could be dated to the same time as the Babylonian letter EA 7.5

3. For a different interpretation of this passage, see Hachmann 1970:67. 4. A robbery of Babylonian caravan(s) by group(s) of pastoral nomads is probably described in the fragmentary Amarna letter EA 200. The following restoration is suggested for lines 7–11: “Behold what we have heard: [The Sut]û-Ahlameans [plundered? the caravans? ([KASKALḫi].’a’) of the king of Babylon and the Ahlameans [ . . . t]o eat (compare 1 Sam 30:16)”. 5. For a possible date for letter EA 7, see Kühne 1973:60–72 and fig. 2.

84


2. One of Biryawaza’s opponents, according to the Amarna archive, is called Biridashwa (EA 196:41; 197:7, 15, 33). Establishing his seat and historical role is important for the understanding of Biryawaza’s role in the land of Bashan. Biridashwa was sometimes regarded as mayor of Yeno‘am (Weber in Knudtzon 1915:129; Greenberg 1955:44; Hachmann 1970:71: Helck 1971:179, 480). However, his leading role in the Bashan area (EA 197:13-19, 33-34), his ability to mobilize chariots of the city of Ashtaroth (EA 197:10-11) and his attack on Biryawaza’s personal property (EA 196:26-33, 38-43) make it clear that he ruled Ashtaroth, the most important kingdom in this region. Biridashwa’s predecessor in Ashtaroth was Ayyab. who is mentioned twice in the Amarna correspondence (EA 256 and 364). The first of these letters was written by Mut-Baḫlu of Piḫilu, his southern neighbor. The letter is probably a defense against an accusation that, with the collaboration of Ayyab, he robbed a Babylonian caravan (lines 16-23: “Pray, ask Ben-elima; pray ask Tadua; pray ask Yishuya, whether [for the construction of the sentence, compare EA 198:11-17) after the robbery(?) [gán-ba; compare Hebrew genēbāh] of Shulum-Marduk I did come to help the city of Ashtaroth when all the towns of the land of Gari became hostile”).6 The rebellious land of Gari is located along the Yarmuk river on its northern side, and it is evident that the territory of Ashtaroth included these towns up to the river, which marked the border with Piḫilu, its southern neighbor. The territorial situation, as reflected in this letter, fits nicely into the content of Ayyab’s own letter (EA 364). The ruler of Ashtaroth complains that the king of Hazor has taken three of his towns (lines 17-20). Thus, it is clear that the two kingdoms bordered at a certain place, and, because the Golan heights were hardly settled in the Late Bronze Age, their boundaries necessarily met near the Yarmuk river.7 The other boundaries of Ashtaroth cannot be estab-

6. For the controversial passage (lines 19–21), see the discussion of Moran 1987:484, n. 4, with earlier literature. Moran followed Knudtzon in deriving gán-ba from the West Semitic verb gnb and tentatively translated the passage as follows: “Certes, après que SILIM-dMarduk a pris à la dérobée Aštartu, je suis allé à la rescousse.” However, the seizure of an important Canaanite city by a man of Babylon is historically problematic. A robbery of a Babylonian caravan, on the other hand, was not uncommon in the Amarna period. This would immediately explain the serious accusations raised against Mut-Baḫli (lines 6–7) and his explicit denial (lines 7–14). I translated gán-ba as a noun, derived from the West Semitic root gnb. Mut-Baḫli claims, if I understand it correctly, that immediately after the robbery (which he tacitly assigned to Ayyab) he stopped supporting the ruler of Ashtaroth, the latter carrying on alone his offensive (see Moran’s translation of line 14) against the rebellious cities of the land of Gari. 7. Na’aman 1975:52–54; 1986:476–478; 1988:22. Bienkowski’s recent discussion of the city of Hazor in the Amarna letters (1987:55–60) contains many pitfalls. First, it is meth-


85

lished, though they may have bordered those of the kingdoms of Buṣruna and Ḫalunni (see EA 197:13-16). We may conclude that Ashtaroth was the central kingdom in the Bashan, dominating a large territory and influencing its neighbors. 3. Letter EA 197 is important for understanding Biryawaza’s role within the land of Upi (Api). The upper part of the tablet is broken and the damaged text at the beginning may be reconstructed as follows: “[This is? what] he said to [me when] your servant was in the city of E[drei?] (urua-[du?-ra?]).”8 The restoration of the place name is based upon the vicinity of Edrei to Yeno‘am (possibly Tell esh-Shihab), the next station in Biryawaza’s tour of the area of Bashan (Na’aman 1977:168-177). The latter is certainly not a Palestinian city, as scholars sometimes suggested,9 because it always appears alongside Transjordanian towns and is never mentioned in a clear Cisjordanian context. Its tentative identification with Tell esh-Shihab, on the Yarmuk river, is based on the stela of Seti I found at this site and on Seti’s relief from Karnak where a bush-lined river surrounds the city of Yeno‘am (Smith 1901:344-350;

odologically erroneous to draw conclusions from silence of documentation when dealing with the Amarna archive (see Campbell 1964:32–36: Na’aman 1981:173–174). Second, the number of letters sent by the kings of Hazor (2) is not exceptional. There is only one letter from Ashtaroth, Hazor’s strong neighbor, three letters from Shechem and four letters from Biryawaza (Damascus), the most important ruler in the areas of southern Syria and Transjordan. Third, lack of records of the payment of tribute to Egypt is common to all south Syrian and Transjordanian kingdoms, not only to Hazor. This may be explained on the basis of the administrative division of the Egyptian province of Canaan in the Amarna period (Na’aman, 1981:183–184). Fourth, Bienkowski’s analysis of letter EA 227 (1987:55–57) is, in my opinion, not well founded. The letter is one of a series sent during the last stage of the Amarna period by vassals in response to Egyptian orders to prepare everything that was needed for a planned campaign to Canaan (Na’aman 1981:180–181, with earlier literature in n. 46; Na’aman 1990). Fifth, the title “king” in the letter of Hazor (EA 227:3) is probably a slip of the local scribe, resulting from the fact that this was the common inner Canaanite title for all city-state rulers (compare EA 8:25, 30:1, 70:20, 88:46, 92:32–34, 109:46, 139:14–15, 140:10–12, 147:67, 148:40–41, 197:14–15, 197:14–15, 41–42, 256:7–8, 306:24). The kingdom of Hazor was not “a major Canaanite enclave” (Bienkowski 1987:59), but rather a strong Canaanite territorial kingdom located outside the areas that were essential for the Egyptian rule and trade in Asia. It is for this reason that the Egyptian involvement in the affairs of Hazor (and in its strong neighbors in the north and south as well) was minimal. As long as Hazor did not encounter the Egyptian interests in Canaan and as long as it obeyed the orders of the Pharaohs, its king was left to administer its inner affairs without the intervention of the Egyptian government. 8. For the transcription of the place name in the Egyptian topographical lists, see Görg 1974:3–18; Wilson 1969:676b (to p. 477c); Ahituv 1984:90–91. 9. For the suggestions to locate Yeno‘am in the Jordan Valley, see the literature cited by Na’aman 1977a:168; cf. Ahituv 1984:198–200.

86


Wreszinski 1935:pl. 36). The next station on Biryawaza’s tour was probably the city of [. . .]še, whose identification cannot be established (line 19).10 Provided that these site identifications are correct, one may easily reconstruct the chain of events described in the letter. Biryawaza inspected the southernmost areas of the Bashan along the Yarmuk river. When he was on his way from Edrei to Yeno‘am, Biridashwa of Ashtaroth stirred a rebellion and, with the help of the rulers of Buṣruna and Ḫalunni, tried to attack his strong northern neighbor. “But I escaped from them and took a stand in [ . . . in] the city of Damascus.” (lines 19-21).11 Biryawaza further accused Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi, his northern neighbor, of attacking Shaddu, a city apparently situated on Upi’s northern border (lines 26-31). The letter ends with a concluding remark (lines 31-34): “And behold, Etakkama has destroyed the land of Qidshu and now Arzawiya, with Biridashwa, is destroying the land of Api.” We may conclude that the land of Upi included all the areas east of Mount Anti-Lebanon mountain range, from the northern border of Canaan up to the Yarmuk river. It is for this reason that Biryawaza’s enemies in the north (Arzawiya) and in the south (Biridashwa), who stirred up rebellions against him, were accused of “destroying the land of Api.” Biryawaza was regarded as the major power in this whole area, reaching the southernmost Bashan area on the one side and the city of Kumidi, the only Egyptian garrison city in south Syria, on the other side (lines 37-39). 4. The vast territory inspected by Biryawaza included his own kingdom and city-states of lesser rank. The area of Bashan was divided into many units, the most powerful of which was Ashtaroth. Six similar letters (EA 201206), all responding to the command of the Pharaoh to prepare for the arrival of an Egyptian expeditionary force, were sent by rulers in the Bashan. Significantly, these letters were written by the same scribe who wrote two of Biryawaza’s letters (EA 195-196) (Moran 1987:433, n. 2). One may assume that Biryawaza summoned the city-state rulers to his city to explain to them the Egyptian orders, after which his scribe formulated these almost identical six letters. Few other kingdoms were located north of Damascus, near the northern boundary of Canaan (Ruḫizzi, Lapana). Significantly, no kingdom except for Damascus is known to have existed in the area between the Bashan in the south and Ruḫizzi in the north. This must have been the territory of the kingdom of Damascus, most probably governed by Biryawaza.

10. Knudtzon restored [māt tá]ḫ-še. But the passage deals with the Bashan area and not with the district of Qadesh (Na’aman 1977a:169, n, 5). 11. For the restoration of lines 13–26. see Na’aman 1977a:169, n.5.


87

A king who governed such a large territory may well have had more than one palace. This would immediately explain the situation portrayed in letters EA 53 and 196, where disasters that befell Biryawaza during the last stages of the Amarna period are described. According to the fragmentary passage EA 53:24-34, Etakkama of Qidshu (Qadesh) attacked the land of Upi, conquered a palace of Biryawaza and carried away heavy booty. It is hardly conceivable that the city of Damascus is referred to, particularly as Damascus is mentioned in this same letter as a model of loyalty to the Pharaoh (line 63, see below).12 The conquered city must have been on the northern boundary of the kingdom of Damascus, and it is not impossible that the city mentioned in this broken passage is Shaddu, described by Biryawaza as a place in the land of Upi that was conquered, with the support of Qidshu and Amurru, by Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi (EA 197:26-31). In another letter (EA 196), Biryawaza complained of “a deed such as none has ever done” (line 32). The passage is badly broken, but it is clear that the accused ruler is Biridashwa (compare lines 32-33 with lines 40-41), who captured dignitaries (and possibly property as well) of Biryawaza, including his wives and concubines.13 Biryawaza sent the letter from his capital (lines 6-8 “I am being watchful and I am serving the king, my lord, in this place.”); thus, it is clear that either a southern town, or even a caravan, was plundered. The background of the entire episode is unknown, but it reflects the downfall of Biryawaza, the former suzerain of the land of Upi. We may conclude that Biryawaza ruled a large territorial kingdom that apparently included more than one palace. These were built for the administration of the territory and for his own residence when he was inspecting various remote places. One or two of these centers of government were captured in the latest stage of the Amarna period by Biryawaza’s enemies in the north and south, though the city of Damascus apparently remained in his hands. 5. The city of Damascus is mentioned three times in the Amarna archive, always in indicative contexts. In letter EA 197:20-21, it is the place in which Biryawaza “took a stand” after he had escaped from the Bashan. The passage is broken, but one is tempted to restore here “in [my palace/city in] Damascus.” Such restoration would indicate, of course, that Damascus was Biryawaza’s residency. To express his loyalty to Egypt, Akizzi wrote the following (EA 53:63-65): “My lord, just as Damascus in the land of Upi falls at your feet, so Qatna falls

12. For a different interpretation of this episode, see Hachmann 1970:71–75. 13. For the reconstruction of the text of letter EA 196. see Moran 1987:433–435.

88


at your feet.” Significantly, only places in Egypt (Ḫikuptaḫ = Memphis [EA 84:37; 139:8] and Magdali [EA 234:29]) and the city of Gaza, the important Egyptian center on the southern border of Canaan (EA 289:17), are mentioned in similar contexts. It is clear that the ruler of Qatna considered Damascus as the center of loyalty and support for Egypt over the entire area of southern Syria. Moreover, in another letter from the same ruler (EA 52:42-44), it is Biryawaza who is regarded as the main supporter of the Egyptian interests, standing side by side with the Pharaoh (“I will not withdraw from [the king], my lord, and from Biryawaza”). When combining these two letters, one can hardly escape the conclusion that Damascus was Biryawaza’s capital city. Rib-Adda’s letter EA 107 was written soon after the Egyptian campaign to the coast of Lebanon and the capture of ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru.14 Aziru, son of the deposed king, and his brothers appeared in Damascus (lines 26-28), certainly before Biryawaza, its strong ruler, who was involved both in the affairs of the coast of Lebanon and also of northern Palestine (see below). 6. There are certain indications of Biryawaza’s military strength, as compared with the Egyptian power in Canaan. Most important is Rib-Adda’s letter EA 129:81-84.15 To understand the passage correctly, it must first be combined with two other passages in the Byblian correspondence, EA 116:72-76 and 117:59-63.16 The two Egyptian officials referred to in all these passages are Yanḫamu of Gaza (?) (EA 129:84 uru.ki A[z-za-ti]) and Piḫuru of Kumidi. RibAdda suggested two alternative plans to the dispatch of an Egyptian expeditionary force against the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta: either to send the governors of the two Egyptian provinces of the land of Canaan (Yanḫamu and Piḫuru), with their soldiers and the auxiliary troops of the vassals, or to send Biryawaza, the powerful king of Damascus, with his troops. A similar solution is raised in letter EA 250:21-27: Ba‘lu-UR.SAG suggested that the Pharaoh will send one of his officers to Biryawaza and command him to march against the rebellious sons of Lab’ayu. In both cases it is the military strength and political standing of Biryawaza that made him fit for such delicate missions, which would be accomplished without the direct intervention of the Egyptian authorities in Canaan.

14. For the Egyptian campaign and the fate of the ruler of Amurru, see Moran 1969:94*– 99*; Altman 1977:1–11. For the text of EA 101, see Moran 1987:294–95. In line 20, one may restore [ma-an]-ga (compare EA 84:21, 106:15, 362:15): “he (Rib-Adda) is distressed.” For EA 107. see Moran 1975a:155–56.å 15. For the passage, see Moran 1987:345, 347, nn. 29–31. 16. For a detailed discussion of the three passages, see Na’aman 1975:169–171. On the basis of EA 117:61–62, one may restore in EA 116:74 [ḫa-za]-ni (rather than [qe-pa]-ni).


89

Letter EA 195 was sent by Biryawaza as an answer to a pharaonic letter that commanded him to be prepared, with his troops, to participate in an Egyptian campaign.17 All the letters that were dispatched at that time were brought by Egyptian messengers, and, as suggested above, certain tablets sent to the kingdoms of Bashan were distributed by the king of Damascus. The pharaonic letters that ordered the deportation of the ‘Apiru to the land of Cush (KL 69:277 and 69:279) were likewise distributed by the Egyptian authorities of Kumidi.18 Does it reflect the time after the downfall of Biryawaza, when Kumidi took over some of the functions formerly held by the ruler of Damascus? Letter EA 196 was written in an answer to the message transmitted by [. . .]saya (line 6). It answers all the elements appearing in the Egyptian letter of command: to listen carefully to the orders of the messenger (lines 56), to guard the city and obey the Pharaoh (lines 6-7), and to prepare everything that is necessary for the planned Egyptian campaign (lines 8-12 “When the s[trong army] of the king, my lord, arrives [soon] to m[e, then ple]nty [of food and] plenty [of everything else will be prepared] by me”).19 Summing up the discussion, it is clear that Biryawaza was a king who ascended his throne according to dynastic principle and operated in the land of Canaan side by side with the Egyptian authorities. It is also evident that Damascus is the logical candidate for his residency. All the documentary evidence fits this location perfectly, whereas no other place in the land of Upi can fill these requirements. Chronologically, the letters that mention Biryawaza’s name cover almost all the Amarna period. The earliest letters are EA 107 and 250, dated immediately after the death of Lab’ayu of Shechem and ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru. The Egyptian expedition sent to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta took place under Amenophis III, as is witnessed by the group of Byblian letters in which RibAdda reminds the Pharaoh (Akhenaten) of the campaign to Amurru undertaken by his father (EA 108:28-33; 117:24-28; 121:41-44; 131:30-34; 132:12-

17. For the preparations in anticipation of an Egyptian campaign to Asia, see Na’aman 1975:52–54; 1981:173–174, 180–184; 1986:476–478; 1988:22. Bienkowski 1987:55–60; Campbell 1964:32–36. 18. There is a marked discrepancy between the early date assigned by Hachmann 1970: 90–91 to the two letters of Kāmid el-Lōz and his claim in 1982:139–44, 152–58 that Kumidi became an Egyptian garrison city only in the time of Akhenaten. For a criticism of the second claim see Na’aman 1988:21. n. 4. 19. For EA 196:5–12, see Moran 1987:433–434. My reconstruction of lines 10–11 is based on the comparison to EA 367:16–17: (10) a-na i[a-ši ù ma-(a)]-ad [NINDA] (11) ma-a[d mi-imma šu-ši-ra-ti].

90


18; 138:28-34; 362:16-20) (Moran 1969:98*; Na’aman 1975:19-20, 207-210). Biryawaza is mentioned in the latest Amarna letters (e.g., EA 53, 151, 195197). His career covered the entire reign of Akhenaten and doubtless started even earlier, in the time of Amenophis III. With these conclusions in mind, one may discuss the possible date of Zalaya of Damascus. First, we can now reject the proposal to assign his tenure of kingship to the Amarna period and to combine the deportation of the Cushites (KL 69:277, lines 5-11) to Akhenaten’s Nubian campaign of the year 12 (Schulman 1982:314-315; see Klengel 1977:231). Hachmann’s (1970: 88-91) suggestion to date this letter to the early years of Amenophis III is also doubtful. Biryawaza mentions his forefathers to the throne of Damascus, and as he had ascended the throne during the days of Amenophis III, his grandfather may well have reigned even before the coronation of the latter. Zalaya was either an early predecessor of Biryawaza, or one of his successors.

ÌR-šarri (of Enishazi?) Letter EA 363 was written by ÌR-ri-ša of e--ša-zi and is one of four identical letters (the others are EA 174-176) sent at exactly the same time by four city-state rulers of the land of ‘Amqi (Weippert 1970:267-272). The first element of the name (meaning “slave,” “servant”) is always compounded either with theophoric elements or with epithets that fill the same semantic role. However, the theophoric or epithetic element ri-ša is unknown in the ancient Near Eastern onomasticon.20 With all due caution, we would like to suggest that ri-ša is a metathesis of ša-ri (šarri), which is a well-known element in Hurrian names (borrowed from the Akkadian) meaning “king” (Gelb, Purves and MacRay 1943:251-252; Gröndahl 1967:249). A transposition of the syllables of Milkilu into Ilimilku is known from a Jerusalemite letter (EA 286:36), and we have suggested elsewhere that ia-ma, author of letter EA 230, is no other than the Egyptian high official Maya.21 It may be noted further, that no clear Semitic name appears among the rulers’ names of the Beqa‘ of Lebanon

20. The West Semitic theophoric element iršu/iršuna (see Weippert 1966:321–327; Gröndahl 1967:101) has nothing to do with ri-ša, in particular because West Semitic names are uncommon among the rulers of the Beqa‘ (see below). Weippert (1970:322) suggested transcribing the name of the ruler of Hazor (EA 228:3) as ÌR-dir4-ši, i.e., ‘Abd-irši. The majority of scholars followed Knudtzon and rendered it ‘Abdi-Tirshi. 21. Clauss 1907:25–26 suggested that Ḫa-ra-bu (EA 250:44) is a metathesis of Ra-ḫa-bu, i.e., the city of Raḫabu in the Beth-shean Valley, well known from Egyptian inscriptions of the Late Bronze Age.


91

(i.e., Bieri, An/Ildaya,22 Yamiuta, Mayarzana, Amanḫatpi, Shatiya,23 Arašša) (See Helck 1971:478-481). A Hurrian name for the ruler of Enishazi fits well with this onomastic pattern. The toponym Enishazi also requires some comments. In the Amarna letters, it is written e--ša-zi (EA 363:4) and e-ni-ša-ṣi-[i?] (EA 187:12). On the basis of the transcription ‘Ain-Shasu from Kom el-Hēṭan, the mortuary temple of Amenophis III, Weippert (1970:259-272 Rainey 1975:13-16, with earlier literature) suggested that both the Amarna town and toponym no. 6 in the topographical inscription of Thutmose III should be transcribed in this manner. The name “Spring of the Shasu” was called, according to this line of thought, after the Shasu, i.e., nomadic elements that settled there. However, this attractive suggestion is open to criticism. The name Shasu is known exclusively from Egyptian sources and is a general term for the nomadic groups living in the peripheral areas of Canaan, as well as the Egyptian delta.24 The corresponding term in Akkadian is Sutu, which is known from cuneiform sources of the Old Babylonian period and which became a generic term for nomads in the Akkadian literature (Kupper 1957:83-145: Heltzer 1985:59-70; Rowton 1976:16). By deciphering the toponym as ‘Ain-Shasu (i.e., “Spring of the Shasu”), one presupposes that Shasu was a well known designation among the population of Canaan. Until now, however, there is no evidence that the name was in use outside Egypt, either as a generic term for nomads (as it appears in the Egyptian documents) or as a tribal name for a certain group. It seems more likely that the name Enishazi has nothing to do with the Egyptian Shasu; the Egyptian orthography in the Kom-el-Hēṭan inscription represents only an Egyptian popular etymology of its name (Ahituv 1984:58). The ṣi sign is sometimes written as zi in peripheral Akkadian (e.g., EA 158: 37); the writing of this sign to designate si, on the other hand, is very rare

22. The name AN/il-da-a-a (EA 175:3) was interpreted as West Semitic (Il-dayyi) and compared with the Ugaritic name ildy (Schult 1969:200; Moran 1987:580). The interpretation is, naturally, not clear of doubts. The elements ant and tai are well known from Hurrian names (Gelb, Purves and MacRae 1943:201, 261); the name An-ta-a-a is known from Nuzi (Gelb, Purves and MacRae 1943:21). For further references and discussion, see Landsberger 1954:56, n. 106; Weippert 1970:268, n. 38. Note also the Egyptian(?) name Daasharti (EA 162: 75) (but see Schult 1969:200). 23. Rainey (1975:15) suggested that the sender of letter EA 187 was called by the West Semitic name Shadeya (ša-de4-ya) and compared it with the Ugaritic name šdyn. However, Moran (1975b:151) demonstrated that, with the exception of the Jerusalem Amarna letters, all occurrences of te = de4 in the Amarna archive are confined to forms of idû. The name of the sender of letter EA 187 should be rendered as Shatiya (Moran 1987:426). 24. Giveon 1971; Ward 1972:35–60; Weippert 1974:265–280, 427–433; Görg 1976:424–428; 1979:199–202; Astour 1979:17–34; Na’aman 1982:27–33.

92


and does not appear in the western periphery (von Soden and Röllig 1967:No. 109). In light of the transcription e-ni-ša-ṣi-[i?], it seems preferable to transcribe the toponym as Enishazi, although the transcription Enishasi is not ruled out. The second Kāmid el-Lōz letter (KL 69:279) was sent to ÌR.LUGAL of ša-zae-na. Eph‘al (1971:155-157) suggests identifying the town with the road station Sazana mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian letter ABL 414 that was sent by Bēl-iqbi, governor of the province of Ṣupite in the days of Sargon II. He identified the town at the junction of the Beqa‘’s road and the Beirut-Damascus route. Letter ABL 414 reflects the efforts of the governor of Ṣupite to build road stations along the desert routes of his province. It is reasonable to assume that Sazana was also located on the caravan road east of mount AntiLebanon. Furthermore, none of the places mentioned in the Assyrian letter is known from second millennium documents; they all were apparently small frontier settlements built by the Assyrians as part of their control system over the eastern Syrian routes (Eph‘al 1982:95-98). It should also be noted that most of the territory of Ṣupite was part of the kingdom of Damascus in the Amarna period and that there is hardly room for an independent citystate in this area. Moreover, a place called Saza(e)na is not mentioned in the entire corpus of the Egyptian topographical lists. In spite of the similarity of names between Shazaena of the Kumidi letter and Sazana of the Assyrian letter, the identities are far from clear. Sazana may well have been founded by the Arameans only in the first millennium BCE and further built by the Assyrians after the annexation of the Damascene area. As suggested above, with all due reservation, letter EA 363 was sent by ÌR-šarri of Enishazi. Letters EA 174-176 and 363 are dated to the last stage of the Amarna period.25 Is it possible to identify ÌR-šarri of letter EA 363 with ÌR.LUGAL the addressee of KL 69:279? The latter’s city is called ša-za-e-na. Could it be the creation of the Egyptian scribe, who mistakenly wrote ša-zae-na for e-na-ša-za? This, of course, is no more than a hypothesis and cannot be verified. Accepting it and identifying the author of letter EA 363 with the addressee of KL 69:279 would lead to the conclusion that the two letters KL 69:277 and 6.9:279 were written not long after the Amarna period. Zalaya, accordingly, would be considered as Biryawaza’s successor to the throne of Damascus.

25. Kitchen 1962:31, 45; Campbell 1964:116–120, 135. The chronological relations of the attack on the land of ‘Amqi at the end of the Amarna period to the Daḫamunzu affair described in the Annals of Shuppiluliuma is not relevant to our discussion.


93

Dating the Kāmid el-Lōz Letters Dating Zalaya and ÌR-šarri to the post-Amarna Age is not dependent only on the identification of names and toponyms in EA 363 and KL 69:279. Such a late date for the Kāmid el-Lōz letters remains plausible even if my arguments concerning the assumed identity of personal names (ÌR-šarri) and toponyms (Enishazi) are not acceptable. Reluctance to accept the identification will pave the way for the second alternative suggested above, namely, that the letters were sent at an early date, prior to the time of Amenophis III. The deportation of the Nubians and ‘Apirus, as reflected in the two letters, therefore, should be discussed in the light of the historical developments either in the late 15th-early 14th century or the last third of the 14th century BCE. The Egyptian border in Nubia in the 15th-14th centuries BCE reached the Fourth Cataract, near the fortified town of Napata. Scholars agree that subsequent to the conquest of this area, most, if not all, of the 18th Dynasty expeditions to Nubia were directed not against the peaceful inhabitants of the river valley, but against the predatory tribesmen on its periphery (SäveSöderbergh 1941:151; Hayes 1973:347). Thus, various operations undertaken by the local Nubian authorities in reaction to the outbreak of violence in the land, and royal campaigns, may all be the background for the deportation of the Nubians. The deportation of groups of tribesmen and ‘Apiru from the areas of the Beqa‘ and east of the Anti-Lebanon, may well be connected to the armed struggle of the great Powers over the hegemony of northern Canaan and central Syria, as was the long struggle between Egypt and Mitanni in the second half of the 15th century BCE. Indeed, a large scale deportation of the unstable elements in the peripheral areas of Canaan is mentioned in the second booty list on the Memphis stela of Amenophis II.26 This mass deportation is directly linked with the Egyptian-Mitannian fighting that took place in these years.27 Curiously, according to the Amada stela of Amenophis II, one of the rulers of Taḫshi was shipped to Nubia and hanged upon the enclosure wall of Napata.28 According to this hypothesis, the two Kāmid el-Lōz letters are contemporane-

26. For the controversy over the interpretation of the booty list of Amenophis II, see Edel 1953a:170–173; Alt 1954:57–58; Janssen 1963:141–147; Helck 1971:344; Spalinger 1983: 92–101. 27. For the Egyptian-Mitannian struggle, see Edel 1953a:97–176; Alt 1954:33–62; Helck 1971:115–164: Drower 1973:417–462; Spalinger1983:89–101. 28. Wilson 1969:248a: Rainey 1973:71–74. The episode may well illustrate the motif of transferring the rebellious prince from the northernmost border of the empire (Taḫshi) to its southernmost limit (Napata).

94


ous with the Taanach letters and were written in the course of the mass deportation organized by the Egyptian king in the ninth year of his reign.29 According to the second alternative, the deportation of the ‘Apiru may be combined with the Egyptian-Hittite struggle over central Syria in the postAmarna Age. The expedition to Nubia may be identified, tentatively, with that conducted by Tutankhamun, as is attested to in the scene of the defeat of the Nubians on the painted box from his tomb.30 As was noted above, this is only one possibility; other operations conducted by the Viceroy of Nubia and his officers against the peripheral tribesmen and by the Pharaohs of the late 18th Dynasty or their generals in the northernmost areas of Canaan may well fit into the historical context of the Kāmid el-Lōz letters.

Addendum: Kāmid el-Lōz Glosses (a) KL 69:100 Line 8: The ten-sign is identical in form to the Glossenkeils that are common in letters sent from all over southern Syria and northern Transjordan (e.g., EA 183:4; 185:19, 32; 195:5, 9, 23; 207:21; 215:4; 216:16; 228:19; 256:7, 9). See Artzi 1963:34-35. Also the syllabic writing a-la-ni appears only once in the Amarna correspondence (EA 209:7) and is rather doubtful. The reading of the line cannot be established with certainty. Lines 12-16: a-mur-mi a-n[a-ku . . . .] ù ši-mi ia-[ši . . . ù] la-a ti7-il-qú-n[a . . .] iš-te URU AN A [ . . . ù la-a] te-pu-šu-na [. . .]. Translation: “Behold, I [am your loyal servant] and listen to [me. Give? order? so that] they will not take [. . .] from the city .. [. . . and] will [not] do [. . .].”

In this light we may tentatively restore also: Lines 5, 7: ù a-na ma- [ni . . .] ù ti7- [il-qú-na . . .]. Lines 9-10: ù a-na m[a-ni . . . ù] te-pu-š[u-na . . .].

(b) KL 72:600 For lines 14-19. see Na’aman 1977b:238; for line 25 (ŠU.KAM.MA = erištu/ mēreštu), see Moran 1979:247-248.

29. For the date of the Taanach letters, see Albright 1944:12–14, 26–27; Glock 1971:17– 30; Rainey 1973:71-74. 30. Davies and Gardiner 1962:pl. 2; Schulman 1964:55–56 and n. 33.


95

(c) KL 74:300 Line 5: The sign maḫ in the Canaanite Amarna letters has only two vertical wedges, at least one Winkelhaken before them and either a short horizontal wedge or two Winkelhaken underneath (compare EA 88:2; 138:92, 124; 140:25; 273:4 and possibly also 92:48; 135:14; 249:11). See the autographs in the edition of Knudtzon and the sign list in Schroeder 1915. The reading of the sign as maḫ cannot be considered as certain. It is not dissimilar to the sign É that appears three times in the Amarna letters (EA 148:42; 151:55: 260:13. Compare autographs nos. 108, 110, 145 in Knudtzon’s edition). The reading of the city name remains problematic. Lines 8-9: The unique combination šādē alāku may possibly be compared with Akkadian eqlu alāku, “to perform ilku-service” (CAD A/1 313a). Line 13: One would naturally assume that the sign DU stands for the verbal form tillikū of line 8. That the scribe was trying to abridge the text can be seen by reference to the noun bēlu: It was first written in its unabridged form (line 1) and then written in a shortened form (lines 7, 13); see Moran 1987: 40, n. 82. The addressee of the letter, if I understand it correctly, complains that his men are going out with the king’s troops and, thus, should not take part in the king’s work. Line 16: On the basis of EA 145:10, 26 one may read here tú-ti-ra-ni (with the rare syllable tú). Tentative translation of the discussed passage (lines 5-17): “Behold, the men of GN, a city of the king, my lord — should they go to the ‘field’? Behold, I am your servant, my troops go with the troops of the king, my lord. Further, you will send back an order and deliver (it) to me.” [After the publication of the article, two additional tablets from Kāmid elLōz were published. See Arnaud 1991; Huehnergard 1996].

References Ahituv, S. 1973. New Documents Pertaining to Deportation as a Political System in Ancient Egypt. Beer-Sheva. Studies in Bible, Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East 1: 87-89. (Hebrew). Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94:12-27. Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98-116. Alt, A. 1954. Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches nach Palästina. ZDPV 70: 33-75. Altman, A. 1977. The Fate of Abdi-Ashirta. Ugarit-Forschungen 9: 1-11. Arnaud, D. 1991. Une lettre de Kamid-el-Loz. Semitica 40: 7-16.

96


Artzi, P. 1963. The “Glosses” in the Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit). Bar-Ilan: Annual of BarIlan University I. Jerusalem: 24-57. (Hebrew). Astour, M.C. 1979. Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists. In: Görg, M. and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten and Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 17-34. Bienkowski, P. 1987. The Role of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age. PEQ 119: 50-61. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters with Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore. Campbell, E.F. 1965. Shechem in the Amarna Archive. In: Wright, G.E. Shechem. The Biography of a Biblical City. London: 191-207. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1-78. Davies, N.M. and Gardiner, A.H. 1962. Tutankhamun’s Painted Box. London. Drower, M. 1973. Syria c. 1550-1400 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 417-525. Edel, E. 1953a. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97-176. Edel, E. 1953b. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 and KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29-63. Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz - Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn: 55-62. Edzard, D.O. 1976. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 66: 62-67. Edzard, D.O. 1982. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kamid el-Loz. In: Hachmann, R. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 131-135. Edzard, D.O. 1980. Ein neues Tontafelfragment (Nr. 7) aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 70:52-54. Eph‘al, I. 1971. uruŠa-za-e-na = uruSa-za-na. IEJ 21: 155-157. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Gelb, I.J. Purves, P.M. and MacRae, A.A. 1943. Nuzi Personal Names. (Oriental Institute Publications 57). Chicago. Giveon, R. 1971. Les bédouins shosou des documents Égyptiens. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden. Glock, A.E. 1971. A New Ta‘annek Tablet. BASOR 204: 17-30. Goetze, A. 1975. The Struggle for the Domination of Syria (1400-1300 B.C.). The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 1-20. Görg, M. 1974. Untersuchungen zur hieroglyphischen Wiedergabe palästinischer Ortsnamen. Bonn. Görg, M. 1976. Zur Geschichte der Š3św. Orientalia 45: 424-428. Görg, M. 1979. Tuthmosis III. und die Š3św-Region. JNES 38: 199-202. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome. Hachmann, R. 1970. Kāmid el-Lōz – Kumidi. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz - Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn: 63-94. Hachmann, R. 1982. Arahattu — Biriawaza — Puhuru. In: Hachmann, R. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 137-161. Hayes, W.C. 1973. Egypt: Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amenophis III. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 313-416.


97

Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Heltzer, M. 1981. The Suteans. (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 13). Naples. Huehnergard, J. 1996. A Byblos Letter, Probably from Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 86: 97-113. Janssen, J.J. 1963. Eine Beuteliste von Amenophis II. und das Problem der Sklaverei im Alten Ägypten. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 17: 141-147. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool. Klengel, H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien. Berlin. Klengel, H. 1970. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 3 — Historische Geographie und allgemeine Darstellung. Berlin. Klengel, H. 1977. Das Land Kusch in den Keilschrifttexten von Amarna. In: Endesfelder, E. et al. eds. Ägypten und Kusch. Festschrift F. Hintze. Berlin: 227-232. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig Kühne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna (AOAT 17). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Kupper, J.R. 1957. Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. Paris. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31-73, 106-133. Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*-99*. Moran, W.L. 1975a. Amarna Glosses. RA 69: 147-158. Moran, W.L. 1975b. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146-166 Moran, W.L. 1979. Putative Akkadian šukammu. JCS 31: 247-248. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13). Paris. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1977a. Yeno‘am. Tel Aviv 4: 168-177. Na’aman, N. 1977b. ašītu (Sg.) and ašâtu (Pl.) — Strap and Reins. JCS 29: 237-239. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31:172-185. Na’aman, N. 1982. The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the ‘Apiru and the Shosu. Göttinger Miszellen 55: 27-33. Na’aman, N. 1986. The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463-488. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1988. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions Bible Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: 17-26. Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to Canaan. In: Abusch T., Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, J. eds. Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: 397-405. Pitard, W.T. 1987. Ancient Damascus. A Historical Study of the Syrian City State from Earliest Times unto Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. Winona Lake. Rainey, A.F. 1973. Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10: 71-75.

98


Rainey, A.F. 1975. Toponymic Problems: ‘Ain-Shasu. Tel Aviv. 2: 13-16. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Seven Studies. Toronto. Rowton. M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apiru-‘Ibrîm. JNES 35: 1320. Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1941. Ägypten und Nubien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte alt-ägyptischer Aussenpolitik. Lund. Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51-69. Schulman A.R. 1982. The Nubian War of Akhenaton. L’Egyptologie en 1979. Axes prioritaires de recherches II. (Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. No 595). Paris: 299-316. Schult, H. 1969. Bücherbesprechungen: Gröndahl, Frauke, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Rome 1967. ZDPV 85: 197-200. Smith, G.A. 1901. Notes of a Journey through Hauran, with Inscriptions Found by the Way. PEQ 33: 340-361. von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das Akkadische Syllabar. 2nd revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia 42). Rome. Spalinger, A. 1983. The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 13: 89-101. Ward, W.L. 1972. The Shasu “Bedouin.” Notes on a Recent Publication. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 15: 35-60. Weippert, M. 1966. Archäologischer Jahrbericht. ZDPV 82: 274-330. Weippert, M. 1970. Die Nomadenquelle. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds. Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen: 259-272. Weippert, M. 1974. Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über die Š3św der ägyptischen Quellen. Biblica 55: 265-280, 427-433. Wilhelm, G. 1973. Ein Brief der Amarna-Zeit aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 63: 69-75. Wilhelm, G. 1982. Die Fortsetzungstafel eines Briefes aus Kamid el-Loz (KL 72:600). In: Hachmann, R. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 123-129. Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227-264. Wreszinski, W. 1935. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte II. Leipzig. Zadok, R. 1985. Suteans and Other West Semites during the Latter Half of the Second Millennium B.C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16: 59-70.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan1 I The Conquest of Canaan by Thutmose III was accompanied by administrative measures intended to consolidate Egyptian control in the newly captured territory. One of these measures was the storage of food supplies and materials needed for future campaigns in bases situated along the coast of Lebanon (Alt 1959:97–101; Pintore 1972:112–115; 1973:300–301, 316–317; Ahituv 1978:96–98). Supplying the commodities was the task of the Canaanite vassals. The list of these products (bread, olive oil, incense, wine, honey and fruits) in Thutmose’ annals is similar to lists of food supplies that the local rulers in Canaan were ordered to prepare for Egyptian troops, according to several Amarna letters (EA 55:11–12; 324:12–14; 325:16–17; 367:1617) (Pintore 1973:300–301; Moran 1983:175–176). One of these letters, EA 367, was intended to be sent to the ruler of Achshaph, but for some unknown reason it was not dispatched and remained in the Amarna archive. It announces the arrival of Egyptian troops (ṣābē piṭāti) and commands Endaruta, king of Achshaph, to guard his city, to prepare everything required, to listen carefully to the orders of the royal messenger and to execute them in full. The other three tablets belong to a larger group. In the letters of this group, the Canaanite rulers express their loyalty to the Pharaoh, emphasizing that they are guarding their towns and are complying with the orders of the king and his officials. They are also preparing everything according to his command and are ready with their troops to join the Egyptian campaign. Royal letter EA 367 is directly related to the vassal letters: whatever is requested in it is to be obediently performed. Every single order in the former is submissively approved in the other letters. The resemblance of commodities mentioned in the inscriptions of Thutmose III to those in the Amarna documents and the perfect accord between the royal and the vassal letters are sometimes regarded as evidence

1. Reprinted with permission. In: Abusch, T. et al. eds. Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Atlanta 1990, 397–405.

99

100


that the latter reflect a particular occasion, namely, the planning of an Egyptian campaign to Asia during the reign of Akhenaten (Bonkamp 1939: 256–260; Schulman 1964:58, 63–64; Reviv 1966:45–51; Na’aman 1975:133–135, 201–202, 210–213; 1981:180–181). According to this assumption (which will be defended in what follows), the Canaanite rulers received strict orders and reported back that they were fulfilling them from beginning to end. Others, however, regard these documents as descriptions of routine measures reflecting the normal correspondence between the Pharaoh and his vassals (Liverani 1971:257–263; Pintore 1972:115–117, 130). Model letters from the Ramesside period, in which the same formulae appear in the Egyptian language, were suggested as verification of the stereotyped character of these documents. Recently, Liverani advanced this claim one step further, suggesting that there was a misunderstanding in communication: the Canaanite rulers misinterpreted the Egyptian text, which the royal scribes had botched when translating into Akkadian (Liverani 1983:53–54). The routine request that a contingent of Egyptian troops led by an officer was on its way and that it was necessary to make preparations before its arrival was interpreted in certain Canaanite city-states to mean that the rulers must be at the head of the Egyptian troops to guide them. Did the Amarna letters refer to a specific event, or were they routine correspondence? This question can be answered only by chronological investigation of the tablets. Provided that they were written at one particular historical moment, we may safely assume that they refer to a specific episode, whereas sporadic dates would mean that they refer to various episodes. To clarify this question, we shall first define the scope of the group, then present the chronological data of each letter briefly. Only letters that accord with one of the following criteria will be assigned to the group under discussion: (1) Those referring to several subjects appearing in EA 367, the Egyptian letter of command. (2) Those referring to preparations (šūšuru/šutēšuru) before (ana pāni). the arrival of the Egyptian troops (ṣābē piṭāti). Twenty-four letters from 21 different places fulfil these criteria: Nos. 55, 65, 141–142, 144, 147, 153, 191, 193, 195, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 216, 217, 218, 227, 292, 324–325 and 337. Letter EA 55 from Qatna is dated to the last stage of the Amarna archive, when the Hittite army, with the help of Aziru of Amurru, sacked the towns of the kingdom of Qatna (Kitchen 1962:44; Campbell 1964:135; Redford 1967: 216–221; Helck 1971:178–179). Tablet EA 191 was sent by Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi and EA 193 by Tewati (ti4-wa-te) of Lapana. Both rulers cooperated with the Hittite king and Aitakama of Qadesh in attacking the land of Upi (EA 55:35–

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan

101

39, 56–57; 54:26–34), an event that occurred at the end of the Amarna period (Campbell 1964:135; Redford 1967:220–221; Helck 1971:179, 183–184). The letter of Tyre (EA 147) was written at a time when Aziru was generally regarded as a traitor (lines 67–68), i.e., when he started negotiations with the Hittites and attacked the vassals of Egypt. Abi-Milki of Tyre, thus, accused his own enemy, Zimredda of Sidon, of reporting to the traitor Aziru regarding preparations for the impending Egyptian Asiatic campaign (lines 66–69). The Beirut letters (EA 141–142) were written subsequent to the expulsion of Rib-Adda of Byblos from his city (EA 142:18–24) and, therefore, date close to the end of the archive. Moreover, Ḫan’i son of Maireya, who was sent to the land of Canaan according to the royal letter (EA 367:7), is probably mentioned in both the tablet of Beirut (EA 142:7)2 and that of Hazor (EA 227:16). Ḫan’i also figures in a letter sent by Aziru (EA 161:11–34) and in a royal letter sent to him (EA 162:56–63), both written after the expulsion of Rib-Adda from Byblos, when Aziru was ordered to appear before the Pharaoh (EA 162:42–54). Ḫan’i’s missions to the land of Canaan can safely be dated to the last stage of the archive (Albright 1946:11–13). The Egyptian high official Maya was nominated as commissioner in Canaan during the last stage of the archive (see below) (Campbell 1964:126– 130). He is mentioned in letters EA 216:13, 217:16, 218:14, 292:33, 337:26, all of which may safely be dated to the end of the period. Māya appears side by side with another Egyptian official, Rēanapa, in a letter of Ba‘lu-šipṭ i of Gezer (EA 292:33, 36); both were nominated to their posts in Canaan at the same time (Albright 1946:19–20; Edel 1953:57; Campbell 1964:126). Rēanapa again figures in one of the letters of Yidya of Ashkelon (EA 326:17), which must be assigned to the close of the archive. Yidya is known from a broken royal letter (EA 370), which is parallel to the letter sent to Endaruta (EA 367) and was intended to direct him to prepare everything necessary for the campaign. Moreover, Ba‘lu-šipṭ i of Gezer, Yidya of Ashkelon and ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti of Gath(?) (the authors of letters EA 292, 324–325 and 65) came to power only at the end of the period of rebellions and disturbances in southern Canaan, once again during the last stage of the archive (Na’aman 1979:676–682). This short survey clearly indicates that all the datable letters in our group were written during the final stage of the Amarna period. Two other rulers whose letters have no particular clue for dating — Zimredda of Sidon and Biryawaza of Damascus — are also attested at this historical moment. No ruler sending one of the tablets enumerated above is known to have been re-

2. EA 142:6–7: [ištem]e awāte ṭuppi ša uštēšir qāt (ŠU) [m Ḫa-n]i šarri bēlija, “I have heard the words of the tablet that the king, my lord, has sent the hand of Ḫan’i.”

102


placed before this time. Therefore, we may conclude that the entire group of letters dates to one and the same time and may safely assume that they deal with preparations in anticipation of a specific Egyptian campaign to Canaan. As noted above, the texts of these vassal letters echo the contents of the royal letters. This was bureaucratic routine: the vassals regularly responded with words and sentences borrowed from their overlord’s messages. The procedures involved in preparing for military campaigns has been discussed at length by others (Reviv 1966:30, 45–51; Pintore 1972:106–31; 1973:299–315). Only one point needs to be elaborated: the role of the messengers. The emissaries who delivered the royal letters and orders to the vassals were often of high rank. Thus, Ḫan’i, for example, held the title “chief of the stable of the king” (EA 367:7–8).3 Iriyamašša (EA 370:8–9) possibly had the same title.4 The participation of Egyptian officials in the organization of the campaign is mentioned either alongside their names (EA 142:7; 216:12–14; 217:13–13; 218:13–14; 227:1517; 337:24–30) or anonymously (EA 55:14–15; 147: 17, 30–31; 292:20–22). Consequently, it is difficult to accept Liverani’s suggestion that the Canaanite rulers misunderstood the royal orders (Liverani 1983: 31, 54). Misinterpretation of certain Egyptian concepts and expressions is certainly possible, but, in this particular case, messengers were sent deliberately to avoid any such confusion. It seems that the northern Canaanite rulers were ordered to participate in the expedition (just as the Hittites mobilized their vassals on similar occasions), and they understood this command perfectly well. Most prominent among the Egyptian officials involved with the preparations for the campaign was Māya (Albright 1946:5, 15; Edel 1953:57; Campbell 1964:75–77, 126–30; Redford 1990:14–16). Possibly, he replaced Yanḫamu at that time as governor (Campbell 1964:90–101). The seven letters mentioning his office (EA 216, 217, 218, 292, 300, 328, 337) are distributed in southern and northern Canaan. Another letter (EA 230), whose author so far has not been identified, might also be assigned to him, although his name was mistakenly written ia-ma, i.e., a metathesis of ma-ia. As far as I am aware, this is the only cuneiform diplomatic exchange between the pharaonic court and Egyptian officials in Asia that has come down to us. The routine correspondence was certainly recorded on papyrus by hieroglyphic signs (Alt 1936:30– 31). Following is a translation of the letter. 3. For the high position sometimes held by persons bearing the titles “charioteer” or “groom” both in Ḫatti and in Egypt, see Singer 1983:9–13, 21. 4. Gordon (1947:5) restored /LÚ.MAŠKIM/ š[a . . .] in EA 370:7. He was followed by Rainey (1978:44–45). The traces on the tablet, however, hardly justify this reading. One may tentatively suggest restoring /LÚ.PA.TUR3/ š[a šarri], parallel to EA 367:8.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 103 Speak to the king my lord; thus says Māya your servant. At your feet I have fallen. Behold, I am your servant at the place where I am. Behold, the places where I am (are) all your cities; I, your servant, will protect all your city rulers. If your soldier comes to me, then I will protect him. And all the cities where I am I will protect for you. And you may ask your city rulers whether I am protecting (them). And may you be informed that all your cities are well.

The cuneiform writing points to a Syrian provenience (Moran 1975:151). The end of the text (lines 20–22) is an imitation of the typical endings of the pharaonic letters (compare, e.g., EA 99:21–26; 162:78–79; 367:22–24) and has parallels in the vassal letters (EA 208:13–14; 267:15–20; 330:17–21). Māya was responsible to the Pharaoh for numerous cities and their rulers of a vast territory. He is reporting that all is well in the area under his authority. We may safely assume that Māya’s role was not restricted to the organization of the Asiatic campaign.

II In addition to the above-discussed routine responses, the letters of this group have a remarkable feature that has not been considered previously. These are the vassals’ expressions of enthusiasm and happiness upon hearing of the impending campaign, accompanied by praises to the Pharaoh who is initiating it. Unlike the stereotyped nature of the reports of preparation and obedience, these parts of the letters are most unusual, including rare words and exceptional expressions. We shall translate some of these passages and discuss them briefly. The letter of Abi-Milki of Tyre (EA 147) is a long eulogy to the Pharaoh, extolling him with lofty words for his decision to make the campaign.5 The rising of the sun in heaven and its celestial effects are compared with the coming forth of the king and the immediate effects on the land and its inhabitants. The response of the king of Tyre to the orders of the royal letter is interwoven with long poetic sections, but every single request of the Pharaoh finds its approving answer. The tenor of the letter makes it clear that AbiMilki believed that the king would personally participate in the expedition (compare in particular lines 57–60); his enthusiastic and jubilant words were intended to welcome the king’s anticipated arrival in the land of Canaan. My lord is the Sun who rises over the countries day after day according to the ordinance of the Sun God, his gracious father, who gives life with his sweet breath and re5. For letter EA 147, see Bonkamp 1939:256–257; Albright 1937:190–203; 1967:123–125; Gevirtz 1973:162–177; Eyre 1976:183; Grave 1980a:205–218; 1982:161–183; cf. Moran 1975: 157, n. 3.

104

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE turns with his northwind,6 who places the entire country in a state of peace by the strength of his arm, who gives his cry from heaven like Ba‘al so that every country takes fright at his cry (lines 5–15). This (is) what the servant has written to his lord when he has heard the gracious messenger of the king who reached his servant, and the sweet breath that has come forth from the mouth of the king, my lord, to his servant, and his breath has returned. Before the arrival of the messenger of the king, my lord, the breath did not return, my nose was stopped up.7 Behold, now that the breath of the king has come forth to me, I rejoice greatly and I celebrate? day by day because I rejoice. Did not the (entire) land prosper? (ti-[ši-i]r) since it has heard of the gracious messenger from my lord, and all the country is reverent before my lord since it has heard of the sweet breath and the gracious messenger who reached me (lines 16–35). When the king, my lord, has said, “prepare (ku-na) before the great army,”8 the servant has said to his lord, “Aye, aye.” On my belly and on my back I am carrying the command of the king, my lord. He who listens to the king, his lord, and serves him in his places, to him the Sun rises and the sweet breath returns from the mouth of his lord. But he who does not heed the word of the king, his lord, his city is destroyed, his house (i.e., dynasty and family) is lost and his name shall not exist in the entire world forever. Behold, the servant who has listened to his lord, his city is well, his name endures forever (lines 35–51). You are the Sun that rises to me and a wall of bronze that is erected for me (text: him). And on account of the strong arm of the king, my lord, I rest secure (lines 52–56). This I have said to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord: “When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?” But now, I am guarding Tyre, the capital city, for the king, my lord, until the mighty arm of the king come forth to me, to give me water to drink and wood to warm me (lines 57–66).

The other passages, though not as remarkable as the one from Tyre, are worth quoting in full nonetheless. EA 141:8–17 (Ammunira): Furthermore, I have heard the words of the tablet of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god, the breath of my life, and the heart of your servant, the dust under the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun and my god, the breath of my life, was very,

6. For the interpretation of ṣapānu, see the comprehensive discussions of Grave (1980b: 221–229; 1982:161–83). 7. For this translation, see Grave 1980a:205–218. 8. The routine phrase šūšuru/šutēšuru ana pāni ṣābē piṭāti (CAD E 358a, 359a) interchanges in our letter with the variant ku-na ana pāni ṣābē rabiti (lines 35–36). The verbal form ku-na is Canaanite, as is indicated by the Glossenkeil, and like šūšuru was translated ad sensum “to prepare.” One of the meanings of the biblical verb kwn in hiphil is “to prepare” (Koehler and Baumgartner 1974:443b); Canaanite kwn G may have the same connotation. For a different interpretation of the phrase, see CAD K 171 b, s.v. kânu B.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 105 very happy, since the breath of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god, came forth to his servant and the dust under his feet. EA 142:5–10 (Ammunira): Furthermore, I have heard the words of the tablet which the king, my lord, sent the hand [of Ḫan]’i. 9 And when I heard the words of the tablet of the king, my lord, my heart rejoiced and my eyes became very bright. EA 144:13–18 (Zimredda): And when I have heard the words of the king, my lord, that he wrote to his servant, and my heart rejoiced and my head was lifted and my eyes became bright upon hearing the words of the king, my lord. EA 195:16–23 (Biryawaza): My lord is the Sun in the sky and like the rising of the Sun from the sky, so the servants await the coming forth of the words from the mouth of their lord. EA 227:5–18 (king of Hazor): Behold I have guarded the [cit]ies of the king, my lord, until my lord comes to m[e]. And when I have heard these words of yours and the rising of the Sun to me and when it was heard . . . and my exultation went forth . . . and the gods looked upon me (favourably)?10 And now, I have prepared everything for the arrival of the king, my lord. Behold, when your messenger [Ḫan]’i arrived my heart became very [happy and my [ ] joy. EA 292:8–17 (Ba‘lu-šipṭi): I looked here and I looked there but there was no light; then I looked to the king, my lord, and there was light. A brick may slip out from beneath its fellows, but I will never defect from beneath the feet of the king, my lord.11

Most of the letters under discussion refer only to the arrival of the Egyptian troops (ṣābē piṭāti) under the leadership of officers. Ḫiziru, though announcing his hope for the arrival of the king (EA 337:13–18: “May the god of the king, my lord, grant that the king, my lord, come forth with his great army and may he learn about his lands”), nevertheless prepares in anticipation of the arrival of the troops (lines 8–12, 19–23).12 Only the rulers of Tyre (EA 147) and Hazor (EA 227) assume that the Pharaoh will participate in person, thus, expressing their desire and happiness for the future meeting with the “Sun God.”

9. For the text, see note 2 above. 10. For EA 227:8–13, see Rainey 1975:421–422. For line 10, see Bonkamp 1939:288–289. 11. For identical passages in other Amarna letters, compare EA 266:9–15, 19–25 and 296: 11–12. The date of these two letters is not clear (Campbell 1964:100, 134). An expedition of Egyptian troops is mentioned in the latter (lines 33–35: “And I will be with the troops of the king, my lord; wherever they go I will go”). But we cannot be sure that it refers to the planned campaign discussed above. 12. For the correct understanding of these passages, see Moran 1983:175–177.

106


Finally we may ask whether the planned campaign was accomplished or not. The latter alternative was taken for granted by scholars, on the grounds that nothing further is known regarding such a campaign (Schulman 1964: 58; Reviv 1966:30, 51). However, the absence of any documentation in such a case must be considered with caution. As suggested above, preparations for the expedition were being made at the close of the archive. Moreover, just as the tablets that were necessary for future correspondence were brought to Akhetaten (Amarna) from the previous capital, other tablets were certainly removed from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment (Riedel 1939:145–148; Campbell 1964:32–36; Na’aman 1981:174). Our sources for the last years of the Amarna correspondence, perforce, are meagre, and only a handful of tablets can be dated later than those dealing with preparations for this campaign. An indication that the plans for the expedition continued may be inferred from the correspondence of Aziru of Amurru. During the reign of Amenophis III, Aziru’s father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta, was engaged in a large-scale offensive against his neighbors in northern Canaan, even attempting to capture the city of Byblos. At last, the Egyptians sent a task force to Amurru to seize him, and he was captured and taken to Egypt.13 His subsequent fate is unknown, but it is reasonable to assume that he was executed (see below). This was an important lesson for his son and heir to the throne, Aziru. As long as there was no immediate danger, he continued the policy of expansion initiated by his father. The plans for an Asiatic campaign, however, entirely changed the situation. Aziru was well aware of the preparations taking place in Egypt and Canaan (see EA 147:66–70). Moreover, he received, on that occasion, an Egyptian letter (EA 162) ordering him to appear before the Pharaoh to explain his deeds and warning him that, by pursuing his policy, he was risking his life. EA 162:33–41: If you become a servant of the king, your lord, what would the king not do for you? If for any reason you prefer to do evil and if you place evil (and) treacherous plans in your heart you will die by the king’s axe together with all your family. Thus, be a servant to the king, your lord, and you will live. And you know that the king does not want (to go) to the entire land of Canaan when he is angry.

The anticipated arrival of the Egyptian troops is explicitly referred to in this passage. The threat of execution was alluding to the fate of Aziru’s father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta, who was probably beheaded under similar circumstances.

13. Moran 1969:94*–101*; Altman 1977:1–11. The Egyptian military expedition to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta is mentioned in a group of letters (EA 108:28–33; 117:23–28; 121:41–44; 131:30–34; 132:10–18; 138:28–34; 362:16–20), in which Rib-Adda reminds Akhenaten of the campaign to Amurru undertaken by his father; see Moran 1969:97*, n. 20.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 107 Fear of the impending campaign is, in my opinion, the logical explanation for Aziru’s unexpected willingness to go to Egypt (EA 168–170). Under no other circumstances can one explain his sudden readiness to appear before the Pharaoh, a visit that he dreaded and, therefore, postponed as long as possible (EA 162:42–54; 164:1844). One may conclude that preparations for the military expedition steadily continued: the arrival of the troops was regarded in the land of Canaan as imminent. We may further recall S. Izre’el’s recent redating of the “General’s letter” (RS 20.33; Nougayrol 1968:No. 20) to the Amarna period (Izre’el 1988). According to this tablet, the army under the commander guarded the coastal plain along Nahr el-Kabir against an anticipated Egyptian campaign (Nougayrol 1968:69–79; Rainey 1971:131–114, with earlier literature). The anticipated Egyptian attack may well be equated with the planned campaign discussed in this article. Thus, one cannot rule out the possibility that the Egyptian troops embarked on an expedition to Asia at the very last stage of the Amarna archive.14 This short study of the Amarna period is presented to Professor William L. Moran, the leading authority of our generation on many aspects of the Amarna tablets. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of examining many of these letters together with him during my post-doctoral stay in Boston in the winter of 1978. Certain results of our reading are acknowledged in the footnotes; many more appear in this and other studies. I hope that he will enjoy this small contribution, just as I was inspired upon reading his major contributions to Amarna studies.

References Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105. Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190– 203. Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B.C. JNES 5: 7–25. Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Palästinas. PJb 32: 8–33. Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 107–140).

14. For the wars in the time of Akhenaten, see Schulman 1964:51–69; 1982:299–318, with earlier literature; Murnane 1985:127–128, 241–242.

108


Altman, A. 1977. The Fate of Abdi-Ashirta. Ugarit-Forschungen 9: 1–11. Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichle der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Eyre, C. 1976. Egyptianism in the Amarna Letters? JEA 62: 183–184. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II.: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift für A. Alt. (Beiträge zur Histotorischen Theologie 16). Tübingen: 29–63 Gevirtz, S. 1973. On Canaanite Rhetoric: The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre. Orientalia 42: 162–177. Gordon, C.H. 1947. The New Amarna Tablets. Orientalia 16: 1–21. Grave, C. 1980a. On the Use of an Egyptian Idiom in an Amarna Letter from Tyre and in a Hymn to the Aten. Oriens Antiquus 19: 205–218. Grave, C. 1980b. The Etymology of Northwest Semitic ṣapānu. Ugarit-Forschungen 12: 221– 229. Grave, C. 1982. Northwest Semitic ṣapānu in a Break-up of an Egyptian Stereotype Phrase in EA 147. Orientalia 51: 161–182. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd. revised ed. Wiesbaden. Izre’el, S. 1988. When was the “General’s Letter” from Ugarit Written? In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500–1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 160–175. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool. Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 1974. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. 3rd ed. Leiden. Liverani, M. 1971. Le lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268. (= 1979. Pharaoh’s Letters to Rib-Adda. Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/5. Malibu: 3–13). Liverani, M. 1983. Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus 31: 41–56. Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*–99*. Moran, W.L. 1975. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Moran, W.L. 1983. Note on igi-kar, “Provisions, Supplies.” Acta Sumerologica 5: 175–177. Murnane, W.J. 1985. The Road to Kadesh. Chicago. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters, Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 673–684. Nougayrol, J. 1968. Ugaritica V. Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris. Oppenheim, A.L. 1967. Letters from Mesopotamia. Chicago. Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di elAmarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131. Pintore, F. 1973. La prassi della marcia Armata nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 12: 299–318.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 109 Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149. Rainey, A.F. 1975. Morphology and the Prefix-Tense of West Semityzed el-‘Amarna Tablets. Ugarit-Forschungen 7: 395–426. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets:359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tablets. 2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Toronto. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-sheva IV). Beer-sheva. Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew). Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis’ IV. OLZ 42: 145–148. Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69. Schulman, A.R. 1979. ed. L’Égyptologie en 1979. Colloques Intemationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, No 595, II. Paris: 299–318 Singer, I. 1983. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3–25.

The Canaanites and Their Land1 I. Introduction Ever since the late 1960s, it seemed as if the long debate over the extent of the land of Canaan in extra-biblical and biblical sources had reached a point of scholarly consensus. This consensus may be illustrated by the summary works of Aharoni (1967:61–70), de Vaux (1968; 1978:125–139), Weippert (1976–80) and Stolz (1988:539–545). It was suggested that Canaan, in Late Bronze texts, covered most or even the entire area of the Egyptian province in Asia and that the Promised Land, in a group of biblical historiographical texts, covered roughly the same area. Thus, it was concluded that Israelite authors, when describing the history of the nation, had adopted an old historical name and presented it — with or without significant changes — as the land that YHWH had promised to their ancestors (Maisler 1930:54–74; 1946; Elliger 1936; Baldi 1950–51; Saebø 1974; Kallai 1975; Na’aman 1986:39–73). Scholars further observed that another, territorially more limited, use of the name also appears in certain biblical texts. Canaan, in these texts, refers to the Phoenician coast whose inhabitants are the Canaanites. This sense would have reflected the usage current in the time of the authors who produced these texts (Maisler 1930:63–66; de Vaux 1968:30; Weippert 1976–80: 354). De Vaux explained the shift from a broad to a more limited territorial extent: “The name may have become more limited in its geographical application when the name Canaanite was restricted to the inhabitants of those parts of Canaan that had not been subjugated . . . or when the part in which they lived was restricted to Phoenicia” (1968:30; 1978:131). At the same time, “Canaan” also became a synonym for “trader” because trade occupied a central role in the economy of the Phoenician coast, the “new Canaan.” However, scholarly consensus was disrupted with the appearance of N.P. Lemche’s The Canaanites and Their Land (1991). Lemche suggests that the use of the name Canaan in second millennium BCE texts was imprecise and ambiguous and may have designated anything from a vast territory that includes southeastern Anatolia to a small area in Lower Galilee. Nobody in Western

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 26 (1994), 397–418.

110

The Canaanites and Their Land

111

Asia regarded himself as Canaanite or defined his land as Canaan. Canaanite was a name used by scribes to designate a person who did not belong to the local society or kingdom, and Canaan was considered to be a country different from one’s own. However, in biblical historiography, Canaan sometimes refers to a geographical extent coterminous with the Land of Israel, and Canaanites were the inhabitants of that land. Thus, argues Lemche, there is no apparent connection between Canaan and Canaanites in second millennium documents and their cognates in the Bible. Biblical historiographers derived their ideas of Canaan and Canaanites from the reality of their own time. They applied the terms to the entire Land of Israel and described the Canaanites as the former inhabitants of the land whom their own ancestors had defeated, dispossessed and inherited. It is the purpose of this article to re-examine in detail the references to Canaan and the Canaanites in second millennium BCE sources. Following this, the extent of the biblical Promised Land and its relationship with the Canaan of the Late Bronze documents will be examined. I will try to show that, in many instances, Lemche’s analysis is inadequate or even entirely mistaken and that his conclusions are not justified by the textual evidence.

II. The Second Millennium BCE Documents 1. The Mari Letters The earliest published reference to the Canaanites is in a letter from Mari dated to about the middle of the 18th century BCE. It was sent by Mutu-bisir to Shamshi-Addu I on the occasion of the dispatch of troops from Mari to help Ishḫi-Addu of Qatna suppress a rebellion that had erupted on his southern border (Dossin 1973; Durand 1987:219–220; Charpin 1992:3). Mutu-bisir was camped in Dubbâ, a town whose exact location is unknown, “over against Rāḫiṣum.” After a broken passage, the letter continues with the words “It is in Rāḫiṣum that the brigands (ḫabbātum) and the Canaanites (Kinaḫnum) are situated. We and they are watching one another.” (rev. lines 9’–11’). The location of Rāḫiṣum is the key to understanding the territorial situation. Rainey (1979; 1982:343–344) and Durand (1987:219–220) have independently identified Rāḫiṣum of the Mari letters with Rūḫiṣu of the Amarna letters (see Moran 1992:391 s.v. Ruḫizzi). Rāḫiṣum/Rūḫiṣu was located on the northeastern border of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia. In the Old Babylonian period, it was a town near the southern border of Qatna where brigands who fled southward found refuge. There are numerous examples in the Amarna letters for groups of ‘Apiru bands staying in Canaanite cities under the protection of local rulers (note in particular EA 185–186). Mutubisir made the obvious distinction between Canaanites (Kinaḫnum), the

112


local inhabitants of the territory south of Qatna, and the outlaw refugees (ḫabbātum) who fled there from the kingdom of Qatna. According to Charpin (1992:4 notes 20–21), there are more unpublished references to the Canaanites and to Rāḫiṣum in the Mari letters, all apparently referring to the same historical episode and to the same territory on the southern border of Qatna. Thus, it is evident that in the mid-18th century BCE, people called “Canaanites” lived south of the kingdom of Qatna, i.e., in the same area in which they are located in the Late Bronze Age (Na’aman 1982:147–149).

2. The Texts from Alalakh According to the inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, he left the city of Emar, crossed the desert and arrived at the city of Ammiya, which is located “in the land of Canaan.” There he met other refugees from his former kingdom, became their leader and formed a band of ‘Apiru. Ammiya is mentioned in the Amarna letters and is located not far from the northwestern border of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia. Thus, whereas Rāḫiṣum is located near the northeastern border of the future Egyptian province and outlaw refugees of northern origin (i.e., from Qatna) found shelter there in the mid–18th century BCE, Ammiya is located near its northwestern border and outlaw refugees of northern origin (i.e., from Ḫalab, Alalakh, Niya and Amae) found shelter there in the 15th century BCE. The fact that the author of this profoundly literary inscription chose to emphasize that Ammiya was located “in the land of Canaan” may well indicate that he regarded the town as the northernmost Canaanite center along the coast. Four other documents from Alalakh mention Canaan, all referring to individuals from that land. One tablet (AT 154) is still unpublished. Tablet AT 181 is a list of ‘Apiru (Wiseman 1954:11; Greenberg 1955:21) in which the origin of some is mentioned. All the specified places are towns, while the only “land” (mātu) that is mentioned is Canaan. This indicates that Canaan was a welldefined territorial-political entity that could serve to register the origin of a person. Tablet AT 188 (Dietrich-Loretz 1970:101) has a list of muškēnu, with the origin of three of them defined by land (mātu): Alashiya, Nuḫašše and Canaan. Again, it is evident that Canaan was a well-defined territory, similar to Alashiya (Cyprus) and Nuḫašše. Finally, tablet AT 48 is a contract in which a hunter is called a “Canaanite.” We may conclude that Canaan was regarded in Alalakh as a foreign land whose name sufficed to define the origin of individuals either in a contract or in lists of names.


113

3. The Amarna International Letters In the discussion of the Amarna letters, first I will analyze those sent by rulers of great powers and, afterwards, those exchanged between the Pharaoh and his vassals. (a) Letter EA 8 was written by Burnaburiash, king of Babylonia, to Akhenaten. Burnaburiash relates that his merchants “were detained in Canaan for business matters.” He complains that later they were robbed and killed “in Ḫinnatūna of the land of Canaan” by the rulers of Acco and Shamḫuna. He then continues (Moran 1992:16 lines 25–29): Canaan is your country, and [its] kings [are your servants]. In your country I have been despoiled. Bring [them] to account and make compensation for the money that they took away. Put to death the men who put my servants to death, and so avenge their blood. And if you do not put these men to death, they are going to kill again, be it a caravan of mine or your own messenger, and so messengers between us will thereby be cut off.

The words of the text are clear: What looks like a local event actually endangers the relationship of the two great powers. The Pharaoh is the lord of the land of Canaan and is responsible for everything that happens within its confines. It is from this principle that his responsibility for punishing the evildoers and the compensation of the despoiled merchants are derived (compare Klengel 1980). Thus, “Canaan” is used to refer to a particular territory under the dominion of the Egyptian Pharaoh (contra Lemche 1991:33, 39).2 (b) Letter EA 9 was sent by Burnaburiash to Tutankhamun. The relevant passage runs as follows (Moran 1992:18, lines 19–29): In the time of Kurigalzu, my ancestor, all the Canaanites wrote here to him, saying, “C[om]e to the border of the country so we can revolt and be allied [wi]th you.” My ancestor sent them this (reply), saying, “Forget about being allied with me. If you become enemies of the king of Egypt, and are allied with anyone else, will I not then come and plunder you? How can there be an alliance with me?”

The Babylonian king, in an effort to break the growing ties between Assyria and Egypt, mentions a past event in which one of his ancestors, 2. Lemche restricts the extent of Canaan mentioned in letter EA 8 to the area in which the episode took place, hence, his conclusion (p. 33) that “the deplorable events which this letter describes happened in Canaan, which in this case embraced Galilee.” The following examples are sufficient to disprove his interpretation. Gen. 23:2 “And Sarah died at Kiriatharba (that is Hebron) in the land of Canaan.” Gen. 33:18 “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. . . .” Gen. 35:6 “And Jacob came to Luz (that is Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan. . . .” Canaan is neither the area around Hebron nor the areas around Shechem or Bethel. It was a vast territory whose extent cannot be established by the names of individual towns included therein.

114


Kurigalzu, honored his alliance with Egypt and not only refused to join an anti-Egyptian rebellion, but threatened to fight the rebellious Canaanite kings. Now he is urging the Pharaoh to operate in the same spirit in dealing with his own enemy, the king of Assyria. Burnaburiash claims that “all the Canaanites” wrote to his ancestor; in saying this, he is asserting that all the kings of Canaan, the vassals of Pharaoh in the province under his rule, sought his ancestor’s aid. The historical background of the episode and the identity of those who actually wrote to Kurigalzu are irrelevant to my discussion. (c) Tablet EA 30 originally served as a kind of “passport” apparently handed by Tushratta of Mitanni to one of his messengers. I will cite it in full (Moran 1992:100): To the kings of Canaan, servants of my brother: Thus the king. I herewith send Akiya, my messenger, to speed posthaste to the king of Egypt, my brother. No one is to hold him. Provide him with safe entry into Egypt and hand (him) over to the fortress commander of Egypt. Let him go on immediately, and as far as his pre<sents> are concerned, he is to owe nothing.

The addressees are the “kings of Canaan,” a collective reference to all the vassals of Pharaoh in Canaan. No Canaanite king through whose territory the messenger passes should detain him or exact any payment from him. On his way to Egypt, the messenger is to have a free passage through the land of Canaan. We may conclude that the kings of the “great powers” identified Canaan with the area under Pharaoh’s rule and regarded it as the territory for whose affairs he was responsible. Canaanites is a name for the inhabitants of this area, the subjects of the king of Egypt.

4. The Amarna Letters from Byblos Canaan is mentioned four times in the letters of Rib-Adda of Byblos: (a) EA 109:44–49: “Previously, on seeing a man from Egypt, the kings of Canaan fled bef[ore him, bu]t now the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta make men from Egypt prowl about [like do]gs.” Rib-Adda refers in this passage to the capture of Ullasa (lines 14–15), an Egyptian garrison city where Egyptian officials had formerly been stationed and now, following its conquest, were forced to leave (see EA 104:27–30; 105: 84–85). The “kings of Canaan” is a collective name for the vassals of the Pharaoh in Canaan. (b) EA 110:48–49: “No ship of the [ar]my [is] to lea[ve] Can[aan].” The army (miši) arrived at the Phoenician coast to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 101; see Lambdin 1953) and stayed there for some time. Its presence was a guarantee of safety, and Rib-Adda opposes the idea of sending it back to Egypt. “Canaan,” in this context, may be interpreted either as a name for the Phoenician coast or as a general name for the Egyptian province in Asia.


115

(c) EA 131:59–61: “[If] he does not send [archers], they will take it (i.e., Byblos) and [all the (other) cities], and the lands of Canaan will not belong to the king. [May the king ask] Yanḫamu about th[ese] maers.” (d) EA 137:75–77: “If the king neglects the city (i.e., Byblos), of all the cities of Canaan not one will be his. May the king not neglect this matter.” The two letters display a characteristic that is typical of many other Amarna letters: in an effort to gain the attention of the Pharaoh, the vassals would describe local affairs as ominous for the entire Egyptian province in Asia. The Pharaoh is urged to concern himself directly with what looks like a local event because it harbors a threat to his control in the land (like a brick whose removal may cause the whole building to collapse). In these two letters, the fall of Byblos is portrayed as the first step leading to the capture of all the cities under Pharaoh’s rule (= “all the cities of Canaan”) and the loss of all the Egyptian territories (= “the lands of Canaan”). I would take issue with Lemche’s suggestion (1991:38) that, on many occasions, Rib-Adda uses general warnings but “is sometimes more specific when he mentions the cities of Canaan or the countries of Canaan.” The opposite is true: “the lands of Canaan” and “the cities of Canaan” are all-inclusive designations and are no more than literary variants of the common expression “all the lands of the king.” The “kings of Canaan” in EA 109:46 is also a general designation and does not refer solely to rulers in the area of Byblos (contra Lemche 1991:38).

5. Four Other Amarna Letters (a) EA 367:8: Ḫan’i, the Egyptian envoy who was sent to Akshapa and Amurru holds the title “overseer of the king’s stables in Canaan.” Service in the prestigious chariot troops was a stage in the career of many Egyptian officials, but we are unable to identify Ḫanni with any known official of the Amarna period (Redford 1990:13). (b) EA 162:39–41: “So perform your service for the king, your lord, and you will live. You yourself know that the king does not want (to go) against all of Canaan when he rages.” The background of this passage: Akhenaten has made extensive preparations for a campaign to Asia (Na’aman 1990). Aziru is warned to remain a loyal servant, or otherwise he is due for capital punishment when the Pharaoh embarks enraged on his campaign against “all of Canaan.” The identification of Canaan with the Egyptian province in Asia is self-evident. The territorial and political relationship of Amurru to the land of Canaan should be examined in brief. All scholars agree that Amurru was initially a small rural state, governed by the Egyptians and, hence, situated within the boundaries of Canaan. During the first half of the 14th century BCE, Amurru consolidated into a well-defined geo-political unit, and, in the Amarna period, Amurru’s rul-

116


ers (‘Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru) conquered vast areas, partly located north of Canaan. The result was that they dominated both Canaanite and non-Canaanite areas. Current ambiguity concerning the place of Amurru in the boundary systems of the 14th–13th centuries BCE is the direct result of Amurru’s expansion and the inclusion of variegated territories within its borders. Letter EA 162 was written under the impression that Aziru was still an Egyptian vassal. We may conclude that at that stage the Pharaoh regarded Aziru’s kingdom as part of “all of Canaan.”3 (c) EA 148:43–47: “May the king be concerned about these treacherous fellows. He has taken over the land of the king for the ‘Apiru. May the king ask his commissioner, who is familiar with Canaan.” The passage is another example of a local ruler (Abi-Milki of Tyre) who warns the Pharaoh that the outcome of local affairs near his kingdom endangers the Egyptian hold on the land. The “treacherous fellows” are the kings of Sidon and Hazor. The commissioner “who is familiar with Canaan” is probably Yanḫamu (see above, EA 131:59–61). The designations “the land of the king” (lines 39, 45) and “Canaan” (line 47) are clearly interchangeable, both referring to the Asiatic areas under Egyptian rule (contra Lemche 1991:37, 39, 53).4 Up to this point, all the Amarna references to Canaan — including international and vassal letters — suggest a clear and coherent political and territorial definition. However, a second letter of Abi-Milki of Tyre appears to contradict this definition. It was this letter that served as a key reference for Lemche’s re-evaluation of Canaan in the Late Bronze documents. Let us closely examine the text of this letter. (d) EA 151:49–51 opens with a citation from the royal letter: “The king, my lord, wrote to me, ‘Write to me what you have heard from Canaan’.” AbiMilki then describes what has happened in eastern Cilicia (Danuna), along the northern coast of Syria (Ugarit), in central Syria (Qadesh, Amurru and Damascus), and on the Phoenician coast (Sidon). 3. Lemche (1991:35) correctly notes that “the Egyptian administration must have included Amurru among the Canaanite kingdoms.” But he misunderstands the significance of Aziru’s territorial expansion for the ambiguity concerning the place of Amurru in the border delineation. He erroneously concludes that “Canaan comprised a territory of greater extent than the one allotted to Canaan in the letters from the Babylonian king.” The Canaan to which letter EA 162 refers is identical to the Canaan to which letter EA 8 refers. They both refer to the Asiatic province under Egyptian rule. 4. Lemche unwarrantedly restricts the extent of Canaan mentioned in letter EA 148 to the area where the episode took place, hence, his conclusion (p. 37) that “Canaan was considered by the Tyrian king to embrace the territory of Galilee as well as the adjacent territories to the north. . . .” For criticism, see note 2 above.


117

Did Canaan really encompass southern Anatolia and Syria? If there were no other letter that mentioned Canaan, we might legitimately draw such a conclusion. But with all the other references to Canaan in mind, a different interpretation suggests itself. Abi-Milki interpreted the words of the royal letter as a general request for information. He did not restrict his news to Canaan and added some bits of information about Danuna and Ugarit. Yet, most of the news that he sent referred to the Egyptian Asiatic province (= Canaan) and, in particular, to the dangers that threatened its safety at that time (lines 58–63). In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the congruency of Canaan and the “land of the king,” i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia, finds clear expression both in letters of foreign powers and in letters sent/received by local Canaanite rulers.

6. The Texts from Ugarit Canaan is mentioned in two Ugaritic texts, one written in alphabetic letters and one in cuneiform signs. (a) KTU 4.96: A list of traders assigned to three royal estates. The first estate was administered by Bn-Tbšn and had seven traders assigned to it — four Ugaritians and three foreigners: an Ashdadite, an Egyptian and a Canaanite (Rainey 1963; Astour 1970:125; 1975:293–294). It is evident that Canaan was a well-defined foreign territory, like Egypt and Ashdad, and that Ugarit was located outside its borders. (b) RS 20.182 (Ugaritica V 111–113, 389 no. 36): A copy? of a letter of the king of Ugarit to a Pharaoh (apparently Ramesses II) concerning the 3500 silver shekels paid by the “sons of the land of Ugarit” to the “foreman (aklu) of the sons of the land of Canaan.” The latter must have been a corporate organization in Ugarit headed by a foreman and indirectly protected by the Pharaoh (Astour 1975:294). The juxtaposition of the two groups — the sons of the lands of Ugarit and Canaan — unequivocally indicates that Ugarit was located outside of the boundaries of Canaan. It is evident that Canaan was regarded at Ugarit as a foreign land whose name was enough to define the origin of individuals and groups of people. The conclusions reached from analysis of the Alalakh and Ugaritic tablets are the same, both confirming the conclusions drawn from the Amarna tablets regarding the extent of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.

7. Tablets from Ashur and Ḫattusha The “travel to Canaan” of an Assyrian official carrying clothes is mentioned once in a Middle Assyrian letter of the time of Shalmaneser I (1263–

118


1234 BCE) (Weidner 1959–69:38). Whether Canaan itself or Egypt was the merchandise’s final destination is unknown. Canaan is mentioned in five tablets from Ḫattusha: two of them are letters exchanged between rulers, one fragmented tablet is a letter of a vassal to the Hittite king and two are evocations (del Monte and Tischler 1978:208). (a) An evocation contains an incantation to the “cedar Gods” in which many foreign countries are enumerated (Goetze 1969:352). There is no clear systematization in the text, although the first four countries may have been regarded by the scribe as the most important (Klengel 1969:84). The scribe evidently listed as many foreign countries as he was able to remember and did not discriminate between large and small kingdoms. Thus, Nuḫašše is mentioned together with small states that were included within its borders (Ugulzit, Zunzurḫi), and Canaan is named along with small Canaanite states (Sidon, Tyre and possibly Amurru, if the text was composed before its expansion). (b) In letter KBo XXVIII 1 sent by Ramesses II to Hattushili III (Edel 1960), there is a plan for a meeting between the two kings. Ramesses suggested that he would go to the land of Canaan to meet “his brother” and bring him to Egypt.5 (c) Edel (1953a:32 line 12; 33 line 9; 50) suggests that Canaan was mentioned once in another letter (of which there are two copies: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17; KUB III 57) sent by Ramesses II to Ḫattushili III. He restores the text thus: “I wrote to Ataḫ[maya]?, the governor [in the city] of Ramesses-mai-Amun, the city that is within the lan[d of Canaan]. . . .” His restoration is plausible, but, unfortunately, the text of both copies of the letter is broken, and there is no verification for it. On the basis of this reconstruction, Helck (1960:6–8; 1971:248–252) assumes that “Canaan” was the name of an Egyptian sub-province. His assumption is accepted by some scholars (e.g., Aharoni 1967:146– 153; de Vaux 1968:27–28; Zobel 1984:231; Stolz 1988:541). However, there is no evidence that the name “Canaan” in Late Bronze texts ever referred to a subdistrict within the Egyptian province in Asia (Na’aman 1975:7, 171). Canaan was a name for the territory in its entirety, and all that the letter says (provided that Edel’s restoration is valid) is that Gaza (“the city of Ramesses-maiAmun”) is located within Canaan. (d) Canaan is mentioned in another letter sent by Ramesses to Ḫattushili (KBo I 15 + 19). According to Edel’s analysis (1950:206), the relevant passage (lines 29–36) describes an Egyptian campaign conducted after the battle of

5. For the arrival of Hittite and Egyptian messengers to Megiddo (Makkitta) on their way from Egypt to the Hittite territory, see Singer 1988b.


119

Qadesh but still during the reign of Muwatalli of Ḫatti. The Pharaoh arrived “at the land of Canaan” (line 29), proceeding northward to Kinza (Qadesh) and Ḫarita. That the Egyptian troops must have crossed Canaan, i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia, on their way to Qadesh is self-evident. We may conclude that in his correspondence with the Hittites (KBo XXVIII 1; KBo I 15 + 19) and with his vassals in Canaan (EA 162) the Pharaoh uses the name Canaan in the same political-territorial sense as did the rulers of the other great powers (Babylonia and Mitanni), namely, as a designation for the Asiatic areas under his rule.

8. The Egyptian Texts Canaan is mentioned in 16 Egyptian texts dated from the XVIIIth Dynasty onward (Görg 1982; Ahituv 1984:83–84). (a) The oldest texts are the inscriptions of Amenophis II (1427–1401 BCE) (Edel 1953b:123–124, 132, 167–170; Wilson 1969a:246b). The Canaanites are listed among prisoners captured in the course of the Egyptian campaign to Asia. The list includes 550 — Mariannu; 240 — their wives; 640 — Canaanites; 232 — rulers’ sons; 323 — rulers’ daughters; 270 — concubines of the rulers of all the foreign countries. The Canaanites are obviously individuals who are not included in the other groups. The list enumerates only those belonging to high classes; thus, these “Canaanites” must have been rich citizens or craftsmen of various Canaanite cities. (b) Canaan appears in three topographical lists together with rpwḥ (= Raphia) and šrḥn (= Sharuhen) (Edel 1980:67–68). Scholars have suggested identifying the Canaan of these lists with the city of Gaza (Edel 1980:76, with earlier literature). However, the order of listing in the lists is so vague that any construction remains uncertain. (c) In the time of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties the city of Gaza is sometimes referred to as “the Canaan” (p3-kncn) (Gardiner 1920:100, 104; Uehlinger 1988:7–8, with earlier literature). Gaza was the most important Egyptian center in Canaan and, therefore, was called “the Canaan.” But Canaan encompassed a territory much larger than southern Palestine. (d) The route from Sile to Gaza was called in Papyrus Anastasi I 27,1 “the [foreign countries] of the end of the land of Canaan” (Wilson 1969b:478b). Gaza was regarded in the sources of the XIXth Dynasty as the southern coastal city of Canaan. Thus, the destination of the main road leading to it from Egypt is properly called “the end of the land of Canaan” (see Na’aman 1986:239–244). (e) Canaan is further mentioned in the famous “Israel stela” of Merneptah (for recent studies and literature, see Fecht 1983; Yurco 1986; Singer 1988a). The relevant passage is part of a ten-“line” unit introduced and enclosed by

120


the name and titles of the Pharaoh. The central section of this passage specifies the achievements of the Pharaoh in Asia. It opens with the sentence “Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe” and concludes with the words “Ḫurru has become a widow because of Egypt.” It is evident that Canaan, like Ḫurru, is a name for the Egyptian territory in Asia (for Ḫ3rw/ Ḫurru, see Gardiner 1947:180–184; Helck 1971:269–270; Vernus 1978). Lemche (1991:48) questions the validity of this conclusion on two grounds: (i) because the sentence “Ḫurru has become a widow for Egypt” is “a kind of summary of the whole passage quoted”; (ii) on account of the limited geographical horizon of Merneptah’s campaign. However, the sentence about Ḫurru can hardly be regarded as a summary of a passage in which Libya and Ḫatti are mentioned. Moreover, Lemche’s second claim reflects a misunderstanding of the genre of royal inscriptions, where the description of specific achievements is accompanied by general statements that claim much more than what was really achieved. It would be a serious mistake to make an inference regarding the extent of Canaan from the list of conquered towns. The author of the text deliberately creates the impression that the names of the captured towns are details within the overall successful campaign. Ḫurru and Canaan were included in the passage to convey the message that during his Asiatic campaign Merneptah subjugated their territory up to its farthest limits. (f) The names Canaan and Ḫurru are again brought together in two references that mention “Canaanite slaves from Ḫurru” (Papyrus Anastasi IIIA 5–6; IV 16,4). We may conclude that in Egypt, as in other Western Asiatic kingdoms, the inhabitants of the Egyptian Asiatic province were sometimes designated by reference to their land of origin, namely Canaan.

9. Canaan in Second Millennium Documents The analysis of all the references to Canaan in the second millennium BCE sources makes it clear that the name is used consistently by scribes of different Western Asiatic kingdoms. Canaan’s extent in the north and south, according to all Late Bronze Age sources, is congruent with the borders of the Egyptian province in Asia. Not a single text uses the name Canaan to describe either areas located outside of it or only part of its territory. Scribes in Alalakh and Ugarit referred to Canaan as a land located outside their kingdoms; the kings of Babylonia, Mitanni and Egypt identified it with the territory under Egyptian rule. The rulers of Byblos and Tyre considered Canaan to be “the land of the king,” as did all the neighboring and remote kingdoms. Lemche (1991:50) has concluded that there is a “correspondence between the imprecise and ambiguous Egyptian use of the geographical name Canaan and the likewise imprecise understanding of Canaan displayed by the inhab-


121

itants of Western Asia themselves.” He suggests (p. 52) that “to the scribe of ancient Western Asia ‘Canaanite’ always designated a person who did not belong to the scribe’s own society or state, while Canaan was considered to be a country different from his own.” When discussing the local Amarna letters, he concludes (p. 39) that “evidently the inhabitants of the supposed Canaanite territory in Western Asia had no clear idea of the actual size of this Canaan, nor did they know exactly where Canaan was situated.” And again on p. 152: “The Canaanites of the ancient Near East did not know that they were themselves Canaanites.” How does Lemche reach conclusions that are diametrically opposite to the plain and straightforward sense of all the sources? A partial answer may lie in the way that he treats letter EA 151. For him, this letter is the point of departure and the anchor point for judging all other documents. It leads him to the erroneous idea that Canaan was an enormous territory and, hence, to the conclusion that Canaan was an imprecise geographical name. In every historical discussion, the scholar must distinguish between pivotal and secondary sources. Lemche selects the most ambiguous and least significant document as the key text for his discussion. As a result, he is led to dismiss the plain meaning of texts in favor of the conclusions he draws from this letter (pp. 30–31, 39, 51–52). A second fundamental mistake is that Lemche interprets the sense of Canaan differently for each text under discussion. It goes without saying that in defining a term, scholars look for the minimal semantic range that will provide a definition broad enough to cover all textual variants. Lemche’s procedure is the opposite, and it results in the utmost fragmentation of meaning. He, therefore, fails to arrive at a coherent interpretation for the name in the texts under discussion. Finally, Lemche fails to discuss some valuable references to Canaan (AT 188; EA 30; KBo XXVIII 1) and overlooks some key scholarly investigations (e.g., as a result of ignoring Rainey’s and Durand’s identification of Rāḫiṣum with Late Bronze Rūḫiṣu, he is unable to interpret properly the important reference to the Canaanites in the letter from Mari). The failure to take adequate account of the contributions of other scholars is not restricted to this part of the book, and I will return to it in the next part of the article. The relatively small number of local texts mentioning Canaan is no indication of the popularity of the name among its inhabitants. It must be remembered that each vassal would try to present his case in the best light and to depict his enemies as adversaries of the Pharaoh. Thus, local events play a major role in the correspondence, and problems of the Egyptian province as a whole are never discussed between the Pharaoh and his vassals. It is for this reason that the majority of references to Canaan appear in the texts of neigh-

122


boring countries; these treat the Egyptian province as a whole, in contrast to the local character of the Amarna letters. The antiquity of the land of Canaan remains unknown. The Mari tablets make it clear that Canaan was already a well-known entity in the mid–18th century BCE. This fits the hypothesis that the overall area represented by the Asiatic toponyms of the Execration Texts from Saqqara (c. 1800 BCE) is approximately the same as Canaan of the Late Bronze Age (Maisler 1947:67–68; Na’aman 1982:146–149). The name Canaan for the area that is roughly identical to the extent of the Egyptian Asiatic province in the Late Bronze Age may date to the emergence of the Middle Bronze urban culture in the 19th century BCE. Whether it is even older has not yet been established. Lemche suggests that Canaan was “a geographical entity of some sort” whose northern and eastern borders were never defined in any precise way. “Canaan was never united under the rule of one king — except when it was governed by the king of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, etc.” (p. 154). He attributes the alleged lack of borders to this political situation. The early history of the name Canaan is unknown, which leaves us in the dark concerning the emergence of the name and its original extent. In any case, there are a number of ancient Near Eastern examples of territorialpolitical names for certain regions and their inhabitants that were never united under one king. Three Syro-Palestinian examples will suffice to demonstrate the point: (a) From the very beginning, Philistia was divided among four/five kingdoms and was never united under one king. Yet, it was called “Philistia” and its inhabitants “Philistines” in the Bible and in Assyrian and Babylonian texts. (b) The area of northern and central Syria, divided among a number of Neo-Hittite kingdoms, was called Ḫatti in the Assyrian texts of the 11th–9th centuries BCE. Its inhabitants are called “Hittites” in the Assyrian texts and in the Bible (Josh. 1:4; Judg. 1:26; 1 Kgs. 10:29; 11:1; 2 Kgs. 7:6). (c) “Sidonians” designates in biblical historiography and in Homer (Muhly 1970:27 and n. 50) the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast, an area that was never united under one king. It may also have been a local name, as may be inferred from Hiram’s title “king of the Sidonians” on the Limassol bowl (KAI 31). It goes without saying that there are historical explanations for each of these names. In any event, these examples should warn us against positing general rules about the assignment of names in the ancient Near East (as Lemche does 1991:152–154). It seems clear that the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a territorial-political entity. The political connotation is emphasized in international correspondence in which “Canaan” refers to the Egyptian province in


123

Asia and also in the letters of Byblos and Tyre, which refer to “the land of the king.” Also it seems to me that the local inhabitants of Canaan must have used the name in self-designation, along with the more common name of the kingdom whose citizens they were. Nowhere is this stated directly, but it may be inferred, because they are called “Canaanites” in regular documents written in neighboring kingdoms (Ugarit, Alalakh, Egypt). Foreign scribes used the name to denote the origin of these people, which suggests that the source for the name assignment must have been the individuals who were so designated. Thus, contrary to Lemche’s conclusion that nobody ever used the name Canaan as self-definition, it seems to me that, sometimes, people from Canaan would indeed have defined themselves as Canaanites. Lemche’s most recent article on the Canaanites (1993) is entirely dependent on the conclusions of his 1991 book, but one of its passages makes a novel suggestion and requires a short note. On p. 88, he suggests that “the Canaanites were the representatives of the government of the city-states of Syria and Palestine already in the Late Bronze Age, who were considered to be foreign intruders by the members of the local societies, all of which were family-organized. . . .” As far as I am aware, there is no text that supports the assumption that “Canaanites” was a social term in second millennium BCE documents. There is no evidence that the Canaanites were regarded as “foreign intruders” by anybody. Note, in particular, the references to “Canaanite slaves from Ḫurru” (Papyrus Anastasi IIIA 5–6; IV 16,4), which contradicts the suggestion that the Canaanites were “the representatives of the government of the city-states.” Note also the Alalakh texts where a hunter, a muškēnu and an ‘Apiru are registered as Canaanites. Just as the inhabitants of all other countries in the ancient Near East were referred to by the name of their respective countries, so also “Canaanites” was a name for the local inhabitants of Canaan, with no distinction of social background.

III. The Maximal Borders of Canaan in the Old Testament The aim of this part of the article is quite limited: to examine the northern and eastern borders of Canaan as they are delineated in various biblical texts and to analyze Lemche’s work in this light. The sources for the discussion are Num. 13:21; 34:2–12a; Josh. 13:2–6; Eze. 47:13–21; 48:1. The texts are quoted from RSV, with some minor changes indicated by an asterisk*. (a) This will be your northern boundary: from the Great Sea you shall mark out your line to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor you shall mark it out to Lebo-hamath*, and the end of the boundary shall be at Zedad; then the boundary shall extend to Ziphron, and its end shall be at Hazar-enan; this shall be your northern boundary. You shall mark out your eastern boundary from Hazar-enan to Shepham; and the boundary shall go down

124

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain; and the boundary shall go down, and reach to the side* of the sea of Chinnereth on the east; and the boundary shall go down to the Jordan, and its end shall be at the Salt Sea (Num. 34:7–12a). (b) So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near Lebo-Hamath* (Num. 13:21). (c) This shall be the boundary of the land: On the north side, from the Great Sea by way of Hethlon to Lebo-hamath*, and on to Zedad, Berothah, Sibraim (which lies on the border between Damascus and of Hamath), as far as Hazer hatticon, which is on the border of Hauran. So the boundary shall run from the sea to Hazar-enon, which is on the northern border of Damascus with the border of Hamath to the north. This shall be the north side. On the east side, the boundary shall run from Hazar-enon between Hauran and Damascus; along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel; to the eastern sea as far as Tamar. This shall be the east side (Eze. 47:15–18). (d) These are the names of the tribes: Beginning at the northern border, from the sea by way of Hethlon to Lebo-hamath*, as far as Hazar-enon (which is on the northern border of Damascus over against Hamath) . . . (Eze. 48:1). (e) This is the land that yet remains: . . . all the land of the Canaanites * Mearah which belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites, and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath*, all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians (Josh. 13:2a, 4–6a).

The fundamental study of the boundaries of Canaan in these texts was written by Elliger (1936). His analysis of the toponyms and his discussion of the history of these borders in older and later periods have been followed by the majority of scholars (e.g., Maisler 1946; Simons 1959:98–103; Aharoni 1967:65–68, 215–217; de Vaux 1968:29–30; Saebø 1974:22–32; Kallai 1975; Zimmerli 1983:528–532, 537; Na’aman 1986:39–60; for the history of research, see North 1970–71). The key identifications along the northern border are: (a) Hethlon = Ḥeitela, northeast of Tripoli, about four km. south of Nahr el-Kebir; (b) “the land of the Gebalites” is included in “the land that yet remains,” hence, the border of Canaan is located north of it (Na’aman 1986:53–54); (c) Lebo-hamath = Lb’i of the Egyptian sources = Lab’u of the Assyrian texts = Libo/Lybo of the Roman period = modern Lebwe (Elliger 1936:40–45; Maisler 1946; recently Weippert 1992:59, n. 100); (d) Sibraim and Hazar-enon are both located on the border between the provinces of Damascus and Hamath; (e) Zedad = the village Sadad east of the Anti-Lebanon (Elliger 1936:38–40). The five biblical texts cited above supply a unified and coherent border line. We may safely conclude that the northern boundary of Canaan as delineated by these sources passed along the line of Nahr el-Kebir — north of Mount Lebanon —


125

modern Lebwe and the old border between Damascus and Hamath — north of the Anti-Lebanon — modern Sadad. The eastern boundary of Canaan ran along the border between Hauran and Damascus, in a line that is impossible to delineate. It reached the eastern side (“shoulder”) of the sea of Chinnereth, possibly running along the Yarmuk River. From there the border ran southward along the Jordan River “between Gilead and the land of Israel.” As has been noted by all scholars, Transjordan is excluded from the limits of Canaan. With these data in mind, let us examine Lemche’s discussion of Canaan’s northern border. To introduce the discussion, he cites the text of Num. 34:2– 12, but does not discuss any of the toponyms enumerated along the borders. Instead, he states that there are two solutions for the problem of Canaan’s northern border — a “maximal” and a “minimal” — and he opts for the latter (pp. 79–81). This kind of “scientific” approach, by which one selects as a matter of convenience and with no discussion the solution that fits one’s own theory, is unacceptable. Moreover, Lemche selects an old solution (Van Kasteren 1895; 1912; Noth 1935:235–248; 1953:75–77; 1966:215–216; North 1970–71), which was dismissed by scholars long ago (note in particular: Saebø 1974:24–26; Kallai 1986:230–231) and does not deal with any of the problems entailed by the “minimal” solution.6 Further, he entirely ignores the description of “the land that yet remains” (Josh. 13:2–6). It is commonly accepted by scholars that the “remaining land” describes the gap between the land of Canaan and the borders of the twelve tribes (Aharoni 1967:215–217; Na’aman 1986:39–73, with earlier literature on p. 40 n. 2) and that the land of Canaan is larger than the twelve tribes system. The description of the “remaining land” stands in marked contrast to the “minimal” solution, according to which the two boundary systems are identical. Lemche also ignores the description of Canaan’s borders in Eze. 47:13– 18; 48:1. He does not try to explain how the border between Damascus and Hamath (47:16, 17; 48:1) and the border between Damascus and Hauran (47: 18) fit the northern boundary of the twelve tribes. As for the location of the tribe of Dan on Canaan’s northern border (Eze. 48:1), it was observed long ago that the disposition of the tribes in Eze. 48:1–8 is entirely different from that of the system of the twelve tribes (see the map in Zimmerli 1983:537; Kallai

6. Strangely enough, Lemche does not even mention either Noth’s detailed discussion of the problem (1935:235–248) or North’s equally detailed analysis (1970–71). It seems that his only source for the “minimal” solution was Noth’s commentary on Numbers 34 (1966: 215–216). Other fundamental works (e.g., the works of Elliger, Saebø, Zimmerli, Kallai) are also missing from his discussion.

126


1983:77). The tribes in Ezekiel’s vision are arranged in a schematic northsouth row in the area west of the Jordan, and the tribe of Dan is the northernmost in this schematic tribal “map.” Lemche’s claim (1991:81) that “the Danite tribal territory hardly ever included the whole of southern Syria” is historically correct, but is irrelevant in reference to Eze. 48:1.

IV. Second Millennium Canaan and The Biblical Promised Land Let us now compare the extent of Late Bronze Age Canaan and the borders of the biblical Promised Land. The area of Nahr el-Kebir was the northern limit of the Egyptian province in Asia in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Ṣumur (today Tell Kazel), located near the Mediterranean coast north of the river, was an Egyptian garrison city and the center of Egyptian government of the nearby coastal area (Helck 1960:6; Klengel 1984; Gubel 1990). In Papyrus Anastasi I, the town is called “Ṣumur of Sessi (i.e., Ramesses II)” (Wilson 1969b:477a). The name indicates that an Egyptian garrison was stationed there as late as the time of the XIXth Dynasty. The northern border of Byblos in the first millennium BCE was located south of Nahr el-Kebir, hence, near the border of the Promised Land (Josh. 13:5; see above). The similarity of the limits of Bronze Age Canaan and the biblical Promised Land of Canaan on the Phoenician coast is self- evident. The border of the Egyptian province in central Syria passed south of the kingdom of Qadesh. Qadesh on the Orontes (Tell Nebi Mind) supported Mitanni in its struggle with Egypt and headed the coalition that fought Thutmose III at Megiddo in 1457 BCE. When the armed struggle between Egypt and Mitanni came to an end and the two powers became allies, the frontier between their respective spheres of influence was fixed between the Taḫshi region (the area around Qadesh) and the region of ‘Amqi (the Beqa‘). This border between the two great powers, Egypt and Mitanni, continued to exist in the early Amarna Age (Na’aman 1975:14–18; contra Helck 1960:3–4; Klengel 1969:160). When Shuppiluliuma conducted his campaigns against Mitanni and broke its power, the latter’s vassals asked the Egyptian ruler (Akhenaten) for military support and, in their letters, represented themselves as Egyptian vassals (Nuḫašše — EA 51; Qatna — EA 52–55; Tunip — EA 59) (Na’aman 1975: 16–17). Aitakama of Qadesh, after attacking the Egyptian territories of ‘Amqi and Upi, was afraid of an Egyptian counterattack and portrayed himself as a loyal Egyptian vassal and as the victim of an attack (EA 189). All these kingdoms were conquered by Shuppiluliuma and became his vassals. That Qadesh (Kinza) was formerly a Mitannian vassal is evident from Shuppiluliuma’s


127

words to Ḫani, the Egyptian envoy: “. . . but you suddenly did me evil. You [came?] and attacked the man of Kinza whom I had [taken away?] from the king of the Ḫurri-land” (Güterbock 1956:97 lines 1–4; 1960:58). The place of Qadesh within the Hittite empire did not change in the time of the XIXth Dynasty. The campaigns of Seti I and Ramesses II in central Syria ended with no significant results. On his way northward to Qadesh in his fifth year (1275 BCE), Ramesses and his army crossed the forest of Lb’i, on the watershed between the Liṭani and the Orontes Rivers (Rainey 1971:145–146, 149). Lb’i (biblical Lebo-hamath) was located in the time of the XIXth Dynasty on the border zone between the territories of Egypt and Ḫatti. The border between the kingdoms of Damascus and Hamath in the first millennium roughly followed the old second millennium boundary between Taḫshi (Qadesh) and ‘Amqi (the Beqa‘). Subsequent to the Assyrian conquest and annexation of the two kingdoms, the boundary between the Assyrian provinces in central Syria was marked along the same line. The provincial system of the Assyrians was later adopted by the Babylonian and Persian empires; hence, the biblical delineations of Canaan reflect the reality of the 6th–5th century boundary system (for the territorial developments in this area, see Elliger 1936:45–59). We may conclude that the borders of the Promised Land in central Syria, whose anchor point is Lebo-hamath and which passed along the border between Damascus and Hamath (Eze 47:16, 17), roughly followed the northern limits of the Egyptian province in Asia in the Late Bronze Age. The kingdom of Rūḫiṣu marked the northeastern limits of the Late Bronze Egyptian province. Its exact location remains unknown. The Egyptian territory was bounded in the Damascus area by the desert fringes on he east and included all of Bashan. The toponyms along the border of the Promised Land in the Damascus and Bashan areas (Ziphron, Hazar-enan/on, Shepham, Riblah, ‘Ain) are unidentified, but since the border passed “between Hauran and Damascus,” the Bashan was included in that land. With all due caution we may conclude that there is a general correspondence between the extent of the Egyptian province in the area east of the Anti-Lebanon and the biblical Promised Land. Piḫilu, located south of the Yarmuk River, is the only Transjordanian city that is mentioned in the Amarna letters. Transjordanian toponyms are rare in the Egyptian topographical lists of the XVIIIth-XIXth Dynasties.7 It is ev-

7. Redford (1982) suggests that toponyms nos. 90–101 in Thutmose III’s topographical list are arranged in north-to-south order along the “King’s Highway” in Transjordan. In my opinion his reconstruction of the toponyms is quite uncertain (see Na’aman 1994:184, n. 7, with earlier literature). I also very much doubt the assumed location of the six Shasu-

128


ident that Transjordan (except for the area around Piḫilu) was a peripheral area of little importance for Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. The omission of Transjordan from the Promised Land boundary system is remarkable. Some scholars have explained it by the hypothesis that this system overlaps the Egyptian province in Asia and was taken over by the Israelites in very early times (Maisler 1946:93–96; Aharoni 1967:67–70; de Vaux 1968:28–30; Weinfeld 1983:65–66). Lemche (1991:82–84) offers no explanation for the omission of Transjordan from the boundaries of the Promised Land and instead appends the following remark (1991:82): “In the opinion of some Deuteronomistic writers, the land of Israel embraced some territory lying east of the Jordan, while others considered Israel’s land to be identified with the land of Canaan, that is, confined to the territory west of the Jordan.” However, the concept that the Transjordanian areas remained outside the land of Canaan is non-Deuteronomistic and rarely appears in Deuteronomistic texts (de Vaux 1968:28; Weinfeld 1983). The Jordan River as the eastern border of Canaan is an integral part of a complete boundary system; an explanation for the omission of Transjordan must take into account the overall extent of the Promised Land.

V. The Transfer of the Names Canaan and Canaanites to the Historiographical Sphere As has been established, Canaan is an old name for the territory that, in the Late Bronze Age, was identified with the area under Egyptian rule. This old name survived the crisis of the late second millennium BCE and reappeared in texts of the first millennium BCE. Mesopotamian royal inscriptions of the first millennium BCE frequently use archaic territorial-political (e.g., Sumer, Akkad, Karduniash, Gutium, Magan, Meluḫḫa, Subartu, Ḫanigalbat, Amurru) and tribal/people names (e.g., Sutû, Aḫlamû, Umman-manda) of the third and second millennia BCE to describe the reality of their own times. The survival of the names Canaan and Canaanites and their use in biblical historiography to describe the land and its former inhabitants reflects similar scribal practice. What is new is the extremely inaccurate and tendentious ways in which biblical authors used these names for their own historiographical and theological objectives.

lands of the Egyptian topographical lists in southern Transjordan (for the suggestion, see recently Knauf 1988:50–51, with earlier literature; Redford 1992:272–273). The toponyms were already mentioned in the time of Amenophis III and should be sought in northern Sinai, the Negeb, and along Wādi Arabah.


129

Not only the country’s name, but some other isolated memories of Late Bronze Canaan have survived in the Old Testament (Na’aman 1992:179). These include: (a) The division of the land into many entities, each headed by a king. (b) The exceptional position of Hazor among the Canaanite kingdoms (Josh 11:10). (c) The description of certain entities as composed of a major city and its villages (Josh. 15:45–47; 17:11, 16; Judg. 1:27). (d) The coalition of kingdoms as a means of gaining strength. (e) The chariots (though described anachronistically as built of iron) as the main basis of Canaanite military power (Josh. 11:4, 6, 9; 17:16; Judg. 1:19; 4:3, 13). The Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) is regarded by many scholars as the oldest text contained in the Bible. Two distinctive features of Late Bronze Canaanite society, namely the division of the land into entities and the coalition of kings as a means of gaining power, are reflected in the song (Judg. 5:19): “The kings came, they fought; then fought the kings of Canaan; at Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo, they got no spoils of silver.” Rainey (1981:64*) pointed out that v. 19b refers to the distribution of spoils and awards in the military camp ground after the battle. It was assumed that the forces under Sisera would enjoy a division of the spoils (Judg. 5:30), but they suffered defeat and “got no spoils of silver.” V. 19 reflects a genuine old memory of the actual situation in the land in the pre-monarchial period. Judg. 5:19 obviously contradicts Lemche’s conclusions about the Canaanites in pre-monarchial time. Thus, he first (pp. 93–94) tries show that the early date of the text is quite uncertain. Second, he proposes (p. 95) that “the mention of the kings of Canaan in Judg. 5:19 owes its existence to a redactional note in Judges 5, which was added to the text of the poem as part of its incorporation into the greater Deuteronomistic narrative in the Book of Judges.” Lemche provides no textual analysis to support his assumption. So convinced is he of the correctness of his thesis about the Canaanites that he apparently expects any evidence that contradicts it to simply evaporate. It goes without saying that the assumption is arbitrary and that v. 19 is an integral part of the original Song of Deborah. How can we account for the old memories of Canaan and the Canaanites in the Old Testament and, in particular, for the close similarity between the boundaries of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia and those of the biblical Promised Land? In a chapter that I submitted in March 1987 to a book that has never been published, I suggested the following: It should be emphasized that Canaanite elements remained in the land during the monarchial period. These autochthonous elements retained many political and cultural

130

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE characteristics of the Late Bronze Age, even in the Iron Age. Even former boundaries and the political structure based on Canaanite foundations survived in several Iron Age kingdoms (i.e., the Phoenician and coastal Philistine kingdoms). It is apparently these Canaanites of the Iron Age whose mixed image is reflected in biblical tradition and who were able to transfer to Israelite scribes certain authentic Canaanite memories (i.e., the past primacy of Hazor and the borders of historical Canaan).

It goes without saying that the history of Canaan and its civilization must be studied from external sources and that the authenticity of biblical data should always be examined against this background (Na’aman 1992:179). The image of the Canaanites as it appears in the Old Testament and its heavy theological overlay are certainly the product of biblical authors and are quite divorced from historical reality. However, the idea that the Canaanites were the former inhabitants of Palestine is not a literary construction, and the description of their land is not a late scribal invention. Their memory was rooted in the people’s consciousness, and their image was invoked by Israelite scribes to convey a message according to their own historiographical objectives and didactic-theological aims.

References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Astour, M. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13: 113–127. Astour, M. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II. (Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 249–369. Baldi, D. 1950–51. La Terra Promessa nel programma di Giosue. Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 1: 87–106. Charpin, D. 1992. Mari entre l’est et l’ouest: politique, culture, religion. Akkadica 78: 1–10. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É= bītu – Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88–123. Dossin, G. 1973. Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari. Syria 50: 277–282. Durand, J.-M. 1987. Villes fantômes de Syrie et autres lieux. Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaire 5. Paris: 199–234. Edel, E. 1950. KBo I 15+19, ein Brief Ramses’ II. mit einer Schilderung der Ḳadešschlacht. ZA 49: 195–212. Edel, E. 1953a. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29–63. Edel, E. 1953b. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97–176. Edel, E. 1960. Der geplante Besuch Hattušiliš III. in Ägypten. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92: 15–20.


131

Edel, E. 1980. Die Ortsnamenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan. Biblische Notizen 11: 63–79. Elliger, K. 1936. Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids. PJb 32: 34–73. Fecht, G. 1983. Die Israelstele, Gestalt und Aussage. In: Görg, M. ed. Fontes atque Pontes. Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 106–138. Gardiner, A.H. 1920. The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine. JEA 6: 99–116. Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-II. Oxford. Goetze, A. 1969. Hittite Rituals, Incantations, and Description of Festivals. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 346–361. Görg, M. 1982. Der Name “Kanaan” in Ägyptischer Wiedergabe. Biblische Notizen 18: 26–27. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Gubel, E. 1990. Tell Kazel (Ṣumur/Simyra) a l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 2: 37–50. Güterbock, H.G. 1956. The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son Mursili II. JCS 10: 41– 68, 75–98, 107–130. Güterbock, H.G. 1960. Mursili’s Accounts of Suppiluliuma’s Dealings with Egypt. Revue Hittite et Asianique 66: 57–63. Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den Syrischen Besitzungen. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92: 1–13. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Kallai, Z. 1975. The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible. Eretz Israel 12: 27–34 (Hebrew). Kallai, Z. 1983. The Reality of the Land and the Bible. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 76–90. Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien, Berlin. Klengel, H. 1980. Mord und Bussleistung im spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien. In: Alster, B. ed. Death in Mesopotamia. (Mesopotamia 8). Copenhagen: 189–197. Klengel, H. 1984. Ṣumur/Simyra und die Eleutheros-Ebene in der Geschichte Syriens. Klio 66: 5–18. Knauf, E.A. 1988. Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Lambdin, T.O. 1953. The Miši-People of the Byblian Amarna Tablets. JCS 7: 75–77. Lemche, N.P. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 110). Sheffield. Lemche, N.P. 1993. City-Dwellers or Administrators. Further Light on the Canaanites. In: Lemaire, A. and Otzen, B. eds. History and Traditions of Early Israel. Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen. Leiden, New York and Köln: 76–89. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1930. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1946. Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan. BJPES 12: 91–102. (Hebrew). (English translation: 1986. The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Jerusalem: 189–202). Mazar (Maisler), B. 1947. Palestine at the Time of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. Revue de l’histoire juive en Égypte 1: 33–68.

132


del Monte, G.F. and Tischler, J. 1978. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. 6. Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der hethitischen Texte. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 7/6). Wiesbaden. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Muhly, J.D. 1970. Homer and the Phoenicians. Berytus 19: 19–64. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1982. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and the Late Bronze Age. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. Jerusalem: 129–256. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to Canaan. In: Abusch, T. et al. eds. Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: 397–405. Na’aman, N. 1992. Amarna Letters. The Anchor Bible Dictionary I: 174–181. Na’aman, N. 1994. The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 26: 175–187. North, R. 1970–71. Phoenicia-Canaan Frontier Lebo’ of Ḥama. Mélanges de l’Université SaintJoseph 46: 71–103. Noth, M. 1935. Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches. ZDPV 58: 185–255. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Noth, M. 1966. Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7). Göttingen. Rainey, A.F. 1963. A Canaanite at Ugarit. IEJ 13: 43–45. Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149. Rainey, A.F. 1979. Toponymic Problems (cont.). Rāḫiṣum = Rô�iṣu? Tel Aviv 6: 158–161. Rainey, A.F. 1981. The Military Camp Ground at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo. Eretz Israel 16: 61*–66*. Rainey, A.F. 1982. Linguistic Notes on Thutmose III’s Topographical List. Scripta Hierosolymitana 28: 335–359. Redford, D.B. 1982. A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89–101 of Thutmose III’s List of Asiatic Toponyms). Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom (Beer-Sheva IV). Beer-sheva. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Saebø, M. 1974. Grenzschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-‘ad-Formel. ZDPV 90: 14–37. Simons, J. 1959. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden. Singer, I. 1988a. Merneptah’s Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period. BASOR 269: 1–10. Singer, I. 1988b. Megiddo Mentioned in a Letter from Boğazköy. In: Neu, E. and Rüster, C. eds. Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: 327–332. Stolz, F. 1988. Kanaan. In: Müller, G. ed. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 17. Berlin and New York: 539–556. Uehlinger, C. 1988. Der Amun-Tempel Ramses’ III. in p3-Kn‘n, seine südpalästinischen Tempelgüter und der Übergang von der Ägypter- zur Philisterherrschaft: ein Hinweis auf einige wenig beachtete Skarabäen. ZDPV 104: 6–25.


133

Van Kasteren, J.P. 1895. La frontiere septentrionale de la Terre Promise. RB 4: 23–36. Van Kasteren, J. 1912. Chanaan (Pays de). Dictionaire de la Bible II/1. Paris: 533–538. de Vaux, R. 1968. Le pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23–30. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. 1978 (originally published 1971). Vernus, P. 1978. L’apport des sources égyptiennes au problème hourrite. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 189–197. Weidner, E. 1959–60. Der Kanzler Salmanassars I. AfO 19: 33–39. Weinfeld, M. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land — the Status of Transjordan. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 59–75. Weippert, M. 1976–80. Kanaan. RLA V: 352–355. Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadnararis III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67. Wilson, J.A. 1969a. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264. Wilson, J.A. 1969b. An Egyptian Letter. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 475–479. Wiseman, D.J. 1954. Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. JCS 8: 1–30. Yurco, F.J. 1986. Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 189–215. Zimmerli, W. 1983. Ezekiel 2. (Hermeneia). Philadelphia (originally published 1969). Zobel, H-J. 1984. Kn‘n. In: Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H. and Fabry, H.J. eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament IV: 224–243.

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan1 The debate over the size of the land of Canaan in second millennium BCE. documents was revived in 1991 with the publication of Lemche’s work on the Canaanites and their land. Lemche disagreed with the former scholarly consensus, according to which Canaan in Late Bronze texts covered the entire area of the Egyptian province in Asia (de Vaux 1968:25-28; 1978:127-128; Weippert 1976-1980; Stolz 1988:539-545). On the basis of EA 151:49-67, a letter from Abi-Milki of Tyre to the Pharaoh, Lemche proposed that the term Canaan was used in an imprecise manner in second millennium Near Eastern texts. When discussing other vassal letters, he noted (p. 39) that “evidently the inhabitants of the supposed Canaanite territory in Western Asia had no clear idea of the actual size of this Canaan, nor did they know exactly where Canaan was situated.” In his opinion, this ambiguity is reflected in some other Late Bronze texts that mention Canaan. He, therefore, concluded that there is a “correspondence between the imprecise and ambiguous Egyptian use of the geographical name Canaan and the likewise imprecise understanding of Canaan displayed by the inhabitants of Western Asia themselves” (Lemche 1991:50). He further suggested (p. 52) that “to the scribe of ancient Western Asia ‘Canaanite’ always designated a person who did not belong to the scribe’s own society or state, while Canaan was considered to be a country different from his own.” These far-fetched conclusions did not remain unanswered. Rainey (1996) correctly noted that the writer and recipient or user of the texts knew the geographical and ethnic entities mentioned, and there was no need for them to go into detailed definitions; hence, some texts do not give detailed information on the size of Canaan and its inhabitants. However, there are considerable numbers of texts from all over the ancient Near East that do give an accurate picture of a geographical entity known to the ancients as Canaan and of a people known to the ancients and to themselves as Canaanites. I have analyzed previously, in detail, all references to Canaan in second millennium BCE sources, showing how inadequate and sometimes faulty was Lemche’s discussion of these sources (Na’aman 1994). My conclusions were as follows:

1. Reprinted with permission. BASOR 313 (1999), 31-37.

134

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan

135

It seems clear that the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a territorial-political entity. The political connotation is emphasized in international correspondence where “Canaan” refers to the Egyptian province in Asia and also in the letters of Byblos and Tyre where it refers to “the land of the king.” Also it seems to me that the local inhabitants of Canaan must have used the name in self-designation, along with the more common name of the kingdom whose citizens they were. Nowhere is this stated directly, but it may be inferred from the fact that they are called “Canaanites” in regular documents written in neighbouring kingdoms (Ugarit, Alalakh, Egypt). The fact that foreign scribes used the name to denote the origin of these people suggests that the source for the name assignment must have been the individuals who were so designated. Thus, contrary to Lemche’s conclusion that nobody ever used the name Canaan as self definition, it seems to me that people from Canaan would indeed sometimes have defined themselves as Canaanites (Na’aman 1994:408).

Lemche responded in two articles (1996; 1998) in which he defended the conclusions of his book. Let me cite his recent conclusions (1996:771): Canaan is used in an ambiguous manner in the ANE texts from the 2nd millennium. If it ever had a more precise meaning, this “Canaan” may have embraced the coastal plain in Palestine south of the Carmel range, the Esdraelon plain and the Phoenician coast. There is no evidence that it was ever used as the name of a specific state or area with fixed and definable borders.

The sources for the discussion of Canaan and the Canaanites in the second millennium were detailed in the above-cited works and will not be repeated here. The current article instead discusses key sources — some of which are hotly debated — to shed more light on the problem of the Canaanites and their land in Late Bronze Age texts.

The Alalakh Legal and Administrative Texts Canaan is mentioned in four documents from Stratum IV at Alalakh, all of which refer to individuals from that land. One tablet (AT 154) is still unpublished. AT 181 is a list of ‘Apiru (Wiseman 1954:11; Greenberg 1955:21) and AT 188 (Dietrich-Loretz 1970:101) is a list of muškēnu. All the places of origin of the individuals mentioned in the two tablets are either towns or well-defined lands (Alashiya and Nuḫašše). Hence, Canaan was likewise a well-defined entity. Tablet AT 48 is a legal document signed with the royal seal. A hunter (LÚbāiru)2 from Canaan borrowed 24 shekels of silver from a local citizen of Alalakh. He must repay an interest of 200 birds at the beginning of next year.

2. The translation “hunter” is required by context: the man pays for his loan an interest of 200 birds (see CAD B 31b; Ṣ 161a; AHW 1397a). Rainey’s translation “soldier” (1996:3) is erroneous.

136


His wife, his sons and his belongings are pledged for the return of the loan. Four witnesses are mentioned by name at the end of the tablet. The formal nature of legal documents and the precision of their details are self-evident. It is clear that the legal authorities in late 15th-early 14th centuries BCE. Alalakh considered Canaan, the hunter’s place of origin, to be a well-defined entity, similar to the places of origin of all other non-Alalakhian citizens who took part in legal matters conducted before the court of Alalakh (AT 49:4-5; 50:3; 66:3; 67:4; 68:4-8; 69:5; 72:3-7; 74:5-8). The administrative and legal authorities in Alalakh would surely have been surprised to hear that someone from Hamlet’s country assumes that the term “Canaan” was an imprecise or ambiguous territorial term. For them, this territorial definition was entirely clear, and they treated it exactly as they treated all other names of towns and lands.

The Letter from Tyre Letter EA 151:49-67 was recently discussed in detail by Rainey (1996:9-11) and Lemche (1998). In a response to the request of the Pharaoh for information from Canaan (“Write to me what you have heard from Canaan”), AbiMilki of Tyre reports news from Danuna, Ugarit, Ḫatti, the northern border of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Qidšu’s and Amurru’s attack on Egyptian vassals) and Sidon. The letter has been known for more than hundred years and there are no problems about understanding its wording. Former students of EA 151: 49-67 made a clear distinction between the literal meaning of the Pharaoh’s order and the way in which it was understood by Abi-Milki in his detailed report to the Pharaoh (Astour 1965:4-5 is an exception). Lemche (1991:30-31, 39-40, 51-52; 1998), on the other hand, assumes that Abi-Milki’s reply is due to a literal interpretation of the Pharaoh’s order, and Lemche equates the land of Canaan with all the territories that Abi-Milki enumerates. From this emerged Lemche’s “Great Canaan” hypothesis, which is supported only by this text and never confirmed elsewhere. Rainey (1996:9-11) suggested an attractive interpretation for the passage: Abi-Milki understood the Pharaoh’s words as meaning news heard “from within Canaan,” i.e., news that Abi-Milki had heard at his seat in Tyre. In support of his interpretation, he quoted three references from Taanach, Tyre and Ugarit that refer to news heard from the place of the receiver (TT 1:15-18; EA 149:54-57; KTU 2.10:15-19). Lemche (1998) responded by citing two letters from Sidon (EA 145:23-26) and Tyre (EA 147:66-67), in which news requested from certain places (Amurru, Egypt) was answered literally by the recipients of the letters. In his opinion, it was the intention of the Pharaoh “that AbiMilki should report news from his homeland, which was according to the Egyptians identical with Canaan” (Lemche 1998:21).


137

As far as I am aware, no second millennium BCE text supports the assumption that the term Canaan refers exclusively either to Tyre or to the Lebanese coast. The territorially limited use of the term Canaan appears for the first time in the Bible (Maisler 1930:54-74; de Vaux 1968:30; 1978:131; Weippert 1976-1980:354), and Lemche must have taken it from this late source. Moreover, an Egyptian request for information about the small island of Tyre is unlikely, because the Pharaoh and his officials in Egypt tried to avoid local incidents and dealt mainly with problems that affected the administration of part or all of the Egyptian province in Asia. The question to be discussed is how Abi-Milki interpreted and answered the Egyptian request for information “from Canaan.” To answer this question, we must first analyze the political situation in Western Asia at that time. Letter EA 151 was written in the late years of Akhenaten, when Aziru of Amurru and Etakama of Qadesh conducted a war against the northernmost districts of the Egyptian province in Asia (see e.g., Kitchen 1962:44-45; Campbell 1964:72, 135; Helck 1971:177-179). At this late time, Mitanni, the Egyptian former ally, was defeated and disappeared from the Syro-Canaanite arena. Its territories and its military and political positions were taken by Ḫatti, which soon became an enemy of Egypt and a threat to the northern districts of the Egyptian province in Asia. A number of kingdoms near the northern border of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Amurru, Qidšu, Ruḫizzi and Lapana) took advantage of the situation and tried to expand their territories. In such a fluid situation, intelligence was of the utmost importance, and Egyptian vassals and allies whose seats were located near the borders of the Egyptian Empire frequently reported to Egypt on the current situation (e.g., EA 53-56, 59, 140, 173-176, 189, 196-197, 363). It is against this background that we must analyze the text of EA 151:4967. Abi-Milki must have interpreted the words of the Pharaoh as a request for information relevant to Canaan, i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia. He, thus, reported what had happened in the coastal areas of the Hittite Empire (i.e., in Danuna and Ugarit), on the temporary absence of the Hittite troops, and on the attack of Etakama of Qadesh and Aziru on the Egyptian northernmost territories. As in many other letters (e.g., EA 147:66-69; 148:23-26, 38-45; 149: 54-70), Abi-Milki took advantage of this report to defame Zimredda, his archenemy, by accusing him of cooperating with Aziru in the attack on his kingdom. We may conclude that a contextual approach is the best way to interpret EA 151:49-67 and, furthermore, that a literal and rigid interpretation of texts can sometimes lead scholars far from the historical reality.

138


The Letter of Alashiya The beginning and the end of letter EA 36 are broken. In lines 5-7, the king of Alashiya reports to the Pharaoh about the delivery of 120 talents of copper, 70 talents possibly in the forms of bars, each of which weighed 1 talent, and 50 talents of “colorful,” i.e., copper of inferior quality.3 This delivery and the principle of reciprocity are discussed in the next passage (lines 8-13), which ends with a request to send ships to carry the copper to Egypt (line 13). Line 14 probably reads, “[As f]or me ([ia]-a-ti), just as [now?] I prepare copper, they will p[repare??] grain [for me?].” Next comes the controversial line 15. Approximately 18 signs appear in each line of this letter, so that about third of the line (61⁄2 signs) has survived. Knudtzon (1915:288) transcribed it [. . . p]i-ḫa-ti ša ki-na-ḫi [. . .]. There are no fewer than four obstacles to this rendering: (a) the value /pi/ is rare in peripheral Akkadian; (b) pīhātu in the sense of “province” does not appear in peripheral Akkadian; (c) the spelling Ki-na-ḫi (rather than Ki-na-aḫ-ḫi) is rare and is known only from letter RS.20.182A+B from Ugarit;4 and (d) the predeterminative KUR is missing before the assumed geographical name (Na’aman 1975:2*, n. 19; Moran 1992:109-110, n. 1). Rainey (1996:7-8) has adopted Knudtzon’s reading of the line and suggested explanations of each of these difficulties (cf. Redford 1990:99 n. 253). Each explanation in itself is possible, but the assumption that there are quite so many irregularities in a text of 61⁄2 signs is intriguing. Translating line 15 “[. . . p]rovince of Canaan [. . .]” is not impossible, but should be accompanied by a big question mark. Should we use the term “province of Canaan” to describe the Egyptian Asiatic province? There has been a long scholarly debate on whether the Egyptian Empire in Canaan was divided into districts. Some scholars suggested a tripartite division (e.g., Helck 1960:5-8; 1971:248-252; Aharoni 1967: 146-153; de Vaux 1968:25-28); I have suggested a bipartite division (Na’aman 1975:166-172, 227; 1981:183-184); and Hachmann (1982) suggested a four-part division. Redford (1990:32-35; 1992:201) correctly noted that we cannot speak of “provinces” in the sense that is familiar from the Roman Empire. He as-

3. A tentative translation of lines 5-7: “[. . . I sea]rch[ed, and copper as much as they prepared I sen[t. And now] I am sending (the rest) to my brother. 120 (talents) of copper remain (to be sent). 70 talents, one? tal[ent? by? one? talen]t?, everything you desire?? (mim-ma ta-aḫ-pá-ṣí ); 30+[20 t]alents of ‘colorful’ copper, everything you desire?? (mim!-<ma> ta-a[ḫ!pá-ṣí?]).” It goes without saying that the derivation of the verbal form ta-aḫ-pá-ṣí from the West Semitic root ḤPṢ is extremely tentative. CAD Ḫ 124a rendered it ta-aḫ-su-si. 4. In the inventory of Egyptian gifts (EA 14:II, 26), the spelling KUR Ki-na-aḫ-ḫi appears (contra Rainey 1996:8).


139

serted, “when Egyptians alluded to the northern empire, they still spoke of ‘the land of Canaan (or Kharu, Djahi, etc.)’ and the cities therein each with its own ‘territory’, never to the province so-and-so” (Redford 1992:201). However, using the term “province of Canaan” to describe the Egyptian Empire in Asia has become so common in scientific literature that there is no point in giving it up, as long as we remember that the Egyptian administration of Canaan called it by other names. Lemche (1998:23) dismissed the idea that Canaan was an Egyptian province in the 14th century BCE. He draws a line between the time of the 18th Dynasty and that of the 19th Dynasty, “when Canaan had been turned into an administrative district with its center in Gaza, which could in itself be called ‘Canaan’.” The last statement should be qualified. Edel (1953; 1994, I:140-155; II:219-229) combined two letters (KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 and KUB III 57), relating to the royal marriage between Ramesses II and a Hittite princess, and the escorting of the princess to Egypt in the 34th year of Ramesses’ reign. The latter assures the Hittite king that the princess will be properly received at the border and that he has instructed the two Egyptian governors (šākin māti) to escort the Hittite princess through their respective territories. The first is Šuta, the governor of Upi, and the second is Ataḫ[maya], whose residence is missing but should be located in Gaza (Edel 1953:50, 55-61; Singer 1983:1821, with earlier literature). In fact, this letter of the Ramesside period was the point of departure for my suggestion that Canaan was divided into two districts as early as the 18th Dynasty. Although Gaza was the main Egyptian center of government under the Ramessides, there must have been a second center in Upi, namely Kumidi, which was the seat of the second šākin māti mentioned in the letter. Lemche’s claim that Canaan became an Egyptian province only under the 19th Dynasty is also unlikely. In support he cites Redford, who (so he assumes) “simply doubts whether the concept of an Egyptian Empire in Asia arranged in a number of provinces with stable provincial administration and governors before the time of the Ramessides makes any sense at all” (Lemche 1998:23). This is an inaccurate presentation of Redford’s position. Redford (1990:202) actually writes: .” . . if the age of the great Amenophis III had witnessed the inception of a regularized state department, the age of the Ramessides (the 19th Dynasty) carried it to the logical stage of refinement.” Neither Redford nor any other scholar doubts the emergence of an Egyptian province (in the flexible sense defined above) in Asia during the 18th Dynasty. Canaan had been an Egyptian province ever since its conquest by Thutmose III, whereas the establishment of an Egyptian administrative apparatus and the regularization of the levies and taxes developed gradually and reached its zenith under the Ramessides.

140


The Letter from Ugarit RS 20.182A+B are fragments of a letter probably sent by a high official of Ugarit to the Pharaoh (Nougayrol 1968:111-113, 389). Rainey (1996:5-6) recently edited the text. Unfortunately, he ignored the new joins to the tablet published by Lackenbacher (1994) and Van Soldt (1994), and his edition is quite outdated. Thanks to the new joins, some lines have been restored and the width of the tablet has been established. I will suggest a tentative restoration of lines 4-15 of RS 20.182B+, with a translation, a few notes and an historical discussion.

-------------------------------4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

[ša-ni-ta5? b]e-‘li aš-šum’ KASKAL-‘ni’ ša iṣ-ṣa-ba‘t?-ma? ’ [KÙ.BABBARMEŠ š]a DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it [x (x) mi-š]i-il DUMUMEŠ KUR Ki-na-ḫi [ù ú-š]al-lim-šu 1 GÚ.UN 5 me-at KÙ.BABBAR[MEŠ] [zi?-it?-t]i? DUMUMEŠ KUR Ki-na-ḫi [KÙ.BABBAR]MEŠ ša DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it ša-li-i[m na??-ši??] [ù mB]ur5-ḫa-nu-wa a-kán-na iq-ta-bi-[(ma)] [ma-a] ‘a-na’ na-ḫa-sí-ia-mi KÙ.BABBARMEŠ ri-ḫa-ti [. . .] [ša] ir-te-eḫ i-laq-qí-mi [a-n]a UGU KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-ia-ma iṣ-ṣa-bat-ta-ni m’Bur5-ḫa-nu-wa’ [K]Ù.BABBARMEŠ-ia-ma ù a-na-ku-ma ú-šal-lim-šu [ù] KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-šu ú-[ša?-di?-n]a DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it ÌR MEŠ EN-ia

Translation: [Moreover], my l[or]d, concerning the caravan which is seized, [the silver o]f the sons of Ugarit – [about?? ha]lf (of the sum) of the sons of Canaan — [indeed] I paid him. One talent and 500 (shekels) of silver [is the part? paymen]t? of the sons of Canaan. [The silve]r of the sons of Ugarit has been pai[d and carried??. And] Purḫanuwa thus said (to me) [as follows]: “upon my return, the rest of the silver [as? much? as?] remained he will take.” [Concerni]ng my silver, Purḫanuwa indeed seized me, (and) my silver I indeed paid him. His silver was [indeed] p[ai]d?. The sons of Ugarit, servants of my lord, [the king? of Ugarit? . . .]

Notes: Line 6: the rendering [. . . mi-š]i-il (rather than [. . . a-k]i-il) was suggested by Lackenbacher (1994). Line 7: for the restoration, see line 14. Line 8: for the tentative restoration [zi-it-t]i, see CAD Z 146. Line 15: Lackenbacher and Van Soldt rendered it KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-šu-ú-[ma a-n]a. However, the pronominal suffix —šu appears in lines 7 and 14 without


141

an extra vowel. It seems to me that the author of the letter, seeking to emphasize that the silver was properly paid, deliberately uses legal forms (compare my restoration at the end of line 9). For the verbal form šuddunu, see CAD N/1 56a.

Background of the Episode A Canaanite caravan was seized in the kingdom of Ugarit. Details of the seizure and the legal procedure that followed are missing, and we do not know in which court the case was decided. The role of Pariḫnawa (Purḫanuwa), an Egyptian envoy of Ramesses II who is mentioned in the texts of Ḫattusha (Nougayrol 1968:112 n. 3; for references, see Edel 1994:II, 364), may indicate that the king of Ḫatti was involved in the case. The indemnity payment due to the sons of Canaan from the sons of Ugarit probably amounted to 2 talents and 1000 shekels of silver. There must have been some delay in payment and the Egyptian king, probably Ramesses II, intervened by sending Pariḫnawa, his messenger, to deal with the matter and by writing a letter to the Ugaritic authorities. The letter under discussion deals with an episode that was previously negotiated, possibly at length, between the Egyptian and Ugaritic (or Hittite) courts. Letter RS 20.182A+B is the Ugaritic court’s answer to the Egyptian king’s letter. The author of the letter reports that he has delivered half of the sum, 1 talent and 500 shekels of silver, to Pariḫnawa, and that the other half will be paid on Pariḫnawa’s return from Egypt. The involvement of the Pharaoh and his envoy in the case is not exceptional. It was agreed among the members of the “Club of the Great Powers” in the 14th-13th centuries BCE that each Great King was responsible for what happened in his and his vassals’ territories (Liverani 1990). Canaan was the territory of the Pharaoh, and it was his responsibility to protect his vassals in the other Great Kings’ lands and to defend their rights in foreign countries (for similar procedures, see the literature cited in Rainey 1996:5; Na’aman 1998:66-67). The extant text does not give the exact origin of the seized caravan. It only mentions the payment to the “sons of Canaan.” The reason for selecting a comprehensive term rather than the name of a particular city-state is clear: The letter was addressed to the Egyptian king, who was internationally recognized as lord of the land of Canaan and its inhabitants, the “sons of Canaan” (EA 8:25-26 reads, “Canaan is your land and [its] king[s are your servants]”). Lemche (1998:23) suggested that “in such a text the distinction made between two groups of people might be no more than the opinion of the writer of the text, whose place of origin was undoubtedly Ugarit.” However, RS 20.182A+B is a diplomatic letter exchanged between the courts

142


of Ugarit and Egypt, and the author of the letter accurately reports to the Pharaoh about the execution of a legal matter. The letter deals with interstate affairs, and personal opinion has no place in this diplomatic correspondence. Lemche’s suggestion, therefore, is obviously wrong. A man of Canaan is mentioned in a second text from Ugarit (KTU 4.96). This is a list of merchants assigned to three royal estates (Astour 1970:125; 1975:293-294; Rainey 1996:4). Seven merchants are assigned to the first estate. Four of them are from towns in the kingdom of Ugarit, and three are foreigners: an Ashdadite, an Egyptian and a Canaanite. I recently suggested an identification of the city of Ashdad mentioned in the Ugaritic texts with Enkomi, the important Cypriote port city, and disassociating it from the Philistine city of Ashdod (Na’aman 1997:609-611). We may conclude that in letter RS 20.182A+B, and in the administrative text KTU 4.96, Canaan is mentioned as a well-defined entity, similar to the kingdoms of Egypt and Ugarit, the city of Ashdad and the four Ugaritic towns. In sum, Canaan was the political-territorial name for the Egyptian province in Asia in the Late Bronze Age. Some texts mention Canaan without specifying an exact location because their authors did not consider it necessary to specify something that was so well-known. But there are enough texts that give accurate details on the size of the land and the identity of its inhabitants, and there is not a single text that defines the size of Canaan differently. The phantom of the “Great Canaan” should disappear from the scholarly literature, along with the erroneous arguments that were brought to support it.

References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. AHW = von Soden, W. 1959-1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Astour, M.C. 1965. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden. Astour, M.C. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13: 113-127. Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II. (Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 249-369. AT = Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É = bītu – Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88-123. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.


143

Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II.: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et. al. Eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift für A. Alt. (Beiträge zur Histotorischen Theologie 16). Tübingen: 29-63. Edel, E. 1994. Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache I-II. (Abhändlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77). Opladen. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Hachmann, R. 1982. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in Syrien während der Amarnazeit. ZDPV 98: 17-49. Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den Syrischen Besitzungen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92: 1-13. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. KTU = Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartin, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Lackenbacher, S. 1994. Ugaritica V No 36. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Br�ves et Utilitaires 1994/ 3: No. 58. Lemche, N.P. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 110). Sheffield. Lemche, N.P. 1996. Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na’aman. UgaritForschungen 28: 767-772. Lemche, N.P. 1998. Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151: 4967. BASOR 310: 19-24. Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. Padova. Maisler (Mazar), B. 1930. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172185. Na’aman, N. 1994. The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 397418. Na’aman, N. 1997. The Network of Canaanite Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. UgaritForschungen 29: 599-612. Na’aman, N. 1998. The Closing Paragraphs of Letter KBo I 10. Altorientalische Forschungen 25: 61-67. Nougayrol, J. 1968. Ugaritica V. Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris. Rainey, A.F. 1996 Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence. BASOR 304: 1-15. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-Sheva 4). Beer-sheva. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Singer, I. 1982. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25.

144


Stolz, F. 1988. Kanaan. In: Müller, G. ed. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 17. Berlin-New York: 539-556 TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Vienna: 113-122. Van Soldt, W.H. 1994. More on Ugaritica V no. 36. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1994/4: No. 98. de Vaux, R. 1968. Le pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23-30. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Weippert, M. 1976-1980. Kanaan. RLA V: 352-355. Wiseman, D.J. 1954. Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. JCS 8: 1-30.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod1 Previous Discussions The attempt to establish the exact number and delineate the borders of the Canaanite Late Bronze kingdoms is a relatively late branch of historical topographical research. The first stage in the study of the toponyms mentioned in Late Bronze sources was marked by an effort to identify their names and locate their sites. Clauss (1907), for example, examined all the toponyms mentioned in the Amarna letters systematically. He compared their names with places mentioned in earlier and later sources and in the Bible and suggested identifications for their locations. Dhorme (1908, 1909) examined the corpus of Late Bronze toponyms and suggested new identifications for some names. With the publication of Knudtzon’s edition of the Amarna tablets (1915), the transcription of the letters was finally established, and the way was open for further investigation of the number and power of the Canaanite kingdoms and their relationships with their Egyptian overlords. Alt (1939; 1953) discussed at length the network of Canaanite kingdoms in his work on the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine. He noticed the difference of scope, strength and policy between the kingdoms situated in the highlands (e.g., Hazor, Shechem and Jerusalem) and those located in the lowlands, and he used the differences as a point of departure for the discussion of the emergence of Israel in the early Iron Age. In another work (1950), he made the important distinction between Canaanite city-states and Egyptian garrison cities (Stützpunkte), and he tried to reconstruct the system of Egyptian centers (Stützpunktsystem) in Asia. In a third article (1944), he observed the changes that took place in the Egyptian system of government during the XIXth-XXth Dynasties. In other works, he discussed new sources that were published in the 1920s–1940s (Alt 1924; 1936; 1941; 1954). Alt’s historical and topographical contributions have had a considerable impact on all subsequent studies of the Canaanite kingdoms in the Late Bronze Age. 1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997), 599–626.

145

146


Many studies on the identification of Canaanite toponyms and their significance for the historical research were published in those years (e.g., Jirku 1937; Abel 1938; Gardiner 1947), but it is not necessary to survey them here. In his monumental work on the relationship between Egypt and Western Asia in the second millennium BCE, Helck (1962; rev. ed. 1971) discussed, in some detail, the network of Canaanite kingdoms and Egyptian government centers in the Late Bronze Age. He was the first scholar to publish detailed maps of the systems of Syrian and Canaanite kingdoms (1971:188, 309), but the borders drawn in his maps are schematic and take into consideration neither the topographical features nor the archaeological data. Aharoni summarized the work of his predecessors in his comprehensive book on the geographical history in the “Land of the Bible” (1967), but he did not try to delineate the system of Canaanite kingdoms. In my doctoral dissertation (Na’aman 1975), I tried both to set criteria for establishing the number of Canaanite city-states and Egyptian centers and to define their scope and borders. The list of city-states was composed on the basis of the Amarna letters, supplemented by other Late Bronze sources and the Bible. An analysis of the Amarna letters and identification of border towns and neighboring cities was the point of departure for border demarcations. I have suggested that neighboring kingdoms did not control sparsely inhabited areas effectively and that their boundaries should not be rigidly outlined. The archaeological evidence was taken into consideration, in particular the size and number of sites in each region. Early and late border systems were also taken into account. In light of all these data, I suggested a detailed reconstruction of the array of Canaanite kingdoms in the areas of Palestine. In later years, I published other works elaborating on the earlier one (Na’aman 1982, 1986a; 1988a; 1988b; 1992). Bunimovitz (1989) discussed the array of Palestinian city-states in his doctoral dissertation on the socio-cultural changes in Late Bronze Age Palestine. He first analysed the results of the archaeological excavations in Middle Bronze and Late Bronze sites and collected all the archaeological data discovered in surveys. By integrating historical documents, archaeological evidence and an analysis of the regional systems’ rank-size distributions, he suggested a reconstruction of the political map in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Although Bunimovitz utilized methodology and distribution model not used in my writings, his map of Late Bronze Canaanite kingdoms is quite similar to the system that I suggested. For most of the north and northeastern areas of the land of Canaan, there is not enough archaeological data for accurate border demarcations. In a pioneering study, Marfoe (1979) analyzed the area of the Beqa‘ of Lebanon. By examining the natural data, surveying the area and comparing settlement

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod

147

patterns from early and late periods, he was able to reconstruct the number and size of the political units of the Beqa‘ in the Late Bronze Age. Recently, Finkelstein (1996) suggested a new delineation for the array of Canaanite kingdoms. According to his reconstruction, the entire area of west Jordanian Palestine was shared among no more than 13–14 relatively large kingdoms. These kingdoms effectively controlled all the areas — inhabited and uninhabited — included in their territories. All other city-states, including some that are explicitly mentioned in the Amarna letters (e.g., Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, etc.), are left out of his list of kingdoms.2 More details about Finkelstein’s methodology and results appear in the discussion below. It is the purpose of this article to re-examine the system of Canaanite kingdoms located in the bounds of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. At the beginning of the discussion, I suggest criteria for identifying city-states and establishing borders and discuss the problem of drawing maps and making demographic calculations. It seems to me that Finkelstein’s source analysis should be revised and that the textual evidence does not justify his limited system of kingdoms and his border delineations.

Criteria for Establishing the System of Canaanite Kingdoms I start from a point of agreement with Finkelstein: Biblical data should not be taken into account in drawing up the list of Canaanite kingdoms. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years after the Late Bronze Age, at a time when memories of the Canaanite city-state system were quite lost. Even if some vague memories of that early period still persisted when the biblical text was put in writing, they do not shed light on the system of Late Bronze kingdoms. In the past, I made ample use of biblical evidence for the establishment of the borders of Canaanite kingdoms. In particular, I utilized the descriptions of the inheritance of the twelve tribes for drawing the borders, assuming a direct continuity between city-state borders and the tribal allotments (Na’aman 1986a; 1988a: 21–26). In those years, many scholars believed that historical writing began in Israel in the tenth century BCE (the time of the United Monarchy). The composition of the tribal allotments was dated to the tenth century BCE, about two centuries after the final collapse of the system of Canaanite city-states (Alt 1927; Noth 1935; 1953; Aharoni 1967; Kallai 1986). All areas of Palestine began to be settled in Iron Age I; thus, it was logical to

2. The omission of these kingdoms by Finkelstein is the more surprising because he opens his discussion by stating that he “accepts the argument that individuals who wrote to — or received letters from — Egypt were all rulers of city-states.”

148


assume a measure of continuity between the systems of city-states and tribal allotments. However, it is clear now that the descriptions of tribal allotments is a late, non-historical composition and was written hundreds years after the final collapse of the system of Canaanite kingdoms. I, therefore, withdraw all my former reconstructions of boundaries of Canaanite kingdoms based on the tribal allotments, as well as the identifications of towns as city-states on the basis of the biblical text. The list of Canaanite kingdoms should, first of all, be composed on the basis of the Amarna letters, because only the rulers of these political units were allowed to correspond with the Pharaoh. The Akkadian title used to describe the local rulers of Canaan is ḫazannu, “mayor,” which is the equivalent of Egyptian ḫ3ty-‘, a mayor of an Egyptian town. The court administration treated them as Egyptian mayors in one important aspect: They had full responsibility for everything that happened in the city (or rather city-state) that the Pharaoh gave into their charge. Thus, each vassal was personally responsible to the Pharaoh for the territory the vassal held, and, in his letters, he reported back to Egypt that he had fulfilled all the obligations imposed on his domain. We may conclude that each person who wrote either to the Pharaoh or to his officials was a city-state ruler, regardless of the scope of his territory or his political power. If the Amarna archive were complete, the task of making a list of citystates would have been easy. Unfortunately, this is not the case. On the contrary, the archive is a unique collection, differing in its assemblage from all other ancient Near Eastern archives. The earlier tablets discovered in the archive had been brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new capital, Akhetaten (Amarna), when the royal court moved there. We may assume that certain letters were taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:35–36; Na’aman 1981:173–174). The number of letters transferred on both occasions is unknown, and we do not know how many tablets were totally destroyed between the time the archive was discovered and before the importance of the tablets was recognized (Knudtzon 1915:1–15). An illustration of the incomplete nature of the archive are the four Amarna tablets that comprise the second part of the original two-tablet letter (EA 101, 113, 245, 251): In no case was the first tablet found. Evidently, only a portion of the original archive has come down to us. I would like to propose a method for estimating how much of the original archive has survived. In Akhenaten’s late years, the Egyptians planned a campaign to northern Canaan and sent verbal and written orders to their vassals, commanding them to prepare for the arrival of the Egyptian archers (Na’aman 1990, with earlier literature). Only on that occasion were Egyptian messengers carrying royal letters sent to all quarters of the Egyptian prov-

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 149 ince in Asia. Answers to the royal letters arrived from southern Canaan (EA 65, 292, 324–325, 337), from northern Canaan (EA 55, 191, 193, 195, 201–206, 216–218, 227, and possibly 213), and from the coast of Lebanon (EA 141–142, 144, 147, 153, 362, and possibly 223 and 233). There are indications in the letters that the Canaanite rulers believed that the Egyptian army would arrive soon and were anxious to affirm their participation immediately (Na’aman 1990: 404–405). Moreover, in light of the formal character of these letters, most of these kings gave not only their own names, but also the names of their cities, unlike the routine correspondence in which city names were sometimes omitted (particularly in north Palestinian and south Syrian letters). I suggest that answers came from all quarters of Canaan and that the number of missing places may help us estimate the gap of documentation. If this criterion is valid, it indicates that a considerable part of the original archive is missing. Among the Palestinian rulers, only those of Ashkelon, Gezer, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi),3 Hazor, and a few others whose seat is unknown (Ḫiziru, Bayawa and the authors of letters EA 217–218) are mentioned. This supports the conclusion that only part of the original archive has come down to us. Not only is the archive incomplete, but the seat of many rulers remains unknown. First, many tablets are broken and the names of their authors and their towns are missing. Second, the city of many rulers whose names appear on tablets is not mentioned. In many cases, even the region from which the tablets were sent is not known. In his edition of the Amarna letters, Knudtzon supplied important details about the clay of the tablet, the form of the signs and the similarity between groups of tablets, all of which may help in locating the letters. However, the origin of many tablets, in particular those sent from small city-states, is unknown. It is clear that the unique composition of the archive and the gaps in the extant list of towns and rulers call for caution in discussing the evidence. In particular, we should be careful not to draw conclusions on the basis of negative evidence. Finkelstein (1996: 224), on the other hand, suggests that “the material at hand enables a full or almost full reconstruction of the territorial map of Late Bronze Canaan.” In support of this conclusion, he claims that “most Canaanite city-states known by name are mentioned in several letters.” He

3. The name of Shuwardata’s capital is mentioned nowhere in the Amarna letters. His seat was apparently in Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, the place of Philistine Gath in the Iron Age. It may be assumed that the place was called already by the name Gath in the Late Bronze Age, hence, the name Gath* for Shuwardata’s and ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s city in this article.

150


also notes that “when mapped, the information provided by the archive does not leave empty territories.” However, exactly the opposite of the latter statement is true. The Amarna archive supplies very few data for establishing the borders between neighboring kingdoms.4 For this reason, early scholars of the Amarna tablets did not try to draw borders. Maps with borders appeared only after enough archaeological data had been assembled, supplementing the scanty textual data. If Finkelstein’s maps do not leave empty spaces, it is only because he deliberately drew the borders in this manner. Drawing the borders differently will leave ample space for the missing city-states. The statement that most Canaanite kingdoms known by name are mentioned in several letters is also incorrect. A glance at the index of Moran’s translations of the Amarna letters (1992:388–392) shows that many city-states are mentioned only once. For example, all the cities either in the Beqa‘ of Lebanon or in the Bashan are mentioned only once (Ashtaroth alone is mentioned twice). All Palestinian city-states mentioned in the archive and omitted by Finkelstein for no obvious reason (e.g., Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, Na-x-ḫa-x, [x-I]G-ma-te) are likewise mentioned only once, and their sites are unknown. Even some major Canaanite kingdoms (e.g., Shechem, Hazor, Ashtaroth and Damascus) are mentioned only a few times. To illustrate the problem of preparing a list of city-states, let me give two examples. (a) Lab’ayu of Shechem and his sons are the best documented rulers in the area of Palestine, and many details of their careers are known from the correspondence. Yet, the name of their capital is not mentioned in Lab’ayu’s letters, in the letters of other kings, or in Egyptian texts of the time of the New Kingdom. Shechem (māt Šakmi) is mentioned once in a letter from Jerusalem (EA 289:21–24), but the reference alone is not enough to identify the seat. Fortunately, we are able to identify Lab’ayu’s and his sons’ capital thanks to the many references to their offensive in the Amarna letters. Similar references relating to many other rulers whose seats are not mentioned are missing, and the identities of their capitals remain unknown. (b) Biryawaza held a central position in northern Canaan in the Amarna period and acted on behalf of the Egyptian authorities in this area. His letters do not name his city. Only with the help of the many references to his activity can we establish that Damascus was his capital (Na’aman 1988c, with earlier literature). 4. Only the borders of Jerusalem with Gezer and Gath* are demarcated by concrete data extracted from the Amarna letters. The northern border of Shechem may be delineated by an analysis of letter EA 250 (see below). All other borders are drawn on the basis of environmental and archaeological evidence.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 151 In conclusion, the Amarna archive as it came down to us is incomplete, and part of it is missing. Most of the names of important kingdoms in Palestine are known and their sites identified, but the locations of less important city-states mentioned in the archive remain unknown. Moreover, the names of some city-states may be missing from the archive, but can be found in other Late Bronze sources. The Egyptian Execration Texts of the late XIIth-early XIIIth Dynasties mention only kingdoms, each governed by its local ruler(s). Egyptian topographical lists, on the other hand, may not be used uncritically to draw up the list of kingdoms, because they include city-states and towns situated in their territories. Some Egyptian historical and administrative texts that refer either to events in which Canaanite kings participated, or to representatives of Canaanite rulers who visit the Egyptian court, help to complete the list of Canaanite kingdoms. Cuneiform tablets unearthed in Canaanite sites indicate that these places were the administrative seats, either city-states or Egyptian centers of government. This is particularly true of administrative texts written by professional scribes for the local authorities. The number of such tablets discovered so far in Canaan is small, indicating the limited use of writing, except for correspondence with the Pharaoh. This shows the tablets’ importance for the identification of Canaanite administrative centers. The Amarna archive covers less than thirty years, from ca. the 30th year of Amenophis III to Tutankhamun’s third year. How many kings may on the average have ruled in each place in the course of that quarter of a century? The Phoenician coast is amply documented, and an analysis of its letters indicates that the number of kings in each place (with the exception of Achshaph) was two.5 In two south Canaanite cities, Gezer and Lachish, three successive kings are known. On the other hand, only one ruler may have ruled in some cities during the quarter of century of the archive. An average of two kings for each place may safely be assumed. Bunimovitz (1989) and Finkelstein (1996) collected all the available Late Bronze archaeological data relevant for the discussion. It is clear that the major Late Bronze sites (Finkelstein’s categories C-E) were centers of Canaanite city-states. However, the number of sites of category C (1.1–5 hectares) far exceeds the maximum possible number of city-states. Finkelstein

5. These are the names of kings in each kingdom (see the index of proper names in Moran 1992: 379–386): Amurru: ‘Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru; Gubla: Rib-Hadda and Ili-rapiḫ; Beirut: ‘Abdi-Hadda and Ammunira; Sidon: Yabni- . . . and Zimredda; Tyre: . . . -šipṭi and Abi-Milki; Acco: Surata and Satatna; Achshaph: Endaruta.

152


(1996: 226) noted that “from the demographical point of view, in order to be able to execute large-scale building activities, the peer polities each needed a minimal population of several thousands.” I very much doubt the correctness of this statement. First, what may be true for large territorial kingdoms is not necessarily true for small city-states, which may have encompassed no more than a capital and a few villages. Second, unlike the cities of the Middle Bronze, very few new fortifications were built in the Late Bronze Age. As noted by Bunimovitz (1994a: 9): “The diminished population in Late Bronze Age rendered impossible such large-scale building endeavors, and it is doubtful if the cities could provide enough corvée labourers and craftsmen to construct massive walls.” Indeed, the extent of public works in Late Bronze Palestine was quite limited (Hazor is an exception), and some public buildings were mainly rebuilding and enlargements of Middle Bronze edifices (e.g., the temples at Shechem and Megiddo; the palace and gate at Megiddo). In light of the limited scope of public works unearthed in Late Bronze Palestinian sites, Bunimovitz (1994a) concluded that there was a shortage of manpower at that time and that control of as much of the human resources as possible was a major factor in the struggles among Canaanite kingdoms. Third, territory should not be isolated from other resources of economic revenues. A kingdom could control a relatively small territory, yet enjoy prosperity due to other economic resources and hire foreign workers for public works. Thus, harbors (e.g., Ashkelon, Acco) or cities located on important crossroads (e.g., Megiddo) might have controlled relatively small territories, but profited from their location and used it for hiring manpower for work. Fourth, the Egyptian Execration Texts (late XIIth-early XIIIth Dynasties) mention four kingdoms (Acco, Achshaph, Mishal and probably Rehob; see Kempinski 1986:70–72) that were then located in the Acco Valley. This density of kingdoms in a relatively small territory shows the danger of making assumptions of the size of territories based on calculated size factor and numbers of population for each unit. Letter EA 249:5–18 sheds interesting light on the problem of manpower in Palestinian city-states. Ba‘alu-UR.SAG complains before the Pharaoh thus: May he (the Pharaoh) know that my m[en] are doing service in the day(s) of Mi[lkilu]. What have I done to Milkilu that he should treat my men (even) more unjustly than his own servants? To Tagi, his father-in-law, he has handed over his own servants, and what can they do? I am angry (ra-ub?) because I am a loyal servant of the king, and [how] ([mi-na]-me) can the men serve you? [May] the king [rel]ease me. Who [forced into servi]ce (ik-šu-u]š-mi) Milkilu and Lab’ayu, so that [ . . . ].6

6. For the verb kašāšu in the Amarna letters, see Rainey 1989–90:59a.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 153 It seems that the Egyptian authorities had ordered Ba‘alu-UR.SAG to send his men for corvée. He complained that his men were serving Milkilu, king of Gezer, replacing the men of Gezer who had been sent to help Tagi, Milkilu’s father-in-law, and asked to be released from his obligations to Egypt. Thus, it is evident that allied rulers might help each other, whereas subordinate rulers were sometimes obliged to work for their stronger neighbors. Many variables played part in the historical growth and development of Late Bronze Canaanite kingdoms. We know very little about these variables and should avoid generalizing about the size and population of each kingdom. The number and scope of kingdoms in each area should be studied in the light of all the available data (admittedly partial and incomplete), avoiding rigid laws derived from the study of peer-polity systems in other parts of the world. Finally, the problem of drawing maps and calculating the areas of kingdoms should be discussed. Maps have the advantage of clarity, greatly simplifying complex pictures. However, when the information of a given political system is minimal, it is legitimate to ask to what extent a nice-looking map is based on solid foundations. Such is the case of Palestinian Canaanite kingdoms, where there are very few anchor points for drawing the borders and where all these points are located in inhabited areas. Demarcating all other borders rest on uncertain ground. Moreover, the site of several city-states is unknown, and there is no way to include them in the map. However, the problem is even more complicated. Let us examine for a moment the two maps drawn by Finkelstein. The reality of borders that pass through inhabited areas is clear. They define the territory where kingdoms imposed taxes, levied soldiers for war and workers for the corvée. But what is the reality of borders that pass through the sparsely inhabited areas, where there were no permanent settlements? Large parts of Palestine were generally unsettled in the Late Bronze Age, including the Upper and Lower Galilee, the Golan Heights, the central hill country, the Lower Jordan Valley and the Negeb. Can borders drawn through such areas represent political or economic reality? It goes without saying that some “invisible” (in the archaeological sense) population groups lived in these areas. But their relationships with the authorities of neighboring kingdoms are unknown. There is no evidence either that kings effectively dominated these sparsely inhabited areas or that the kings considered them parts of their kingdoms. On the contrary, the Amarna letters indicate that all the conflicts between neighboring kingdoms involved villages and towns. I, therefore, question the validity of maps that divide, without any gaps, the entire area of Canaan and give the impression that there was a stable network of borders in which each king knew what belonged to him and what to his neighbors. I also question the significance of calculat-

154


ing the kingdoms’ territories on the basis of these artificial borders. It seems to me that portions of the sparsely inhabited territories were a kind of “noman’s land” and should not be considered integral parts of the kingdoms. When preparing maps of Late Bronze Palestine, I suggest that exact borderlines should be delineated only in the inhabited areas, where the control over the areas had either economic or military significance. In my opinion, partly demarcated maps give a more reliable picture of the Late Bronze citystate system than detailed maps that artificially divide the entire country into accurately-defined political units.

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in South Palestine The Amarna letters indicate that the most important kingdoms in south Palestine were Ashkelon, Lachish, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) Gezer and Jerusalem. Their rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh and are mentioned in their neighbors’ letters. The strongest and most influential kingdom in southern Canaan was Gezer, which controlled the international road leading from north to south and the internal latitudinal routes leading to the hill country. Other Canaanite kingdoms, whose rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh, but who are not mentioned by other rulers, are Yurza (EA 314–316), Zuḫra (EA 334), Aḫtiashna (EA 319) and Na?-x-ḫa-x (EA 272). Yurza is sometimes located at Tell Jemmeh, on Naḥal Besor, the southern border of Canaan. Another possible site is Tel Haror, on Naḥal Gerar (for recent discussion and literature, see Finkelstein 1996: 231–232). The location of the other city-states is unknown. Some large south Palestinian sites, though Finkelstein dismisses their identification as centers of city-states (e.g., Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton, Khirbet Rabud7), may perhaps be identified with these city-states. The location and status of the city of Zilû also needs clarification. ‘AbdiḪeba, king of Jerusalem, wrote to the Pharaoh as follows (EA 288:39–47): Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain in the city gate of Zilû. The king did nothing. Behold, Zimredda of Lachish, servants who became ‘Apiru smote him (ik-kí-ú-šu).8 Yaptiḫ-Hadda was slain in the city gate of Zilû. The king did nothing. Why has he not called them to account?

7. It is possible that the Canaanite town situated at Khirbet Rabud in the Late Bronze Age had a different name than the Iron Age town. For the suggestion that Khirbet Rabud was the site of a small Canaanite city-state in the 14th–13th centuries, see Na’aman 1992. 8. I suggest deriving the verbal form from Canaanite nkh “to smite” (ik-kí-ú-šu = yikke’u-šu). The verb appears, with exactly the same connotation, in many biblical descriptions that refer to revolts and the smiting of Israelite and Judean kings.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 155 The death of the three mayors9 is described in letter EA 335:8–18 as follows (Na’aman 1979:627–28): May [the kin]g, my lord, be in[formed] that the [. . . are . . .] and Tu[rbazu and] YaptiḫHadda are slain, and that he (the rebel) smo[te the ruler? of L]achish (nu-k[i-mi? LÚ? uru L]a-ki-ši).10 May, the king, my lord, be in[formed] that [the r]ebel has [taken] all my best men and women. May the king, my lord, be informed that Lachish is h[os]tile and Mu’rashti has been seized. Also [Jerusal]em? [is hos]tile.

Albright (1924; see Rainey 1978:106; Moran 1992:391) identified uru Zi-lu-ú with the Egyptian town of Silu, located at the border of eastern Delta. According to his interpretation, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba complains that two Canaanite mayors were slain on Egyptian soil, but the Pharaoh did nothing to restore order in the land. However, locating Zilû on Egypt’s eastern border may perhaps fit the text of EA 288, but is alien to the text of EA 335. What relevance has the slaying of two Canaanite mayors in far-away Egypt to ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s complaints about rebellions and a growing state of insecurity near his borders? The fact that rulers in two different regions connected the death of Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda with the slaying of Zimredda indicates that Zilû and Lachish are neighboring towns. Zilû must have been either a small city-state or a border town, where the two mayors met and were killed. The town of Mu’rashti was possibly located on ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s border with Lachish. He complains that after the slaying of Zimredda, the rebel despoiled one of his towns. The statement that “Lachish is hostile (nakirat) and Mu’rashti has been taken (ṣabtat)” combines the rebellion and despoliation. A similar structure and identical verbs appear in letter EA 256, where MutBaḫlu reports that seven towns rebelled (nakru) against Ayyab of Ashtaroth, his northern neighbor, and that two towns (Ḫayunu and Yabilima) had been seized (ṣabtat). The latter towns must have been located in his territory, near his northern border with the kingdom of Ashtaroth. Mu’rashti must be sought near ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s border with Lachish. Assuming that he ruled in Gath* (see Na’aman 1979: 676–684), Mu’rashti may best be identified at Tell Burnaṭ, near Naḥal Govrin, where Late Bronze pottery was found (Vargon 1990; Dagan 1992:154). The seat of several south Canaanite rulers is unknown. In addition to Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda (one of whom may have ruled Zilû), the list in9. That Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda were mayors is indicated by ‘Abdi-Ḫeba’s words: “Not a single mayor remains to the king . . . all are lost.” 10. I suggest deriving the verbal form nu-k[i-mi] (line 10) from a D stem of nkh, “to smite.” For the verbal form, compare EA 283:23 nu-di-ni (“has cast me”). The subject of the verb (if it is a 3rd per. sg.) is the rebel (arnu) mentioned in line 12. Another possibility is to restore nu-k[i-ú] and translate “they (the ‘Apiru) smote.”

156


cludes Ḫiziru (EA 336–337), Yaḫzib-Adda (EA 275–276), Yaḫtiru (EA 296) and Ṣi-x-ib?-ni (EA 294).11 ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti (EA 63–65, 335) must have been the successor of Shuwardata, and Shubandu (EA 301–306) was the predecessor of Yidia (Na’aman 1975:124–138; 1979:676–684). Two or three rulers are already known in all major kingdoms of southern Canaan. Thus, the six rulers whose capitals are unknown may have ruled either the small city-states of which only one ruler is known (Yurza, Zuḫra, Aḫtiashna, Na?-x-ḫa-x), or other citystates whose names do not appear in the extant Amarna letters.

The City of Ashdod in the Amarna Letters The large prosperous Late Bronze city located at Tel Ashdod poses a special problem for historical research. No city named Ashdod is mentioned either in the Amarna letters or in any other Late Bronze Egyptian source. Persons and products qualified as “Ashdadite(s)” are mentioned in the Ugaritic and Akkadian tablets from Ugarit, and scholars have suggested that they were merchants or goods named after the Canaanite town of Ashdod (Cross and Freedman 1964; Astour 1970:123–126; 1975:255–258, 342, with earlier literature). Recently, Arnaud (1992) surveyed all the texts from Ugarit that mention Canaanite port towns. The number of references to Sidon exceeds, by far, all other Canaanite cities. It is clear that Sidon conducted extensive commercial relations with Ugarit, far more than any other Canaanite city. Of the Palestinian cities, only Acco and Ashkelon are mentioned, each one only twice.12 Arnaud omitted (with no explanation) all the Ugaritic references to the Ashdadites, suggesting that the city of Ashdod is mentioned once in an Akkadian text. However, the separation of the Ugaritic from the Akkadian references to the Ashdadites is unlikely, inter alia because Ashdadite clothes are mentioned in both Akkadian (PRU VI 156) and Ugaritic (KTU 4.721) texts. All references to the Ashdadites in Ugarit must be investigated as one group. The most remarkable of these texts is KTU 4.635. At least 21 of the extant 62 persons named in this long list of names are called aḏddy (Ashdadite). The rest are native Ugaritians designated by their residence, occupation, or service. Astour (1970:125–126) suggested that all these persons were associ-

11. For discussion of his name, see Hess 1993:53, with earlier literature. 12. The assumed reference to Acco in RS 34.147 (Malbran-Labat 1991: No 5:15) is doubtful. The city’s name was consistently written Akka (not Akku), and the context of the letter (old boats of the king of Charchemish) does not fit a Canaanite city (the same is true for the assumed mention of Sidon in line 8). Indeed, Arnaud (1992) did not include it in his list of references to Acco (and to Sidon) in the texts of Ugarit.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 157 ated with the city of Ma’ḫadu, the harbor of Ugarit, and possibly lived there. An analysis of the names of the Ashdadites in this text indicates that most of them (16 or 17 out of 21) are West Semitic. A second text (KTU 4.352) lists persons who purchased large quantities of oil from royal estates. Among them are people from the kingdom of Ugarit and three foreigners: an Alashiyan, an Egyptian and an Ashdadite. This last’s personal name is broken. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian and the Alashiyan are called by West Semitic names. A third text (KTU 4.96) lists merchants who purchased the produce of royal estates. Some of them are from places in the kingdom of Ugarit, and three are foreigners: an Egyptian, a Canaanite and an Ashdadite. The Egyptian and Canaanite are called by West Semitic names, whereas the name of the Ashdadite is non-Semitic (Aryn) (Gröndahl 1967:220). One alphabetical text (KTU 4.721) and a cuneiform text (PRU VI 156) mention garments of Ashdad. Astour (1970:124) noted that “in ancient Near Eastern texts, the designation of merchandise by the place of origin almost invariably points to the latter’s foreign location, and this is also true for Ugarit.” Finally, an Ugaritic text (KTU 4.709) records the purchase of “seven talents of wool according to the talent of Ashdad, and according to the talent of Ugarit five talents 1800 (shekels).” Liverani (1972) clarified the relationship between the two weight systems and its significance for the commercial relationship between Ugarit and Ashdad. Among the personal names in the texts from Ugarit are m Ašdudana and f Ašdada (Astour 1970:124 n. 1; 1975:255–256). It is a well-known phenomenon that people who live in foreign countries have personal names derived from gentilics. These names again indicate that people of Ashdadite origin lived in the kingdom of Ugarit. Where is the site of the foreign city of Ashdad that maintained such close contacts with the kingdom of Ugarit? Identifying it with Ashdod, the south Palestinian city, is unlikely in light of the above-mentioned distribution of Canaanite cities in the texts from Ugarit. The names of important port towns located along the Syrian and Lebanese coast in the Late Bronze Age are too well known to insert another unidentified town. The many West Semitic names among the Ashdadites preclude its identification with an Anatolian city. With all due caution, I would suggest identifying Ashdad with the important Cypriot port city of Enkomi. Enkomi is the closest Cypriot harbor to Ugarit; their close relationship, as indicated by the extensive archaeological excavations conducted on the two sites, are too well known to require comment. Enkomi’s prosperity reached its zenith in the 13th century, the time in which the Ashdadites are men-

158


tioned in the documents from Ugarit. The remarkable place of the Ashdadites in the tablets from Ugarit, the different standard of weights and the export of a special kind of garment — all fit Enkomi very well. It is not clear whether the high percentage of West Semitic names among the Ashdadites, as reflected in tablet KTU 4.635, represents either the general population of the city or is typical only of the community that lived at Ma’ḫadu. Either way, provided that the suggested identification of Ashdad with Enkomi is acceptable, it indicates the migration of people of West Semitic origin from the coast of Lebanon to Cyprus and the long preservation of their cultural inheritance. The Late Bronze city of Enkomi may be compared with Iron Age Kition, which for hundreds of years kept its Phoenician cultural identity and was the main Cypriot port of trade with the Phoenician cities (particularly Tyre) in the first millennium BCE. The place name Ashdad is West Semitic. It is derived from the verb ŠDD and is built according to the ’aqṭāl paradigm, like other second millennium East Mediterranean harbors (e.g., Arwada, Achshaph, Akhlab, Ashkelon) (Astour 1975:257).13 This is another indication that people who spoke a West Semitic language founded the city. A land called Alashiya is mentioned in various texts from East Mediterranean second millennium kingdoms (Ḫatti, Mari, Alalakh, Ugarit and Egypt) (see references in Knapp 1996). Letters sent from Alashiya appear in the Amarna and Ugarit archives. Alashiya is certainly identical with Cyprus, all other suggestions being untenable (for discussions and literature, see Muhly 1972; Catling 1975:197–203; Hellbing 1979; Knapp 1996a). It must have been a name for a vast territory, most probably for the entire island of Cyprus. Otherwise, its ruler would not have been considered a great king, equal in international status to other members of the “club” of great powers. Indeed, the name Alashiya usually appears with the KUR determinative, i.e., as a name for territory. In a few texts, Alashiya appears with the URU determinative. It is well known that scribes who worked in the peripheral kingdoms did not consistently distinguish among determinatives, and sometimes used URU, or KUR.URU, for KUR. An examination of all the references where Alashiya appears with the URU determinative reveals that no single text refers unequivocally to a city.14 A town named Alashiya is not borne out by the textual ev-

13. The suggestion of Lemche and Thompson (1994:13) that the name Ashdod is composed of the element dwd is erroneous. 14. See Knapp 1996:4, with earlier literature. For the Mari references, see Sasson 1996; for the Ugaritic text, see Walls 1996:40. It may be noted that the colophon in KTU 4.102 is

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 159 idence. We may conclude that Alashiya was a name either for the island of Cyprus, or sometimes for a part of it, and that the claim that a certain city was called Alashiya is yet to be confirmed. Finally, there is new, as yet unpublished evidence (based on a petrographic analysis of the Amarna tablets) that Enkomi is not identical with Alashiya of the Amarna letters (in the meantime, see Artzy, Perlman and Asaro 1976; Knapp 1996a:6). The new evidence suggests that Enkomi may have been called by a name other than Alashiya. It fits my suggestion that the city’s name was Ashdad in the 14th–13th centuries BCE. What then was the name of the biblical Ashdod in the Late Bronze Age? As noted above, no Late Bronze Egyptian source mentions Ashdod. Admittedly, towns located on the Philistine coast rarely appear in Egyptian topographical lists. Ashdod is mentioned for the first time in the Onomasticon of Amenope from the reign of Ramesses XI (1099–1070), together with Gaza and Ashkelon. M. Dothan (1992) suggested that during the New Kingdom, Ashdod was an Egyptian center and the residence of an Egyptian governor (see Kitchen 1993). This may be true for the time of the XIXth-XXth Dynasties, when Egypt greatly expanded its territory in Canaan, but is unlikely for the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Moreover, all the Egyptian centers are mentioned in the Amarna letters, but never Ashdod. Dothan’s suggestion does not solve the problem. Is it possible that the Late Bronze city was called by another name? According to this hypothesis, a group that migrated from Enkomi in the 12th century and settled in Tel Ashdod named it after their place of origin. I have already noted that names of some Late Bronze city-states fell into oblivion after the collapse of the system of Canaanite cities in the 12th century; hence, the locations remain unknown. Moreover, many Canaanite cities that are mentioned in Late Bronze Egyptian topographical lists are unidentified. Some cities may have been renamed in late time and their old names fell into oblivion. Renaming a place when it has changed ownership is attested amply in the Bible (Eissfeldt 1968). This must have been a well-known phenomenon, although the scope of renaming is unknown. The assumption that Ashdod was renamed in the early Iron Age at least has some parallels in other sources. There is a great danger in drawing conclusions on the basis of lack of evidence (i.e., the non-mention of Ashdod in the Amarna and Egyptian sources).

broken on both sides. It is possible either that a KUR sign appeared on the left side or that a post-determinative KI sign appeared on the right side (as restored in KTU).

160


Nevertheless, I believe that a case may be made for the suggestion that Iron Age Ashdod was called by a different name in the Late Bronze Age. A certain place called Tianna is mentioned in letters of the rulers of Gezer (EA 298), Ashkelon (EA 306) and Gath* (EA 284). I have already suggested (Na’aman 1979: 679–681) that the three letters were written at about the same time and reflect a situation in which rebellions and disturbances spread through the south Canaanite kingdoms (for details, see Na’aman 1975:69–72, 102–104, 205–206, 208). The three (unfortunately partly broken) passages in which Tianna is mentioned run as follows: (a) EA 298:20–30: “May the king, my lord, be informed that my younger brother, having become enemy, entered Muḫḫazu and pledged himself to the ‘Apiru. And now [Ti]anna ([uruTi]-an-na[k]i) is at war with me. So govern (milik) your land.”15 (b) EA 306:28–35: “And may you, my lord, know that they have set fire to your cities and your places. [And no]w [Tia]nna ([uruTi-a]n-naki) [is at war? against? you]r? [servant?].”16 (c) EA 284:30–32: “ . . . uruT[i]-i[a-n]a, and n[ow?] he/they at[tac]ked? it (im[g]u-[g]u-m[i]-ši).” For the verb magāgu, see Kottsieper 1988. The three letters indicate that rebellion broke out in the city of Tianna and spread to neighboring areas and that its outcome endangered the kingdoms of Gezer, Gath* and Ashkelon. Who the rebels were is not related in the letters. Muḫḫazu is located south of Gezer’s border and was sometimes identified at Tell es-Sulṭan, near Nebi Rubin (Alt 1925:17; M. Dothan 1952). It seems to me that Beya, the son of Gulatu, whose misdeeds were the subject of the bitter complaints of Ba‘lu-shipṭi of Gezer (EA 292:41–52) and of Ṣi-x-ib?-ni (EA 294:16–26), was the leader of a band of ‘Apiru that stayed at Muḫḫazu.17 The armed band used to capture travelers and release them for a high ransom

15. Rainey’s objection (1989–90:72) to the restoration Tianna lacks concrete foundations. An almost complete ki sign is clearly seen on the tablet (collated). For the verb malāku in the Amarna letters, see Renger 1988; Zaccagnini 1993. 16. The end of the an sign is clearly seen on the tablet (collated). Rainey’s restoration (1989–90:72) of a lu sign is erroneous. 17. Albright (1946:19 No 46; 1969:489 n. 22; 1975:104) suggested that Peya was a minor Egyptian officer and bore an Egyptian name (see Helck 1971:255; Hess 1993:123). However, the name Beya is known from the texts of Emar, Assyria, Ḫatti (Hess 1993:123), Ugarit (Gröndahl 1967:305, 330) and Alalakh (AT 199:31). Beya is also the name of a high Egyptian official of Canaanite origin in the late years of the Egyptian XIXth Dynasty (Freu 1988; de Moor 1990:136–151). His mother, Gulatu, had a West Semitic name (Hess 1993:68). I very much doubt the Egyptian origin of his name. Be that as it may, Beya, the son of Gulatu, must have been a local leader of a band that operated in the southern coast of Canaan in the Amarna period.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod

161

(EA 292:47–51; 294:18–24). In a situation of internal disturbances (Tianna’s rebellion), the rebellious prince sought the military support of the band of ‘Apiru in an effort to gain power and overthrow the elected king. Indeed, Yapaḫu reigned for only a short time and was soon replaced by a Ba‘lu-shipṭi, the author of letters EA 292–293 (Na’aman 1975:69–72).18 There is another source that refers to Tianna, not discussed until now in scientific literature. In an Egyptian administrative text (Papyrus Petersburg 1116A) of the time of Amenophis II (1427–1401) (Redford 1965), there appear two lists of “maryannu from Djahi” who received beer and corn from the administrative authorities in Memphis (see Helck 1963:623 lines 67–77, 628 lines 183–190; 1971:166; Epstein 1963). The lists of Canaanite towns are almost identical, although recorded in a different order. The names of the towns that sent the envoys (designated by the honorary title maryannu) are as follows: Megiddo, Chinnereth, Achshaph, Šmrn (i.e., Shamḫuna), Taanach, Mishal, Tnn (Helck: tì-n-ni), Sharuna, Ashkelon, Hazor and “the small one from Htm.”19 An envoy from Lachish is also mentioned in this text. Most of the cities enumerated are known to have corresponded with the Pharaoh in the Amarna period. We may safely assume that each envoy represented a city-state and was sent to Egypt by his lord (a secondary town within a city-state would never send envoys to Egypt!). Their mission must have been either political or ceremonial (i.e., to bring the inw-contributions for the New Year’s parade), and their expenditures were covered, at least partially, by the Egyptian court. Where was the Tnn mentioned in the list of city-states? Alt (1916) identified it with the ti-en-ni mentioned in letter EA 260, and other scholars agreed (e.g., Epstein 1963:52–53; Ahituv 1984:188). The text of EA 260 (lines 11–16) runs as follows: May the Great King take cognizance of his servant, for I reside in É-ti4 ti-en-ni. So may the Great King, my lord, take cognizance of his servant.

The letter was undoubtedly sent from a Syrian town (Artzi 1968). The city-states enumerated in Papyrus Petersburg are all located in Palestine, ex-

18. Letter EA 300 is Yapaḫu’s last letter. For translation and early literature, see Moran 1992. Lines 10–14 may tentatively be restored thus: “[May the king know about] m[y town]s ([URUdi]dli.ḫ[i-i]a), for they have been t[ak]en (ti-[il-te]-qa) from my country. And indeed I have nothing left.” Line 10 is restored on the basis of the similarity of the fragmented signs to line 19 (URUdidli.hi-ni-ia), as well as the words of lines 15–22, which indicate that he lose his towns. 19. The statement referring to “the small one” is not clear. Helck (1971:166 n. 135) wondered if it had to do with the succession to the throne.

162


cept for Sharuna that is probably located in Bashan (see EA 241;20 Edel 1966: 13–14). Identifying the Tnn of the Egyptian text with the assumed toponym mentioned in EA 260 expands the geographical scope of the list considerably. Moreover, the reading Bit-tenni in letter EA 260 (as suggested by Moran 1992: 311) is not free of doubts. First, there is no URU sign before the assumed place name. Second, the element bīt (“house of ”) is quite rare in second millennium Syrian toponyms (for example, it does not appear among the toponyms from Ugarit). Third, a toponym does not fit well the context of the passage, in which the author (Balu-Mer) relates how dangerous his situation is. Note, too, the similarity between the words in lines 13–14 and those of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s letter: EA 260:13–14: ù a-na-ku a-na É-tì ti-en-ni ú-ša-ab EA 62: 17–18: šum-ma i-na a-šar É ni-iḫ aš-ba-ku (“Had I been staying in a place/house which was calm”).

In light of the comparison, it would seem that the author of letter EA 260 made use of a descriptive expression (”For I reside in a . . . house/place”). Akkadian tēnû means “substitute” (AHW 1347a) and is construed with bītu. Did Balu-Mer compare his place to an adjoining house, not an integral part of the main house where everyone else stayed? Or did he use a loan word to describe his place (compare EA 294:22 bīti šunūti)? The identification of the Tnn of the Papyrus Petersburg with the city of Tianna mentioned in the three Amarna letters is not fraught with difficulties. Tianna is located near the borders of Gezer, Gath* and Ashkelon, and placing it at Tel Ashdod, in between the three kingdoms, fits very well. With all due caution, I suggest that Tianna was a south Canaanite city-state located in Tel Ashdod. Muḫḫazu must have been a border town of Tianna, situated near its northern border with the kingdom of Gezer. Of the several south Canaanite rulers whose seat is unknown, Yaḫtiru, who “guards the city gate of Gaza and the city gate of Joppa” (EA 296:31–33), may have ruled Tianna (Tel Ashdod). Another candidate ruler for Tianna is Ṣix-ib? -ni, the author of letter EA 294. This ruler complains that Beya, possibly the leader of a band that stayed in Muḫḫazu (see above), captured the men that he sent for service in Joppa. Placing his city south of Muḫḫazu, and as-

20. The second half of letter EA 241 is partly broken, but may tentatively be restored as follows (lines 12–20): “And here and now the king, my lord, [the ‘Apiru??] are [m]an[y] ([m]aa-d[u]). O[ne (1-[en]) was caught?? near/in the ci]ty (‘URU’) of the king, my lord. Another was smitten by my hand, for I am a loyal servant of the king, my lord.”

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 163 suming that his men were captured when they were on their way north to Joppa, fits nicely with Tianna’s assumed location. Tel Ashdod was destroyed in the early 12th century BCE, and among the early settlers on the site there may have been people from Ashdad (Enkomi), who renamed it after their town of origin. I am fully aware of the uncertainty entailed in the two parts of my suggestion, the identification of the city of Ashdad at Enkomi, and in particular the identification of Tianna at Tel Ashdod. However, I believe that the arguments given above are strong enough to encourage other scholars to enter the discussion and either agree (at least partially) or suggest other solutions for these complicated textual-archaeological problems.

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in North Palestine The Amarna letters indicate that Shechem was the strongest kingdom in central Palestine, whereas Megiddo, Acco, Achshaph and Hazor were the most important kingdoms in the north. Their rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh and are mentioned also in letters of their neighbors. Hazor was the most important kingdom in Canaan, although its prominence is not enough indicated by the Amarna letters. Other kingdoms that are mentioned in the Amarna tablets are Gath-padalla, Gath-kirmil, Taanach, [x-I]G-ma-te (EA 257),21 and Shamḫuna.22 Establishing the number of city-states in north Palestine is more complicated than in the south, as each ruler sent only a few letters, and many rulers did not mention their city. Moreover, in several letters we cannot even decide whether they were sent from northern Palestine, or from areas north/ northeast of it. Among the possible north Palestinian rulers whose seat is unknown are Dashru (EA 261–262), Bayadi (EA 237–238), Baduzana (EA 239), ‘Abdina (EA 229), Shipturiṣa (EA 226), Y/Wiktasu (EA 221–222), Aḫi-y[a . . .] (EA 217),23 and Bayawa (EA 215–216). 21. Rainey’s suggestion (1989:570–571; 1989–1990:70) to transcribe [uruKIN-t]i ma-gal in line 21 must be rejected on paleographic grounds. Both Knudtzon’s transcription and the facsimile of Schroeder are at variance with his proposed text alterations. 22. There is no indication in the Amarna correspondence that Shamḫuna was an important Canaanite city. The city and its rulers are mentioned only in Shum-Adda’s letters, in reference to the plundering of a Babylonian caravan (EA 8). The city and its ruler are not mentioned even in the episode of Lab’ayu’s slaying, that probably took place in Shamḫuna’s territory. The relative small size of Tel Shimron in the Late Bronze Age (see Portugali 1982:185–187) accords well with the evidence of the Amarna tablets. 23. For West Semitic parallels to the name Aḫi-ya . . . (“The divine brother is . . . ”), see Zadok 1977: 355b.

164


Another ruler may possibly be mentioned in letter EA 238. Bayadi, the author of letters EA 237–238, was an ally of Lab’ayu, king of Shechem, and he complained that after his enemies (whose names are broken) captured Lab’ayu, they attacked and conquered his towns. The passage EA 238:21–28 is partly broken, but may tentatively be restored thus: [They] hav[e attacked? Lab’ayu?] and the son of Ḫ[a]g[urru? (xxx)] and Ḫagurru (xx)], and they have captured [Lab’ayu] and attacked m[e]. They have captured the cities of the magnate, my lord.24

Ḫagurru, Lab’ayu’s ally, is another mayor whose seat is unknown. Finkelstein questioned the status of Taanach as an independent city-state in the Amarna letters. However, the archive of 13 cuneiform tablets discovered on the site leaves no doubt that Taanach was a city-state in the late 15th century. Its ruler (Rewashur) received letters from both neighboring kings and from an Egyptian officer stationed at Gaza. The palace management was administered partly in the Akkadian language. A messenger of Taanach is mentioned in Papyrus Petersburg 1116A among the other Canaanite envoys. Excavations conducted on the site indicate that it was sparsely inhabited in Late Bronze II (Glock 1993:1432). However, according to letter EA 248, Taanach (Taḫn[ak]a) was the seat of an independent ruler (Yashdata), who participated, with other rulers, in the pursuit after Lab’ayu (EA 245:11–18). There can be no doubt that Taanach’s status as independent city-state was maintained in spite of its (gradual?) downfall. Maintaining the status of a city-state in spite of drastic downfall is illustrated by the example of Ekron in the first millennium. During the early Iron Age, Ekron was a large fortified city covering about 50 acres (Gitin and Dothan 1987; T. Dothan 1989; Gitin 1989). Following its destruction in the tenth century BCE, the city shrank, lost its fortifications, and covered only the site’s summit. It was smaller and weaker than many fortified cities of the neighboring kingdoms. Yet, Ekron remained a city-state, as indicated by Amos 1:8 and by the recently discovered dedication inscription, which mentions the five ancestors of its early seventh century BCE ruler (Gitin, Dothan and Naveh 1997). The prestigious status of Ekron in the early Iron Age did not vanish even after the city’s utter decline. 24. The restoration of lines 21–22 is ad sensum. The restoration of line 25 is supported by the text of EA 237. In line 23, Moran (1992) restored DUMU ms[à]-t[a-at-na]. However, Surata, the father of Satatna, participated in the operation against Lab’ayu (EA 245), and Satatna ascended the throne after Lab’ayu’s death. Moreover, Acco was an enemy, not an ally, of Lab’ayu. I, therefore, restore in line 23 DUMU mḫ[a]-gu[r-ru (xxx)]. Like many princes who participated in operations during their father’s reign, Ḫagurru’s son took part in the operation side by side with his father.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 165 Other city-states, not mentioned in the Amarna archive, are attested in Egyptian royal inscriptions. Amenophis II, in his campaign to Canaan, relates that on his return he brought with him Qaqa, the prince (wr) of Geba‘-śmn, and appointed another ruler (wr) in his place (Edel 1953:123 lines 116–118, 135, 157; Wilson 1969:247). Two towns named Geba‘ appear in the topographical list of Thutmose III. The second Geba‘ (No. 114) is mentioned after Jokneam (No. 113), and is safely identified at Tell Abu Shusheh (Schmitt 1987: 23–41, with earlier literature). The first Geba‘ (No. 41) is written Geba‘-śmn and is identical with the city-state mentioned by Amenophis II. The city appears in the group Mishal (39), Achshaph (40), Geba‘-śmn (41), Taanach (42) and Yibleam (43). It is apparently located in the western or southern Jezreel Valley and was identified with Tell el-‘Amr or Tell Harbaj (Rainey 1973:74–75; Schmitt 1987:42–48, with earlier literature). Regardless of its exact location, Geba‘-śmn was doubtless a Canaanite city-state. Amenophis II further relates that he plundered the city of Anaharath and enumerates the booty he took from the place (Edel 1953: 123 lines 112–115, 134– 135, 157; Wilson 1969:247). Enumerating in the booty list are six sons of rulers (wrw), 17 maryannu, seven horses and seven chariots. It is unlikely that princes, a military elite and chariots would have been captured in a secondary town. It is clear that Anaharath was also a north Palestinian city-state. It is identified at Tel Rekhesh, dominating the basalt plateaus of the eastern Lower Galilee. The cities of Mishal and Chinnereth appear in the list of envoys who traveled to Egypt on an official mission in the time of Amenophis II. Chinnereth is identified at Khirbet el-‘Oreimeh, and a Late Bronze I settlement has been found in the recently conducted excavations of the site (Fritz 1993:211–212). A scarab of Tiye, consort of Amenophis III, was discovered there (Hübner 1986:258–259, 264), indicating that Chinnereth was still settled in the first half of the 14th century. Like Taanach, it might have been an independent city-state until its abandonment in the second half of the 14th century BCE. Mishal was already a city-state in the Middle Bronze Age, as indicated by its mention in the Execration Texts (Posener 1940:71–72). The city must have kept its political status in the Late Bronze Age. It is located, possibly, in one of the mounds of the Acco plain (Tell Kisan? Tell en-Naḥl?). The city of Rehob is not mentioned in the Amarna letters, but was doubtless a city-state, as indicated by Seti I’s inscription from Beth-shean. In describing the rebellion initiated by the leader of Hamath, the Egyptian king noted that “he does not permit the prince (wr) of Rehob to go outside” (Wilson 1969:253). Rehob is also mentioned in a letter from Taanach (TT 2:22) and is safely identified at the large mound of Tell eṣ-Ṣarem. It was the major Canaanite city in the Beth-shean Valley. The case of Rehob shows how erro-

166


neous is the assumption that all the major Canaanite city-states are mentioned in the extant Amarna archive. Finally, there are some sites that might have been seats of local rulers, even though their names are missing from the Amarna letters. We may note Tel Dor, which, in the first millennium, was always an independent district (see Na’aman 1986b:184–186), Tel Jokneam and Tel Qarnei-Ḥiṭṭin. The Amarna letters tell us very little about the scope of the north Palestinian kingdoms. The clearest example is letter EA 250, in which Ba‘luUR.SAG relates that Lab’ayu attacked Shunem, Burquna and Ḫarabu, seized Gath-rimmunima and “cultivated the fields? of the king” (lines 41–47). Burquna and Ḫarabu are identified in the Dothan Valley (see locations and literature in Finkelstein 1996: 236). Hence, the entire Dothan Valley, or a considerable part of it, was situated outside Lab’ayu’s kingdom (Na’aman 1975: 45; Bunimovitz 1989:142). The Dothan Valley may have been the seat of a local king, who naturally was a vassal of the strong king of Shechem. The territory of Beth-shean must have included the Pharaonic lands in the Jezreel Valley (Na’aman 1988d). Finkelstein suggested that “Egyptian centers did not possess large territories beyond their immediate surroundings,” and that “the local population was considered to be under the jurisdiction of the nearest Canaanite city-state.” The latter statement is implausible, because this would have allowed neighboring rulers freedom to intervene in the internal affairs of the Egyptian centers. Moreover, in one of his letters (EA 102:22–24), Rib-Hadda describes the local authorities of Ṣumur as made of “a magnate (lúrabû) and the lords of the city (amēlūti bēle āli).” In Canaanite citystates, the lords of the city were the urban institution that represented the citizens before the king. In the Egyptian centers, these lords represented the citizens before the local Egyptian authorities. In another letter (EA 62), ‘AbdiAshirta reports that he guards the Egyptian centers of Ṣumur and Ullasa, and adds: “I also guard the barley harvest of Ṣumur and of all the lands of the king” (lines 26–28). Like all other Canaanite cities, Ṣumur had tracts of arable land in its vicinity. Each Egyptian center was no doubt a territorial unit encompassing enough territory for the maintenance of the local population. Finkelstein’s maps, in which all Egyptian centers were included within the territory of the nearby Canaanite cities, are evidently wrong. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the following five points: 1. In order to reconstruct territorial-political systems, it is necessary to apply theoretical models and to take into account the geographical features and archaeological data (i.e., settlement size and distribution, demography), as well as the long-range perspectives. We may also apply a size factor for the polity system and draw schematic boundaries between territories. Such

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 167 reconstruction works very well for illiterate societies, where there is no alternative but to extract the data from non-documentary evidence. However, scholars should never forget that reality may have been largely, or even entirely, unlike the results of theoretical models, no matter how logical they seem, because human activities do not follow any particular model. The development of territorial-political systems involves many factors, and no human mind is able to reconstruct them, unless detailed written sources are available. When documentary evidence is available, it must be taken into account as a point of departure for the territorial discussion. The main problem with Finkelstein’s reconstruction is his effort to force the evidence into a rigid scheme that he made on the basis of theoretical considerations. He sometimes ignored unequivocal evidence that did not fit into his preconceived territorial scheme and interpreted all other evidence in an effort to fit it into his model. His maps, in which 13–14 relatively large kingdoms divide the entire territory of Palestine, neither do justice to the complexity of the system of Canaanite city-states and Egyptian centers, nor take into account the large uninhabited parts of the country, which were not effectively controlled by neighboring kingdoms. 2. The major Canaanite kingdoms along the coast of Palestine were Acco and Ashkelon. Gezer, Gath* and Lachish were the most important kingdoms in southern Palestine. Shechem was the major kingdom in the central hill country, and Hazor dominated the area of Galilee. Megiddo and possibly Rehob and Achshaph were the major city-states in the northern plains. Many other kingdoms are attested as well, some of which cannot be located. In the south were Yurza, Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, Na-x-ḫa-x, and, possibly, Tianna and Zilû. In central Palestine were Gath-padalla and, possibly, Gath-kirmil. In the north were Taanach, Geba‘-śmn, Mishal, Shamḫuna, [x-I]G-ma-te, Anaharath and, possibly, Chinnereth. Sites like Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton, Khirbet Rabud, Dor, Tel Jokneam and Tel Qarnei Ḥiṭṭin may have been the seats of city-state rulers. It is possible, of course, that some of the mayors whose seats are unknown ruled in these places or that some cities were called by old names whose identity remains unknown. 3. The overall number of city-states in Palestine was at least 25, probably more. The network of Canaanite kingdoms was composed of kingdoms of higher and lesser rank. To a certain extent, the political affairs were dictated by the major kingdoms, and some of the lesser city-states were dependent on their stronger neighbors. The latter were able to dictate policy and intervene in internal affairs. However, we must not forget that Egypt governed Canaan and that real power was in the hand of the Egyptians. Egypt intervened when internal developments endangered its interests, curbing and restraining the

168


power of ambitious rulers and, thereby, helping to maintain the delicate internal balance in its Asiatic province. 4. Only some internal borders — namely, those that passed through inhabited areas — should be precisely demarcated. Remarkable features in the settlement pattern of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age are the westward advance of the frontier (see Bunimovitz 1994b) and the growth of large uninhabited areas in the highlands, the Lower Jordan Valley and the Negeb. Drawing a map that divides the entire land among territorial entities blurs the territorial reality of the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, we should avoid drawing boundary lines in unsettled areas. I would also suggest avoiding exact calculations of the areas of kingdoms, unless located in inhabited regions. Demographic calculations of vast areas can be made on the basis of the number and size of settlements, but these calculations are highly uncertain when applied to the assumed areas of individual kingdoms. Ironically, it is easier to draw maps and make calculations for periods for which there is no written evidence than for partly documented periods. For the former, the selected model and the theoretical assumptions dictate the results, to a certain extent. For the latter, there is no alternative but to work with all the data and live with uncertainty. Better uncertainty and blanks that may be filled by future discoveries than theories and models that produce neat, but scientifically inaccurate, pictures. 5. Bunimovitz (1994) discussed in great detail the problem of human resources in second millennium Canaan. He emphasized that the diminished population in the Late Bronze Age rendered impossible such large-scale building endeavors as the earth- and stoneworks constructed in the Middle Bronze Age. The large number of Palestinian city-states and their relative small size further aggravated the problem of manpower. It must have been difficult for the small-scale kingdoms to mobilize enough people for public works. Their size and the shortage of manpower may partly explain the relative poverty of important Canaanite centers during in the Late Bronze II, as indicated in the archaeological excavations (e.g., Shechem, Jerusalem,25 Lachish, Gezer, Chinnereth and Taanach).

25. Finkelstein (1993:122–123; 1996) suggested that the territory of Late Bronze Jerusalem extended over the entire highlands of Judah up to the Beer-sheba Valley. The paucity of archaeological finds from Late Bronze Age II Jerusalem renders his suggestion highly unlikely (for further details, see Na’aman 1992).

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 169

References Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. AHW = von Soden, W. 1956–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Albright, W.F. 1924. The Town of Selle (Zaru) in the ‘Amarna Tablets. JEA 10: 6–8. Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography. JNES 5: 7–25. Albright, W.F. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490. Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/ 2. Cambridge: 98–116. Alt, A. 1916. Tenni. ZDPV 39: 264–265. Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. Reprint: Alt 1959: 158–175). Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58. Alt, A. 1927. Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buch Josua. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Sellin Festschrift: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas. Leipzig: 13– 24. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 193–202). Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Palästinas. PJb 32: 3–33. Alt, A. 1939. Erwägungen über die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. PJb 35: 8–63. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 126–175). Alt, A. 1941. Herren und Herrensitze Palästinas im Anfang des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. ZDPV 64: 21–39. (Reprint: Alt 1959: 57–71). Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 1– 20. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 216–230). Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt 1959: 107–140). Alt, A. 1953. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. In: Alt 1953a: 89–125. (Original publication: 1925. Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig). Alt, A. 1953a. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München. Alt, A. 1954. Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches nach Palästina. ZDPV 70: 33–75. Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München. Arnaud, D. 1992. Les ports de la “Phénicie” à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV-XIII siècles) d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30: 179–194. Artzi, P. 1968. Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318). JNES 27: 163– 171. Artzy, M. Perlman, I and Asaro, F. 1976. Alašiya of the Amarna Letters. JNES 35: 171–182. Astour, M. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13: 113–127. Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II. (Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 249–369. AT = Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London. Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Bunimovitz, S. 1994a. The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze and its SocioEconomic Implications. UF 26: 1–20.

170


Bunimovitz, S. 1994b. Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 179–202. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Catling, H.W. 1975. Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. Cambridge: 188–216. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78. Cross, F.M. and Freedman, D.N. 1964. The name of Ashdod. BASOR 175: 42–47. Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey. (MA Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Dhorme, E. 1908. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 5: 500–519. Dhorme, E. 1909. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 6: 50–73, 368–385. Dothan, M. 1952. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Rubin River. IEJ 2: 104–117. Dothan, M. 1992. Why was Ashdod not Mentioned in the New Kingdom Sources. Eretz Israel 23: 51–54. (Hebrew). Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 1–14. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Edel, E. 1953. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97–176. Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn. Eissfeldt, O. 1968. Renaming in the Old Testament. In: Ackroyd, P.R. and Lindars, B. eds. Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to D. Winton Thomas. Cambridge: 69–79. Epstein, C. 1963. A New Appraisal of some Lines from a Long-Known Papyrus. JEA 49: 49– 56. Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E. In: A. Biran and J. Aviram. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement (Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990). Jerusalem: 119–131. Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 221–255. Freu, J. 1988. La tablette RS 86.2230 et la phase finale du royaume d’Ugarit. Syria 85: 395– 398. Fritz, V. 1993. Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-‘Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot) 1982–1985 Seasons. Tel Aviv 20: 187–215. Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-II. Oxford. Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 23–58. Gitin, S. and Dothan, T. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 197–222. Gitin, S. Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47: 1–16. Glock, A.E. 1993. Taanach. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land IV. Jerusalem: 1428–1433. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome. Helck, W. 1963. Materialen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches IV. Wiesbaden.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 171 Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd rev. ed. Wiesbaden. Hellbing, L. 1979. Alasia Problems. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57). Göteborg. Hess, R.S. 1993. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake. Hübner, U. 1986. Aegyptiaca vom Tell el-‘Orēme. Liber Annus 36: 253–264. Jirku, A. 1937. Die ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig. Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. Kempinski, A. 1986. Kabri and its Environment in the Middle Bronze II. In: Yadaya, M. ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 66–72. (Hebrew). Kitchen, K.A. 1993. A “Funbearer on the King’s Right Hand” from Ashdod. Ashdod V. Excavation of Area G. (‘Atiqot 23). Jerusalem: 109–110. Knapp, A.B. ed. 1996. Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC. (Sources for the History of Cyprus II). Albany. Knapp, A.B. 1996a. Introduction. In: Knapp 1996: 1–13. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kottsieper, I. 1988. MGG – “Krieg führen, kämpfen.” Eine bisher übersehne nordwestsemitische Wurzel. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 125–133. KTU = Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 3–22. Liverani, M. 1972. Il talento di Ashdod. Oriens Antiquus 11: 193–199. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria. BASOR 234: 1–42. De Moor, J.C. 1990. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridium Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91). Leuven. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Muhly, J.D. 1972. The Land of Alashiya. References to Alashiya in the Texts of the Second Millennium BC and the History of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In: Karageorghis, V. ed. Acts of the First International Cyprological Congress. Nicosia: 201–219. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1982. Political History of Eretz Israel in the Time of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. The Early Periods. Jerusalem: 129– 256. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1986a. The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463–488. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1988a. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions Biblical Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: 17–26.

172


Na’aman, N. 1988b. The Southern Shephelah during the Late Bronze Age according to the Cuneiform Documents. In: Stern, E. and Urman, D. eds. Man and Environment in the Southern Shephelah. Beer-sheba: 93–98. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1988c. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193. Na’aman, N. 1988d. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500– 1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–186. Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to Canaan. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: 397–405. Na’aman, N. 1992. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291. Noth, M. 1935. Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches. ZDPV 58: 185–255. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I. Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 229–280). Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Portugali, Y. 1982. A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Jezreel Valley Survey, 1981). Tel Aviv 9: 170–188. Posener, G. 1940. Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles. PRU VI = Nougayrol, J. 1970. Le palais royal d’Ugarit VI. (Mission de Ras Shamra 12). Paris. Rainey, A.F. 1973. Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi. The Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10: 71–75. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets: 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tablets. 2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Rainey, A.F. 1989. Review of W.L. Moran, Les lettres d’El-Amarna. Correspondence diplomatique du pharaon, Paris 1987. Biblica 70: 566–572. Rainey A.F. 1989–90. A New Translation of the Amarna Letters – after 100 Years. AfO 36– 37: 56–75. Redford, D.B. 1965. The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II. JEA 51: 107–122. Renger, J. 1988. Zur Wurzel MLK in akkadischen Texten aus Syrien und Palästina. In: Archi, A. ed. Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving. Rome: 165–172. Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis IV. OLZ 42: 145–148. Schmitt, G. 1987. Geba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103: 22–48. Sasson, J.M. 1996. Akkadian Documents from Mari and Babylonia (Old Babylonian Period). In: Knapp 1996: 17–19. TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Vienna: 113–122. Vargon, S. 1990. El-Amarna Mu’rast and Biblical Moreshet. In: Klein, J. and Skaist, A. eds. Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology. Ramat Gan: 205–212. Walls, N. 1996. Ugaritic Documents from Ugarit. In: Knapp 1996: 36–40. Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264. Zaccagnini, C. 1993. Notes on the Pazarcik Stela. State Archives of Assyria, Bulletin 7: 53–72. Zadok, R. 1977. West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millennium BCE1 Introduction The boundaries of the kingdom of Jerusalem and its northern and southern neighbors in the second millennium BCE have been discussed by only a few scholars. This is hardly surprising, as detailed territorial discussions are dependent on written sources as well as reliable archaeological data. However, for the history of the hill country of Judah and Benjamin in the second millennium BCE, there is only one source — the Amarna archive — that covers about a quarter of a century and is too incomplete for the delineation of a border system. Detailed archaeological data of the distribution of settlements in the highlands of Judah was first published in the early 1970s (Kochavi 1972), and much more data on the territory of Benjamin, the area of Jerusalem, and the Judean hill country have recently been published in preliminary reports and summary discussions (e.g., Mazar 1990; Ofer 1990; see Finkelstein and Magen 1993). The new data, which were not available to scholars in the past, can now be evaluated to obtain a better picture of the border system of the central hill country in the second millennium BCE. Alt (1925:5–6, 12–13; 1953:107–108) suggested that Late Bronze Jerusalem was a small hill-country kingdom, about the same size as many other Shephelah and northern plain kingdoms. He reached this conclusion by an analysis of the Amarna letters and, to a certain extent, of later developments in the area in the pre-monarchial and monarchial periods. Kallai and Tadmor (1969:143–145), on the other hand, suggested that the boundaries of Jerusalem encompassed the entire Judean hills and that the ruler of Jerusalem was one of the important Canaanite kings of the Amarna period. They compared the status of Jerusalem’s ruler to that of the rulers of Shechem who dominated an extensive territory and who extended their political influence on remote territories. Their conclusions are founded on an analysis of the Amarna letters and on the biblical description of the king of Jerusalem as head of the Canaanite league that fought Joshua near Gibeon (Josh. 10). I have suggested that Alt’s analysis


173

174


is better founded and that the combination of the source material with the results of the archaeological surveys (not yet published when Kallai and Tadmor wrote their article) indicates that the territory of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age was fairly modest and the political influence of its king quite restricted (Na’aman 1975:104–114; 1986a:470–472; 1988:19–20). Recently, Finkelstein (1993:122–123) supported Kallai and Tadmor, suggesting that in the second millennium BCE, Jerusalem dominated the entire area between the Beer-sheba Valley in the south and Bethel in the north. My discussion will start with an analysis of the Amarna letters, our main written source for the problem. Subsequently, I will analyze the archaeological and documentary evidence of the second millennium BCE, and, finally, I will present data concerning the political and administrative relationship of Jerusalem with the southern Judean hill country in various historical periods. It seems to me that the new archaeological data, when combined with the documentary evidence and the analysis of the “longue durée,” may enable us to reach a definite conclusion about the place of Canaanite Jerusalem within the system of Canaanite kingdoms in the second millennium BCE.

1. An Analysis of the Amarna Letters The six letters sent from the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh (EA 285– 290) are our main source for Jerusalem in the Amarna period. Numerous letters sent to Egypt by the rulers of Gezer, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi)2 and others shed further light on the scope and political relationship of the king of Jerusalem vis à vis his western neighbors in the Shephelah. Although the Amarna archive covers only about a quarter of a century, it accurately reflects various aspects that either did not change at all for hundreds of years or were transformed slowly in the course of time, i.e., the relative political and economic strength of the city-states, their scope, the Egyptian system of garrison cities and administration, the relationship between the Canaanite rulers and the Egyptian Pharaoh, etc. Hence, the archive is essential for establishing the position, strength and territorial scope of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age.

2. For the problem of the location and name of Shuwardata’s city, see Kallai and Tadmor 1969:144–145; Aharoni 1969:141–145; Na’aman 1979:682–684, with earlier literature. The city of Gath (Gimti) mentioned in letter EA 290:9, 28 is Ginti-kirmil, Tagu’s capital. Shuwardata’s seat was apparently at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, but the name of his capital is nowhere mentioned in the Amarna letters. As Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi was the place of Philistine Gath in the Iron Age, it may be assumed that the place had been called by the name Gath in the Late Bronze Age. Hence, the name Gath* for Shuwardata’s city in this article.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors

175

For my discussion, it is important to note that the Amarna archive is a unique collection. It includes letters brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new capital, Akhetaten (Amarna), at the time when the royal court moved there, but lacks those letters taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment. The latter letters were apparently written at a relatively late stage and were taken for further correspondence to the new seat of the Pharaoh (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:35–36; Na’aman 1981:173–174). The number of letters transferred in both cases is unknown, and we do not know how many tablets were totally destroyed when the archive was discovered and before the importance of the tablets was recognized (Knudtzon 1915:1– 15; Campbell 1964:32–35). An illuminating example of the incomplete nature of the archive is the four Amarna tablets that comprise the second of originally two-tablet letter (EA 101, 113, 245, 251): In no case was the first tablet found! It is evident that only a portion of the original Amarna archive came down to us, and this must be taken into account in the historical discussion. The Amarna letters reflect well the balance of powers within the land of Canaan and the system of Canaanite kingdoms. Yet, the list of Canaanite citystates isrepresented only partially. Not only is the archive incomplete, but the seat of various rulers remains unknown. In southern Canaan alone, the seats of Shubandu (EA 301–306), Yaḫzib-Adda (EA 275–276) and Ḫiziru (EA 336–337) are unknown, and the locations of the city-states of Zuḫra (EA 334), Aḫtiashna (EA 319) and possibly also Zilu (EA 288, 335) are yet to be found. Moreover, numerous kingdoms mentioned in the Egyptian royal inscriptions (e.g., Rehob in the Beth-shean Valley, Anaharath in southern Lower Galilee and Geba‘-śmn in the Jezreel Valley [see Rainey 1973:74–75]) are absent from the archive. However, one should be cautious in drawing conclusions on the basis of negative evidence. The unique composition of the archive and its polemical-tendentious character require a careful and well-balanced discussion to properly extract information from the letters. The most important city-states located in the Shephelah were Gezer, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) and Lachish, the kingdom of Jerusalem having a common border with the first two kingdoms. The town of Keilah, located on the border of Gath* and Jerusalem, was apparently a former subject of Gath*. This is indicated by the continuity of letters EA 279 and 280. EA 279:11–13: “Shall I move (and) advance to the town of Keilah, against the re[bels]?” (for the translation, see Moran 1987:501). EA 280:9–15: “The king, my lord, sent me to make war against Keilah. I have made war; everything is all right with me; my town has been returned to me.” In the Amarna period, the sons of Keilah took advantage of the struggles of neighboring kingdoms to maneuver and gain independence. Jerusalem’s border passed northeast of Keilah, somewhere on the margins of the Judean hill country.

176


Two other towns, Aijalon and Zorah, located near the western margins of the hill country, were included in the territory of Gezer (EA 273). Manḫatu (EA 292:26–40) was likewise a town of the kingdom of Gezer; its exact location remains unknown (Albright 1942:36, n. 29; Kallai and Tadmor 1969:143). The kingdom of Gezer’s eastern border passed near the foothills and Jerusalem was its eastern neighbor. The location of Rubutu is disputed among scholars (see Aharoni 1969: 137–141; Ahituv 1984:165–167, with earlier literature). ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, complains that his adversaries (the king of Gezer and his allies, the rulers of Ginti-kirmil and Gath*) conquered Rubutu (EA 289:11–13; 290:11–15; possibly also EA 287:4–11), but he does not state that Rubutu was one of his towns. This is not accidental: In his letters ‘Abdi-Ḫeba keeps complaining of “misdeeds” in places located outside — sometimes even far away — from his borders (e.g., Zilu, Lachish, Beth-shean). Rubutu is mentioned neither in the town list of Solomon’s second district (1 Kgs. 4:9) nor the inheritance of Dan (Josh. 19:40–46) and must have been located outside of these areas. It is mentioned in Shishak’s topographical list, which may be reconstructed thus: (11) Ge[zer]; (12) Ma[. . .?]; (13) Rubutu; (26) Aijalon; (25) Gittaim; (24) Beth-horon (for the reconstruction, see Kitchen 1973:435; Na’aman 1992:79–80, with earlier literature in notes 8– 10). This group of toponyms opens the list of conquered towns. All were located within the territory of Israel, north of the border of Judah, near the main road leading from the northern Shephelah to the ascent of Beth-horon (Na’aman 1986b:6–7; 1992:81). It is clear that Rubutu should be sought on the northern or northeastern border of the kingdom of Gezer. Like Keilah it must have been a semi-independent town under the patronage of Gezer, the strongest kingdom in the area, and for unknown reasons (did a group of ‘Apiru find shelter in the town?) was conquered at that time by the king of Gezer and his allies. According to EA 290:14–18: “a town of Jerusalem, Bit-dNIN.URTA is its name . . . has deserted after/with the men of Keilah.” The identity of the Canaanite god whose name was written by the ideogram dNIN.URTA is disputed among scholars, and various identifications with sites located in the area of Jerusalem (e.g., Bethlehem, Beth-shemesh, Beth-horon etc.) have been offered (see Kallai and Tadmor 1969:138–141, with earlier literature; Lipiński 1985:101). However, none of the suggested decipherments of the name of the Canaanite god hidden under the “veil” of the Mesopotamian god Ninurta is convincing (see Na’aman 1990:252–254), and the proposed identifications of the site cannot be verified. Until further evidence for the decipherment of d NIN.URTA, the place (possibly located somewhere between Jerusalem and Keilah) should be left out of the discussion of Jerusalem’s boundaries.


177

In summary, Jerusalem’s western border passed near the margins of the hill country, and none of the places located in the Shephelah were included in its territory. The other borders of the kingdom of Jerusalem cannot be established with the help of the Amarna letters. According to biblical tradition, there were two Canaanite centers south of Jerusalem: Hebron and Debir (Josh. 10: 3,5,36–39; 12:10,13). However, the book of Joshua is not a reliable source for either a historical or a territorial discussion of the Late Bronze Age, and its evidence must be disregarded (see below, section 6). As was mentioned in the introduction, some scholars have suggested that the lack of mention of any Canaanite city-state south of Jerusalem indicates that Jerusalem dominated the entire Judean hills. However, the evidence for such a claim is inconclusive. It was pointed out that even central Canaanite kingdoms located in the Valley of Beth-shean (Rehob) and in southern Lower Galilee (Anaharath) are missing from the Amarna correspondence and that the cities of numerous petty kings who ruled in southern Canaan are unknown. One may further add the evidence from the Beqa‘ of Lebanon: Some twelve territorial units, each located in the center of a fertile agricultural area, have been detected in the course of the detailed survey conducted in the area (Marfoe 1979:12–14). However, only six city-states located in the Beqa‘ (Guddashuna, Tubiḫu, Ḫasi, Tushulti, Enishazi, Kumidi) are mentioned in the Amarna archive (Weippert 1970). The use of negative evidence, which is always uncertain, is particularly hazardous in the context of the Amarna archive. The problem of the territorial affinity of the southern Judean hill country to the kingdom of Jerusalem must be examined in light of the archaeological evidence and the relationship of the two areas as is evident from earlier and later sources.

2. Was Jerusalem Mentioned in the Execration Texts? Not much is known of Canaanite Jerusalem, in spite of the extensive excavations conducted at the site. This is due to the intensive building on the site in later periods, each strata contributing to the destruction of its predecessors. The Middle Bronze II city was fortified by a strong stone wall that was in use until the end of the Late Bronze Age. Supporting walls and fills have been discovered near the stone wall and at the top of the site (Kenyon 1974:88–97; Shiloh 1984:26). The findings from the MB II and LB are quite poor and unimpressive and do not add anything substantial to the discussion. The excavations conducted in Jerusalem did not clarify the problem of the scope and strength of the kingdom in the second millennium BCE. It is commonly accepted by scholars that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts. The ostensible mention of the city among the im-

178


portant Canaanite centers at the time of the XIIth Dynasty is the main basis for the assumption that Jerusalem held an important place in the central hill country from the 19th century BCE onward. The early group of Execration Texts is inscribed upon bowls that were smashed and buried. It includes fourteen place-names or regions in Canaan and is dated to about the mid–19th century BCE (Sethe 1926; Posener 1966: 277–287; Helck 1971:44–50; Posener, Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:541, 548). Most of the places are unknown from post-MB sources and represent either towns that did not survive in later periods or names of tribes by which these regions were called. Only five/six towns were identified: Byblos, Arqat and Ullasa on the Lebanese coast and Ashkelon, Rehob (possibly Tel Kabri; see Kempinski 1986:70–72) and, seemingly, Jerusalem (rwš3mm) in Palestine. For each toponym there are names of several (usually three) rulers, which is typical to tribal society. The second group of texts is inscribed upon figurines in the form of prisoners; these figurines were smashed and buried. The text includes about sixtyfour names of towns or regions in Canaan and is dated to the late 19th or early 18th century BCE (Posener 1940; Mazar 1947; Helck 1971:50–63; Posener, Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:548, 557–558). Unlike the early group, most of the towns in this group are well-known, as they appear in later sources. Of the names of the early group, fourteen out of eighteen appear in the second group, and among them is rwš3mm. For each place, we find one ruler (sometimes two). The difference between the two groups reflects well the drastic change in urban life that had taken place in Canaan since the early group of Execration Texts was inscribed: Many new towns had been founded, and dynasties headed by a single king had been established in most of the territorial units. The distribution of the Palestinian towns in this group is significant: almost all are located in the coast, the Shephelah and the northern plains. Only Shechem and, seemingly, Jerusalem are located in the central hill country. This fits nicely the results of the archaeological excavations and surveys conducted in Palestine, according to which, urban life in the Middle Bronze Age began in the coastal areas and the northern plains and only slowly and gradually spread to the other regions. Only in the 18th century BCE did the wave of settlement in the hill country begin, reaching its zenith in the 17th century when the highlands were extensively settled and held central place in the country’s political and urban life (Gophna and Beck 1981; Broshi and Gophna 1986; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Bunimovitz 1989; Finkelstein 1988–89:140– 144; 1991:20–30, with earlier literature in p. 20, n. 6; Finkelstein 1993). This is the background against which the ostensible mention of Jerusalem in the Execration Texts must be examined. First, it is noteworthy that the city’s name in all other sources has consistently contained an initial conso-


179

nant of waw/yod, unlike the rwš3mm of the Execration Texts. Second, only a few important coastal cities are inscribed in the early group of the Execration Texts. No single identifiable town located in the Shephelah, the northern plains or the Jordan Valley is recorded. The mention of a marginal hill country city within this group of toponyms, therefore, is quite unlikely. Third, in the Late Bronze Age, when Egypt ruled Canaan, Egypt’s main concern was in the lowlands. For this reason, no hill country Palestinian town except for Shechem is ever mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions of the XVIIIth-XIXth Dynasties. The distribution of toponyms in the Execration Texts fits this pattern. On the other hand, the seeming appearance of Jerusalem within the two groups of Execration Texts hardly conforms with this consistent second millennium Egyptian pattern of interest. Fourth, it is not at all clear that the city of Jerusalem had been built in the mid–19th century BCE (see Kenyon 1974:88–97; Shiloh 1984:26). Admittedly, the strata of second millennium Jerusalem were preserved only in fragmentation. On the other hand, excavations have been performed on a very large scale at the site of the Canaanite city. The least that one can say is that no positive evidence for a 19th century city was discovered in the excavations, and there is no corroborative evidence even for the possibility that Jerusalem was mentioned in the early group of the Execration Texts. It seems, therefore, that a big question mark remains as to the identification of Jerusalem with the rwš3mm of the Execration Texts. As is well known, there are several ways to decipher words written in Egyptian transcription. The first part of the name (rwš) may reflect West Semitic r’š (“head”); the omission of the aleph is due to prononciation. It has excellent parallels in the transcription of the toponym rwšqdš (Rosh-qidshi) in the Topographical List of Thutmose III and in the Canaanite gloss ru-šu-nu (“our head”) in an Amarna letter (EA 264:18) (see Helck 1971:126, 541; Rainey 1982:343, 352). The second part may stand for Semitic rmm, “be exalted.” The name Rôsh-ramem (“the exalted Head”) may semantically be compared with the toponym Roshqidshi (“the holy Head”; see Ahituv 1984:162–163). It must be emphasized, however, that my discussion is in no way dependent on the etymology of the name. After all, we do not know the etymology of most of the toponyms mentioned in the Execration Texts. Rôsh-ramem? joins the majority of toponyms in the early group that re-appear in the late group of Execration Texts, but are not mentioned in any other post-Middle Bronze Age source, and whose location or identity (i.e., whether they are towns or names of regions) remain unknown. We may conclude that Shechem is the only city located in the central hill country that appears in the Execration Texts. This fits well the mention of the “land of Shechem” in the stele of Khu-sebekh of the late 19th century BCE

180


(Helck 1971:42–43; Posener, Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:538, with earlier literature in n. 2). Shechem appears there as center of a large territorial entity, consistent with its outstanding place in the central hill country throughout the second millennium BCE. It is possible that Jerusalem was fortified during the 18th century BCE, becoming the center of a kingdom (whose scope is yet to be defined) only from this time onward.

3. The Settlement in the Hill Country of Judah and Benjamin in the Second Millennium BCE In the area of Benjamin, 42 sites of the MB and not a single LB site have been discovered (Finkelstein 1991:29). Only eight MB settlement sites have been discovered in the hill country of Judah (Ofer 1990:196; Finkelstein 1991: 29). Of the three LB sites that have been discovered in this area, one is central (Kh. Rabûd = Debir) and the other two are small and short-lived (Beth-zur and Kh. Fuqeiqis) (Bunimovitz 1989:196–198; Ofer 1990:196–198). The entire rural area between Bethel in the north and Debir in the south was unsettled throughout the Late Bronze Age, the city of Jerusalem being an isolated urban enclave within this large uninhabited area. The main urban center in the hill country south of Jerusalem in the MB II was Hebron (Tell er-Rumeideh) (Ofer 1989; 1990:190–194). The city was fortified by a massive wall and covered about 24 to 30 dunams. The date of its foundation is still unclear. It flourished in the 17th–16th centuries and then was destroyed and remained deserted throughout the Late Bronze Age. A second MB city existed at Beth-zur (Funk 1975:263–267, with earlier literature). It was surrounded by a wall and covered between 8 and 15 dunams. Its history of settlement was quite similar to that of Hebron. The main urban center of southern Judah in the LB II was Debir (Kh. Rabûd) (Kochavi 1974). It covered an area of about 50 dunams and was possibly surrounded by a stone wall. Admittedly, the contact between the fortifications and the LB II walls was destroyed by later buildings, but they enclose the internal walls and no ancient remains were detected beyond them (Kochavi 1974:10).3 Four LB strata have been detected in the course of excavation and were dated by the excavator to the 14th–13th centuries BCE (Kochavi 1974:10, 19–22). There is a similarity between the location of Hebron in the hill country south of Jerusalem in the MB II and that of Debir in the LB II. The two towns were situated in the center of a sparsely inhabited area. The discovery of burial 3. For a different interpretation of the results of the excavations at Debir, see Bunimovitz 1989:135; 1990:272, n. 67.


181

grounds with no settlement in their vicinity indicates the presence of a nonsedentary component in the population (Ofer 1990:196–199; Finkelstein 1991: 29). Several MB II settlements were discovered in the area between Bethlehem and Hebron, but no LB II settlement (save for Beth-zur for a short time) was found. The two towns may each be described as a central city within a (partial or entire) pastoral environment, an urban phenomenon well known from different regions and periods all over Western Asia (Rowton 1973; 1976). The question posed about the relationship of Jerusalem to the south Judean hill country in the LB II is equally true for its position in the MB II. The distribution of settlements in the hill country in the Early Bronze Age may also be relevant for the discussion. The major city in the EB II-III was Ai (Kh. et-Tell), which covered about 110 dunams. Many small settlements of only a few dunams in size have been discovered to the north and south of Ai (Broshi and Gophna 1984:46–47; Finkelstein 1991:21–23, with earlier literature). The major site of the Judean hills in the EB III was Ras Tawra, northeast of Hebron (Ofer 1990:196). This fortified site, which covered about 60 dunams, was the center of a non-settled area. The pattern of a single central town located within a pastoral environment is repeated threefold in the third and second millennium BCE. The problem of the relation of Ras Tawra to Ai in the EB III may be compared with the problem of the relationship of Hebron in the MB II and Debir in the LB II to Jerusalem. There is, however, one important reservation for the analogy. The primacy and outstanding position of Ai in the hill country as indicated by archaeological finds may be compared with that of Shechem in the second millennium, but was quite different from that of Jerusalem (see section seven below). Thus, despite the similarity in the pattern of settlement in the Judean hills in all three periods, the political position of Ras Tawra vis à vis the central city of Ai may have been quite different from that of Hebron and Debir vis à vis the second-rate city of Jerusalem. The city of Bethel is located north of Jerusalem, on the outskirts of the hill country of Ephraim. Bethel was surrounded by a strong wall in the MB, possibly in the 17th–16th centuries, and then destroyed (Kelso 1968; Dever 1971:462–471). It was rebuilt and fortified in the LB II, possibly in the 14th century (Kelso 1968:28–31). Admittedly, not many 14th century vessels have been published in the excavation report. However, because most of the pottery found in a destruction level belongs to a site’s final phase, the paucity of 14th century pottery is understandable.4

4. For the suggestion to date the foundation of Bethel to the 13th century BCE, see Bunimovitz 1989:177–178, n. 2.

182


Bethel was the center of a densely inhabited rural area in the MB II. Some of the settlements possibly antedated the emergence of the urban center, and the inhabitants subsequently migrated and settled therein, whereas other settlements continued their separate existence (Finkelstein 1988–89:140– 143). During the LB II, Bethel was an isolated town with no rural hinterland. Was LB II Bethel a town of the kingdom of Jerusalem? Was it part of the kingdom of Shechem, its powerful northern neighbor? Was it a small independent city-state located between the boundaries of Shechem and Jerusalem? Deciding among the three alternatives is not an easy task and will be discussed below (section 5).

4. The Territorial Relationship of Jerusalem to Mount Hebron in the Course of History For further clarification of the position of Jerusalem within the highlands of Judah, we must examine their relationship in the “longue durée.” In his seminal study of the Israelite settlement in Palestine, Alt (1953:90– 92) emphasized the continuity of territorial frameworks and boundaries and demonstrated the importance of a long-range perspective for bridging the gaps of written sources (see also: Alt 1919:9–16; 1929:229–237; 1935:94– 111). Other scholars have followed his methodological approach and applied it within their works (e.g., Elliger 1936:45–59; Mazar 1946; Na’aman 1986a; Bunimovitz 1989:146–150, with earlier literature on p. 4). Preference for the historical long-range perspective on short-term events is particularly important for the “Territorialgeschichte,” because “throughout history territorial divisions, ultimately dependent on the lie of the land, are extremely persistent; even changes of population hardly ever overthrow them completely, but bring about at most, minor alterations.” (Alt 1953: 90). The history of the relationship of the southern Judean hill country to Jerusalem from the Middle Bronze II onward will be examined to discern whether there is a similar pattern of relations in different historical periods. A cuneiform tablet was discovered during the recent excavations conducted at Tell er-Rumeideh (Hebron) (Ofer 1989:91–93). It was found within a fill of bones, sherds and ashes and was dated to the 17th century BCE (Anbar and Na’aman 1986–1987). The left side of the tablet and its lower edge are missing, which makes it difficult to understand fully. It is an account tablet summarizing the number of sheep delivered to different people in the course of an unknown span of time. The summary at the end of the tablet shows that the sheep — partly or entirely — served for sacrifice. The frequent mention of the word “king” indicates that it originally belonged to the royal archive.


183

In later times the tablet was thrown into a fill and, therefore, was discovered out of its original context. The fact that a cuneiform tablet written in the course of the daily life of the palace was unearthed at Hebron is meaningful. Middle Bronze II cuneiform tablets have been discovered only at Hazor, Shechem, Gezer and Peḫel (Anbar and Na’aman 1986–1987:7–12, with earlier literature; Knapp 1987:4, 24). All these places were important Canaanite centers. The diffuse of cuneiform writing in the daily life of MB II Canaan was quite limited and confined only to capital cities. The Hebron tablet clearly indicates that the site was the center of an independent kingdom and that the king mentioned therein was the king of Hebron. The assumption that Hebron was a secondary town of the kingdom of Jerusalem and that the tablet was written for the court of the latter kingdom is highly unlikely, in light of what is known of the distribution of cuneiform writing in second millennium Canaan. The excavations conducted at Hebron, in which a strongly fortified MB II city — no less impressive than the MB II city of Jerusalem — was unearthed (Ofer 1989; 1990: 190–194), supports and corroborates the evidence of the tablet. We may conclude that Hebron was a neighboring kingdom of Jerusalem in the MB II and was governed by its own king. When analyzing the biblical evidence of the pre-monarchial period, we again find the same segregation of the areas of Jerusalem and Hebron. According to biblical tradition, the Josephites settled in the areas of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin, whereas the tribe of Judah occupied the land of Judah. Remarkable is the fact that Jerusalem was considered a town of Benjamin and not of Judah (Josh 15:8; 18:16, 28). Following the destruction of the Canaanite city, Jerusalem became a Jebusite town governing a small district in its vicinity. An independent cluster of settlements developed at this time in the southern Judean hill country. The most important sub-tribe that settled in this area was Caleb, whose center was at Hebron, and another important clan was Othniel, which settled in Debir. Following the death of Saul, the areas of the Judean hills and the Negeb were united under the leadership of David, whose center was at Hebron. This entity apparently endured for several years, until David transferred his capital to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 2:1–4; 5: 1–5). We may conclude that both in biblical traditions of the early history of Israel and during the early Iron Age, Jerusalem (Jebus) is consistently separate from the hill country of Judah and is connected with the area located on its northern side. David’s conquest of Jebus and its establishment as capital city of Israel drastically changed the city’s history. Jerusalem became capital of the United Monarchy and later the capital of the Kingdom of Judah. It must be emphasized that from David’s time until the Babylonian captivity, the city of

184


Jerusalem was the center of a kingdom that encompassed vast territory, much larger than the Judean hills. However, in the kingdom’s administrative framework, Jerusalem was the center of a small district (described as sbyby/sbybwt yrwšlym), whereas the hill country of Judah was a large separate district (called hhr) (Na’aman 1991:13–16). It is possible that the kingdom of Judah was divided into four districts called by the names of towns (Hebron, Ziph, Socoh and Mmšt) in the course of Hezekiah’s preparations for war and siege on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah (Yadin 1961:6– 11; Aharoni 1967:344–346; Na’aman 1986b:14–17). In this administrative division, Jerusalem was included in the northern district of Mmšt, whereas the hill country of Judah was included in the districts of Hebron and Ziph. We may conclude that Jerusalem was consistently separated from the hill country of Judah both in the settlement and early monarchial periods and in the administrative divisions of the monarchial period. After the Babylonian conquest and annexation, the hill country of Hebron was removed from the province of Yehud and became a separate entity called Idumea. Its northern limits bordered the province of Yehud south of Beth-zur, and the Beer-sheba Valley and the Shephelah were included in its territory. This border system survived throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Only in the time of John Hyrcanus (134–105 BCE), about 450 years after its foundation, was Idumea conquered and annexed to the Hasmonean kingdom as a separate administrative district. This administrative division remained in power until the destruction of the Second Temple and apparently continued even afterward. Septimus Severus turned Beth-gubrin into a Roman colony in 200 A.D., naming it Eleutheropolis (its full title was Colonia Lucia Septimia Severia Eleutheropolis) and annexed to its territory the entire district of Idumea and one of the districts of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem). In the administrative reform of Diocletian (284–305), the district of Eleutheropolis was left unchanged, save for minor alterations. We may conclude that for more than a thousand years — from the destruction of the First Temple and until the end of the Byzantine period — Jerusalem and the southern Judean hill country were included in separate administrative districts. Even the Hasmonean and Roman conquests did not change the place of this area within the overall administrative division of the Palestinian hill country and the Shephelah. The administrative detachment of Jerusalem and the area of Hebron remained intact until the early Ottoman period. The data concerning the postByzantine periods will be presented only in the utmost brevity. In the early Arabic period, Jerusalem and Beth-gubrin were sub-districts within the territory of Jund Philastine. In the time of the Crusades, Hebron was the center of a seigniory. Jerusalem and Hebron were separate sub-districts (camaliya) within the large district of Damascus in the Mamluk period. A change took place in


185

the early Ottoman period, when Jerusalem became the center of a district (sanjak) that was divided into two sub-districts (nāḥiya) — Jerusalem and Hebron. The Sanjak of Gaza was annexed in 1864 to the Sanjak of Jerusalem, and several years later the expanded district (mutaṣariflik) of Jerusalem was detached from the large district of Damascus, becoming an independent district. Hebron was an important city in the hill country and the center of a sub-district (qaḍāa). Since then, the situation has remained unchanged, and today Hebron is the center of a sub-district within the administration of the hill country.

5. The Boundaries of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period Our historical survey has demonstrated that throughout history, Jerusalem and Hebron were included in different political or administrative entities. This is clear for the second millennium BCE when Hebron and Jerusalem were independent city-states in the Middle Bronze II. Following the destruction of the Canaanite cities in the late 13th-early 12th century, the areas of Jerusalem and southern Judah developed independently. In the time of the Israelite and Judean Monarchies, and under the Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman empires, the areas of Jerusalem and the southern Judean hill country formed parts of different administrative districts. It was only under the Ottoman empire, about three millennia after the Amarna period, that Hebron became a sub-district within the district of Jerusalem. Examination of the “longue durée” clearly indicates that for thousands of years, in various historical situations and under different political powers, Jerusalem and Hebron were part of different — first political and later administrative — entities. The detailed archaeological surveys conducted in the Judean hills indicate that the area between the cities of Jerusalem and Debir (about 40 km.) was entirely uninhabited in the LB II. The two towns were territorially disconnected one from the other. The location of Debir in the southern Judean hill country in the LB II is similar to that of Hebron in the MB II: a major city within a partly or entirely non-sedentary area. Thus, it is clear that just as Hebron was an independent city-state in the MB II, so was Debir in the LB II. We may conclude that all written and archaeological data indicate that the independent city-state of Debir dominated the southern hills of Judah in the LB II. The territories of the kingdoms of MB II Hebron and LB II Debir must have encompassed the Beer-sheba Valley. It is suggested that the sites of Tel Masos and Tel Malḥata in the south and Beth-zur in the north were secondary towns within the MB II kingdom of Hebron. The territory of Debir, on the other hand, was almost entirely uninhabited. Its economy was based on agriculture and animal husbandry, and it kept close relationships with the pastoral groups located in its highland and Negebite territories. Its close neighbors were the

186


city-states of Jerusalem in the north and Lachish in the west. Whether there were other small city-states on its western border remains unknown. The accurate delineation of the boundary between Debir and Jerusalem in the LB II is problematic. Beth-zur is a key site near their border. It was a fortified, inhabited town in the MB II, located not far north from the center of Hebron and most probably was one of its towns. Jerusalem’s boundary must have passed somewhere north of it. Beth-zur was settled for only a short time in the LB II, and it is impossible to establish whether it was included in the territory of Jerusalem or Debir. It was noted above that Ras Tawra was the main site of the Judean hills in the EB III. It may have been the center of a small independent city-state located near the border of the strong kingdom of Ai, the main center of the central hill country in the EB II-III. This conclusion, however, must be treated with caution. First, the leading role of Ai in the central hill country in the third millennium BCE as indicated by archaeological excavations and surveys is indeed remarkable, unlike the position of Jerusalem in the second millennium. Second, the political formation of the land of Canaan in the third millennium is unknown. Schematic delineation of borders based exclusively on the scope of sites and the pattern of settlement may be quite misleading without the aid of documentary evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to decide whether Canaan was divided then among a few strong kingdoms that dominated all other secondary places, or whether the political situation was similar to that of the second millennium BCE, i.e., a network of kingdoms of higher and lesser rank in which even the lesser city-states had, at least nominally, an independent status. The relationship of Ai to Ras Tawra, thus, remains unknown. The “long perspective” suggests that the assumption of a small independent city-state dominating the Judean hills is the more probable, but who knows. The place of Bethel within the border system of the kingdom of Jerusalem should now be examined. As noted above, the city was strongly fortified in the 17th–16th centuries BCE and was the center of a rural area densely inhabited by small sites. Following its destruction, the site was deserted until the 14th century, when settlement was renewed. No small rural sites were discovered in Bethel’s vicinity. Its close neighbors were Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad (biblical Tappuah), ca. 20 km. north of the town, and Jerusalem, ca. 18 km. south of it. LB II Bethel was an isolated town within a pastoral environment. It seems quite unlikely that under such circumstances, the rulers of Shechem, the major kingdom of the central hill country, would have been able to effectively hold the place. According to the Amarna letters, the rulers of Shechem were allies of Milkilu, ruler of Gezer, but in no place is there mention of an act of hostility by Shechem against Jerusalem. The anti-Shechemite attitude of


187

‘Abdi-Ḫeba is explained well by the cooperation of Lab’ayu and his sons with Gezer, Jerusalem’s bitter enemy in the Amarna period. According to biblical tradition, there was a king at Bethel (Josh. 12:16) and the city was conquered by the sons of Joseph (Judg. 1:22–26). The city was included in Ephraim’s inheritance in the tribal boundaries. After the dissolution of the United Monarchy, Bethel became an important cult center of the Northern Kingdom, and, following the Assyrian conquest, Bethel was included in the province of Samaria. It was conquered by Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:15) and was temporarily annexed to the kingdom of Judah (Josh. 18:22). Its location in the southern outskirts of Mount Ephraim, high above the district of Benjamin, explains well the city’s steady connections with the hill country on its north and its segregation from Benjamin and the city of Jerusalem. Bethel’s remoteness from Shechem, location between the territories of Jerusalem and Shechem, and segregation from Jerusalem from the pre-monarchial period onwards — these facts together may indicate that second millennium Bethel was a small independent city-state between the borders of Shechem and Jerusalem. It was the center of a small rural area in the MB II and was an isolated town in a mainly non-sedentary area in the LB II. It goes without saying that Bethel played a minor role in the political and military affairs of the hill country and was under the influence of its powerful northern neighbor. I would like to emphasize, however, that whereas the evidence for the existence of an independent city-state in the southern Judean hills is quite conclusive, the case for the independence of Bethel is less strong and rests mainly on an evaluation of the balance of evidence. We are now in a position to draw the boundaries of Jerusalem in the LB II. Its western border reached the foothills and touched the boundaries of Gezer and Gath*. In the east, it probably reached the Jordan Valley, the town of Jericho being included in its territory. In the north it encompassed the hill country of Benjamin, and in the south it reached the area of Beth-zur and possibly the line of Naḥal Elah. Most of these areas were uninhabited during the LB, and Jerusalem’s effective control there was quite limited. It must be emphasized that the delineation of borders as suggested here is only schematic, designed to give a general idea of the scope of Jerusalem and its neighbors in this period. The borders of MB II Jerusalem were roughly the same as in the LB II. They included the area of Benjamin, which was densely inhabited (42 sites have been discovered), and the area south of Jerusalem, which was relatively empty at the time. The main problem is the position of the city of Jericho. It

5. For Jericho in the MB and LB, see Kenyon 1960–1983; 1976:561–564; Bienkowski 1986.

188


may have been an independent city that dominated the Lower Jordan Valley. It is possible, however, that Jerusalem dominated this area and that Jericho was a subordinate city within its territory.5

6. The Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period Before proceeding with the discussion, I would like to summarize my counter-claims to the suggestion that Jerusalem dominated the southern Judean hill country in the second millennium BCE. (a) An analysis of the Amarna letters made it clear that the archive was only partly preserved and that various Canaanite city-states, including important entities, are not mentioned. The claim that the entire area of the central hill country was divided among Shechem and Jerusalem, because no other city-state is mentioned in the archive, is methodologically unacceptable. (b) The array of Canaanite city-states included a network of tangent citystates, large and small, their rulers corresponding with the Pharaoh and enjoying, at least nominally, an independent status. Dividing the land only among the large entities is misleading in light of the evidence of the Amarna archive and the Egyptian sources. (c) Jerusalem is mentioned only in the Amarna letters, but is absent from the Egyptian sources of the second millennium BCE. The assumption that it appears in both the early and late groups of Execration Texts is not supported by the analysis of the texts. (d) It is quite misleading to apply to Jerusalem what is known about the scope, power and political influence of Canaanite Shechem. The two kingdoms differed one from the other in all these aspects and played different roles in the inner affairs of Canaan in the second millennium BCE (for further detail, see section 7 below). (e) Archaeological evidence from the excavations of the sites of ancient Jerusalem, Hebron and Debir neither supports nor cancels the assumption of the domination of Jerusalem in the hill country of Judah in the second millennium. All three sites were severely damaged at a later time, and too little is known to make any definitive statement about their relative urban or economic strength. Archaeology proves, however, that fortified urban centers of considerable scope and strength were situated in the southern Judean hills both in the MB II and the LB II periods. The pattern of settlement of both periods further supports the assumption that there was an independent entity in the southern Judean hills in the second millennium BCE. (f) The 17th century cuneiform tablet discovered at Hebron proves that it served as the center of an independent city-state at that time. By examining the history of the Judean hill country from the 12th century BCE until the


189

beginning of the Ottoman period, it is evident that Jerusalem and the area of Hebron consistently belonged to two different political or administrative units. Examination of the “longue durée” strongly supports the suggestion that the city of Debir formed an independent city-state in the Late Bronze II. (g) The book of Joshua cannot be treated as a reliable source for the reconstruction of the network of Canaanite cities or their relative strength in the Late Bronze Age. Neither the mention of kings at Jericho, Ai, Bethel, Hebron and Debir, nor the presentation of Jerusalem as head of a Canaanite coalition can be taken as evidence for reconstructing the reality in the Late Bronze Age. One should not select evidence at random from the biblical source to support a theory. Conclusions must be drawn only on the basis of the early sources and the archaeological evidence. The picture of the kingdom of Jerusalem that emerged from the Amarna letters fits well its limited territorial scope and power as suggested above. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba refers, in his letters, to various episodes that are connected to the activity of his opponents, Milkilu of Gezer and his allies. But ‘Abdi-Ḫeba is mentioned only in two letters of Shuwardata, king of Gath*. He is first mentioned in a letter that deals with a war conducted by a league of four rulers against the “‘Apiru” (EA 366) and second in a letter that accuses him of intervening in the affairs of Keilah (EA 280). This is contrary to the frequent mention of the rulers of Shechem and Gezer by city-state rulers located all over the country. The power of Jerusalem was felt only in neighboring areas, and, as far as we know, did not extend beyond these areas. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba tried to expand westward, toward the fertile easternmost areas of the Shephelah governed by his neighbors, Gezer and Gath*. His efforts on the western border are explained well by the lack of rural settlements in his territory and the desire to command the small villages and increase the settled population in his kingdom.6 His offensive in the Shephelah started immediately after the death of Lab’ayu of Shechem. Soon afterwards, a league was formed, composed of the rulers of Gezer, Gath* and Ginti-kirmil. They repulsed his offensive and succeeded not only to take Keilah, but also to bring Bīt-NINURTA, a former town of Jerusalem, to the victor’s side. In the latest of the letters to be dispatched among six discovered at Amarna (EA 288; see Na’aman 1975:93–95, 102–103), ‘Abdi-Ḫeba expresses his despair by the words (lines 23–28) “The land of the king is lost. All of it is attacking me! (see Moran 1987:515, 516, n. 5). There is hostility against me unto (adi) the land(s) of Shēri and unto (adi) Ginti-kirmil. All the city-state rulers enjoy peace while there is hostility against me!” The king of Ginti-kirmil, a city possibly located in the Lower Carmel area (see Na’aman 1986a:466, 479; Bunimovitz 1989:141–143), was the father-in-law of Milkilu of Gezer and his close ally. No wonder that his city was selected to illustrate the maximal

190


scope of the league that was hostile to Jerusalem. The land(s) of Shēri is usually identified with biblical Mount Seir. However, the combination adi . . . adi . . . is unique in Akkadian, reflecting the influence of the local Canaanite language on the scribe. This prepositional construction presents two places, the second of which lies beyond the first and should best be translated “unto GN1 and unto (i.e., as far as) GN2” (compare Josh. 10:10; 16:3; 1 Sam. 17:52; Neh. 3: 16, 24, 31) (see Ginsberg 1951a; 1951b; Dorsey 1980:185–186; Demsky 1990:78– 81). It is evident that the land(s) of Shēri and Ginti-kirmil were located in the same direction, the latter being more remote from the former, and that the land(s) of Shēri must be disassociated from biblical Mount Seir. It seems to me that the name “land(s) of Shēri” is a descriptive designation for the wooded, mountainous uninhabited areas west of Jerusalem (Na’aman 1986c:284, n. 25). Two biblical references may support this claim. The descriptive names Mount Seir (“the shaggy mountain”) and Mount Jearim (“the forested mountain”) appear in Josh. 15:10 and are located on the line between Kiriath-jearim and Beth-shemesh, in the rugged and rocky terrain of western Judah. After the assassination of Eglon, king of Moab, Ehud escaped to Seirah in Mount Ephraim (Judg. 3:26). Also, one of the towns of Ugarit was called Šcrt/ Shartu, and, as is evident from the ideographic spelling uruSÍG, the meaning of the name is “wool, fleece” (Astour 1975:331–332, 365). It is clear that all these toponyms, including the mountainous region of Edom (Seir), were so named because of the wooded (“shaggy”) appearance of their landscape. It seems that ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, while complaining of isolation and the misdeeds of his western neighbors, mentions hostile acts directed against him by uprooted and pastoral elements situated in the rugged, “shaggy” areas of his kingdom (Seir), on the one hand, and by the league of city-states whose remotest associate ruled Ginti-kirmil, on the other hand. The description reflects well the situation of Jerusalem in the Amarna period — a major town within a non-sedentary area — and the dangers involved with this setting.

7. The Kingdom of Shechem and its Southern Neighbors There was only one major kingdom in the central hill country in the second millennium BCE, namely Shechem. It dominated the entire area from the Jezreel Valley in the north up to Tappuah (Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad) in the south and from the Jordan Valley in the east up to the western foothills. Some small city-states (like Bethel) may have been situated on its borders and were controlled — either directly or indirectly — by their powerful neighbor. Shechem, like Hazor in the north, should be regarded as a real territorial kingdom, and not as a city-state, like the rest of the kingdoms in the area west of the Jordan (Na’aman 1986a:466; 1988:18). In the third millennium BCE, the city of Ai played a similar role in the central hill country. It domi-


191

nated the entire region, save possibly for small city-states (like Ras Tawra and Tell el-Farcah) which may have enjoyed a semi-independent status visà-vis their powerful neighbor. In the Iron Age, on the other hand, things developed differently. The urban center of the central hill country dominated much larger areas on both sides of the Jordan; the districts of the new political formation extended far beyond the scope of the political formations of the third and second millennia BCE. The development of only one major power in the central hill country is borne out by the results of the surveys conducted in the area. 208 of the overall 248 sites of the Middle Bronze Age discovered in the surveys are located in the lands of Manasseh and Ephraim (Finkelstein 1991:27–30). Moreover, according to the calculation of Finkelstein (1993), 45% of the sites and 75% of the estimated population lived in the area of Manasseh. About 25 of 29 of the Late Bronze II sites discovered in the surveys are located in Manasseh and Ephraim, and, according to Finkelstein’s estimation, two thirds of the sites and the majority of the population lived in the area of Manasseh. The centrality of Shechem as indicated by documentary evidence finds its full support in the data of the new surveys. Two medium-size city-states developed in the areas of Benjamin and the Judean hills in the Middle Bronze II and the Late Bronze II. The more important of the two was Jerusalem, as is evident from both the Amarna letters and the results of the surveys. 42 of the 50 Middle Bronze sites discovered in the surveys of both areas were recorded in the hill country of Benjamin (Finkelstein 1991:29). Only two major sites, Jerusalem and Debir, developed in the area in the Late Bronze II. The relative strength of Jerusalem in relation to its southern neighbor is the direct result of the environmental conditions of the two kingdoms. The area of Benjamin was suited for both agriculture and animal husbandry and was densely settled in the MB II (and Iron Age I as well). The Judean hills were more convenient for pastoral activity than for agriculture and were sparsely inhabited by sedentary populations in the second millennium (and Iron Age I as well) (Ofer 1990:196–202; Finkelstein 1991:23–30, 42–43). We may conclude that second millennium Jerusalem was a city-state of small territory and limited power, being the dominant force only in the Judean hills and trying to expand westward, toward the more fertile and settled areas of the Shephelah. In the overall balance of power within Canaan, Jerusalem had only local influence, unlike its northern neighbor, the kingdom of Shechem, which held a central role in the affairs of Canaan throughout the second millennium BCE.

192


References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish with Some Remarks on the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38. Alt, A. 1913. Israels Gaue unter Salomo. In: Alt, A. et al. eds. Aletestamentliche Studien Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht. Leipzig: 1–19. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 76–89). Alt, A. 1925. Jerusalems Aufstieg. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 79: 1–19. (Reprint 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 243–257). Alt, A. 1929. Das System der assyrischen Provinzen auf dem Boden des Reiches Israel. ZDPV 52: 220–42. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 188–205). Alt, A. 1935. Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria. PJb 31: 94–111. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 346–362. Alt, A. 1953. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichtedes Volkes Israel I. München: 89–125. (Original publication: 1925. Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig). Anbar, M. and Na’aman, N. 1986–1987. An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13–14: 3–12. Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II (Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 249–369. Bienkowski, P. 1986. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1984. The Settlement and Population of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age II-III. BASOR 253: 41–53. Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlement and Population. BASOR 261: 73–90. Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Bunimovitz, S. 1990. Cultural Processes and Socio-Political Change in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Demsky, A. 1990. ‘From Kezib unto the River near Amanah’ (Mish. Shebi‘it 6:1; Halla 4:8): A Clarification of the Northern Border of the Returnees from Egypt. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 10: 71–81. (Hebrew). Dever, W.G. 1971. Archaeological Methods and Results: A Review of Two Recent Excavations. Orientalia 40: 459–471. Dorsey, D.A. 1980. The Location of Biblical Makkedah. Tel Aviv 7: 185–193. Elliger, K. 1936. Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids. PJb 32: 34–73. Finkelstein, I. 1988–89. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980–1987: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 15–16: 117–183. Finkelstein, I. 1991. The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age. IEJ 41: 19–45.


193

Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E. In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement (Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990). Jerusalem: 110–131. Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y. eds. 1993. Archaeological Survey in the Hill Country of Benjamin. (Hebrew). Funk, R.W. 1975. Beth-zur. In: Avi-Yonah M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I. Jerusalem: 263-267. Ginsberg, H.L. 1951a. A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geography. BASOR 122: 12– 14. Ginsberg, H.L. 1951b. Postscript to Bulletin No. 122, pp. 12–14. BASOR 124: 29–30. Gophna, R. and Beck, P. 1981. The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern on the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II. Tel Aviv 8: 45–80. Gophna, R. and Portugali, J. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 269:11–28. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2nd revised ed.). Wiesbaden. Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit Ninurta — Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew). Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavations of Bethel (1934–1960). (AASOR 39). New Haven. Kempinski, A. 1986. Kabri and its Environment in the Middle Bronze II. In: Yadaya, M. ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 66–72. (Hebrew). Kenyon, K.A. 1960–1983. Excavations at Jericho I-V. London. Kenyon, K.A. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. Kenyon, K.A. 1976. Jericho. In: Avi-Yonah M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land II. Jerusalem: 561–564. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster. Knapp, A.B. 1987. Pots, PIXE and Data Processing at Pella in Jordan. BASOR 266: 1–30. Knudtzon, J.A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 19–89. (Hebrew). Kochavi, M. 1974. Khirbet Rabûd = Debir. Tel Aviv 1: 2–33. Lipiński, E. 1985. Juda et tout Israel: analogies et contrastes. In: Lipiński, E. ed. The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. Leuven: 93–112. Mazar, A. 1990. Jerusalem and its Vicinity in the Iron I. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 131–154. (Hebrew). Mazar (Maisler), B. 1946. Lebo-hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan. BJPES 12: 91–102. (Hebrew). (Trans. 1986. The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Jerusalem: 189–202). Mazar (Maisler), B. 1947. Palestine at the Time of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. Revue de l’histoire juive en Egypte 1: 33–68. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria. BASOR 234:1–42. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les letters d’EI-Amarna. (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13). Paris. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University.

194


Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1986a. The Canaanite City States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463–488. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1986b. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. BASOR 261: 5–21. Na’aman, N. 1986c. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere. JNES 45: 271–288. Na’aman, N. 1988. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions Biblical Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: 17–26. Na’aman, N. 1990. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 22: 247–255. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Ofer, A. 1989. Excavations at Biblical Hebron. Qadmoniot 87–88: 88–93. (Hebrew). Ofer, A. 1990. The Judaean Hill Country — from Nomadism to a National Monarchy. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 155–214. (Hebrew). Posener, G. 1940. Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles. Posener, G. 1966. Les textes d’envôutement de Mirgissa. Syria 42: 277–287. Posener, G., Bottéro, J. and Kenyon, K.M. 1971. Syria and Palestine c. 2160–1780 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History I/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 532–590. Rainey, A.F. 1973. Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi. The Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 10: 71–75. Rainey, A.F. 1982. Linguistic Notes on Thutmose III’s Topographical List. In: Israelit-Groll, S. ed. Egyptological Studies. (Scripta Hierosolymitana 28). Jerusalem: 335–359. Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis IV. OLZ 42: 145–148. Rowton, M.B. 1973. Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment. JNES 32: 201–215. Rowton, M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite. In: Al-Bahit. Festschrift Joseph Henninger. (Studia Institute Anthropos 28). St. Augustin: 219–257. Sethe, K. 1926. Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefassscherben des Mittleren Reiches. Berlin. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I. (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Weippert, M. 1970. Die Nomadenquellen. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds. Archaologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Tübingen:259–272. Yadin, Y. 1961. The Fourfold Division of Judah. BASOR 163: 6–11.

Yeno‘am1 Yeno‘am appears on the “Israel stele” of Merneptah, accompanied by Ashkelon, Gezer and Israel, all situated on the western side of the Jordan.2 From the earliest days of research, Yeno‘am, therefore, was regarded as being a Cisjordanian city. On the other hand, because Yeno‘am appears in an Amarna letter and on a stele of Seti I side by side with cities of the Bashan, several scholars have looked for an appropriate site in the Jordan Valley, the two most commonly accepted identifications being based on the similarity between Yeno‘am and names of the proposed sites. Clauss (1907:34–35) suggested Tell en-Na‘ameh in the Ḥuleh Valley, and Albright (1925:12–13; 1926: 18–24; 1929:10), concurring in this view, contributed supportive argumentation. Saarisalo (1927:112–118), however, favored Tell en-Na‘am in the Jabneel Valley, a suggestion followed by several others (Alt 1928:53; Jirku 1937:33 n.3; Noth 1937:217–218; Gardiner 1947:146*; Helck 1968–69:28). Finally, Garstang (1931:73–74) proposed identifying Yeno‘am with el-‘Abeidîyeh in the Jordan Valley, south of the confluence of Wādi Jabneel with the Jordan. This proposal was forgotten for many years, until it was revived by Aharoni (1957:125–129; see 1967:30–31, 165–166) in his doctoral dissertation, in which he argued that el-‘Abeidîyeh corresponds perfectly with all written sources in which Yeno‘am is mentioned, as well as with the Karnak relief of Seti I depicting this town by a river. His small-scale excavation of the tell also yielded ceramic evidence compatible with the written sources regarding Yeno‘am. Contrary to all these proposals, which would locate Yeno‘am west of the Jordan, it is my opinion that this site should be sought in Transjordan, on the periphery of the Bashan region. The following data support this suggestion: In Amarna letter EA 197, Biryawaza, ruler of Damascus,3 complains before Pharaoh of the deeds of Biridashwa, in my opinion, the heir of Ayyab

1. Reprinted with permission. Tel Aviv 4 (1977), 168–177. 2. For the various suggestions for identifying Yeno‘am common in the early days of research, see Gauthier 1925:169–170; 1926:146. 3. Some scholars held the opinion that Biryawaza was an Egyptian official (Edel 1953: 55; Redford 1967:219; Hachmann 1970:65, 75–76). However, it is evident from the Amarna letters that Biryawaza was the ruler of Damascus, and his special position in the land of Upi

195

196


on the throne of Ashtaroth.4 Biridashwa was accused of inciting the city of Yeno‘am against Biryawaza, removing chariots from Ashtaroth to give them to his ‘Apiru, and collaborating with the kings of Buṣruna and Ḫaluni (two cities in the Bashan) who tried to kill Biryawaza.5 Yeno‘am appears in this letter alongside cities in the Bashan, contraindicating a town west of the Jordan. In a topographical list from the days of Amenophis III published by Edel (1966:11–13; Helck 1971:260), the following toponyms appear: Taḫshi, Yeno‘am, Damascus, Edrei, Buṣruna, Qanu, a group belonging entirely to Syria; a Cisjordanian city is, therefore, out of the question. Finally, in topographical list from the days of Ramesses II, Yeno‘am appears after Qatna and Taḫshi and before an unidentified site called [Qm]hn (Kitchen 1965:6 No. 18; see Helck 1971:192), again in a Syrian context.

stems from his political power in that region and not from his delegation as an Egyptian official; see: Helck 1971:184, 251, 303; Kühne 1973:62 n. 301. 4. Scholars have generally been of the opinion that Biridashwa was the ruler of Yeno‘am (Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1291; Greenberg 1955:44; Hachmann 1970:71; Helck 1971:179, 480). However, Biridashwa’s central position in the Bashan, as well as his mobilization of chariots from the city of Ashtaroth, shows that Ashtaroth, rather than Yeno‘am, was his capital. It is to be noted that Ayyab, ruler of Ashtaroth according to EA 256 and 364, belongs to an earlier period, i.e., the time of the sons of Lab’ayu (Campbell 1964:116, 134; Na’aman 1975:41–43, 52–53), and letters EA 196–197, which mention Biridashwa, belong to the last period of the Amarna correspondence, when Aziru of Amurru and Aitakama of Qadesh gathered strength and, with Hittite support, threatened the Egyptian holdings in central Syria (Campbell 1964:124, 135; Redford 1967:218 ff.). 5. Important parts of EA 197 were translated (in addition to Knudtzon’s main edition) by Greenberg (1955:43–44); see also Moran 1973:50, 53. The passage concerning us (lines 7–26) is divided into two distinct parts; in lines 7–12 Biridashwa is accused of stirring up Yeno‘am against Biryawaza while the latter was entering the town, probably in his status as the person responsible to the Egyptian authorities for the land of Upi. For lines 13–26, which are somewhat damaged, we suggest the following translation: “When the king of Buṣruna and the king of Ḫalunni saw (this deed) they conducted war with Biridashwa against me saying: ‘Let us go and kill Biryawaza and not let him go to [. . .]. But I escaped from them and took a stand in the [land of Api and] the city of Damascus. When [they saw t]hat [I] am serving [the king my lord] they said: ‘[We are servants of the king of Ha]tti.’ But I said: ‘I am servant of the king of Egypt.’” Regarding line 19: it should be noted that Knudtzon’s restoration [māt tá]ḫ-še does not fit the geographical context of the passage, which clearly deals with the Bashan region and not with the district of Qadesh. Regarding the remainder of EA 197: Knudtzon’s restoration of line 2 as uru A-[pi] is to be rejected; Api (Upi) appears in the Amarna letters as a region and not as a name of a town. Lines 41–42 might be restored “the kings of [the land of Taḫshi and k] in[g] s of the land of Api” by comparison to EA 189 (rev. 12) and the general context of the passage.

Yeno‘am

197

These three documents strongly indicate that Yeno‘am was east of the Jordan, roughly in the southern Bashan. In this very same region stands a tell that corresponds perfectly with all the archaeological and topographical data concerning Yeno‘am: Tell esh-Shihab, situated west of Edrei on the Yarmuk River, controlling the main road to Ashtaroth and Damascus. The site is strategically located on a high mound, surrounded almost completely by the Yarmuk gorge, with a waterfall in the vicinity (Smith 1901:344–345). This location accords well with the portrayal of the conquest of Yeno‘am on a Karnak relief of Seti I, where a bush-lined river surrounds the town (Wreszinski 1935: Pl. 36). Moreover, a stele of Seti I was found on this very tell (Smith 1901:344– 350), showing that it is one of the sites conquered by Seti in the course of his campaign to this region. A survey of the tell by Albright (1925:16–17) revealed sherds representing all the Bronze Ages, and Iron Age pottery is missing, thus, corroborating the historical records concerning Yeno‘am, which is mentioned in Late Bronze Age documents — but not thereafter. Let us now examine the other texts where Yeno‘am is mentioned: Thutmose III’s references to Yeno‘am will be dealt with at the end of this article, because they are of no assistance in identifying the town. On the other hand, the inscriptions of Seti I are very indicative (see: Albright 1926: 20; Alt 1926:115–117; Noth 1937:210–229; Aharoni 1964; Helck 1971:191–193). In his stele from Beth-shean (Wilson 1969:253; Gardiner 1961:254), Seti describes the rebellion against Egypt during which Hamath (a city of the Bethshean Valley) conquered the Egyptian center at Beth-shean while collaborating with Piḫilu, its ally on the other side of the Jordan. In retaliation, Pharaoh sent troops to Beth-shean, Hamath and Yeno‘am; the troops suppressed the rebellion in a “single day.” Piḫilu is mentioned; thus, it is clear that the revolt spread to both sides of the Jordan and that troops were also sent to Yeno‘am (Tell esh-Shihab) situated on the main road leading towards the Bashan. The conquest of Yeno‘am was depicted on the above-mentioned Karnak relief of Seti I (Wreszinski 1935:Pl. 36), but unfortunately, the accompanying inscription did not survive. After the conquest, Seti erected his stele at Yeno‘am (Smith 1901:344–350), analogous to the one he erected in Beth-shean during the same campaign. In addition, we have a number of topographical lists of Seti I, all arranged roughly in parallel order based on a single Vorlage (Noth 1937:212–215; Aharoni 1957:57–63; Helck 1971:192–193). The first four names in this list, Piḫilu, Hamath, Beth-shean and Yeno‘am, appeared also on the stele from Beth-shean, clearly indicating that this was the first real military action during the campaign of Seti. Of other events connected with this campaign we know nothing and can appreciate its overall dimensions only by analyzing the names mentioned in the topographical lists.

198


Three places, qdr qrt-‘nb and hḏr, appearing in the same order at the end of the list, are important for our inquiry. Qdr is described also on a relief of Seti I, and it might be connected with dgr (metathesis) mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi I and with the Hellenistic city Gadara south of the Yarmuk (Helck 1971:193). Qrt‘nb also appears in Papyrus Anastasi I, as well as among the towns of the Land of Gari (written Ḫeni-anabi) in an Amarna letter (EA 256, line 26). Albright (1943: 14 n. 41) suggested locating it at Nāb or near the neighboring spring ‘En Nāb, situated about 10 km. north of the confluence of Wādi Raqad and the Yarmuk. In the village of Nāb, only Roman-Byzantine pottery was found (Epstein and Gutman 1972:285 No. 162), but a tel was discovered at Khirbet ‘En Ṭaruk, situated some 3 km. southeast of Nāb, with Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age I pottery (Epstein and Gutman 1972:286 No. 177), and it is possible that here is the site of Qrt-‘nb. Hḏr is, of course, Hazor of the Huleh Valley. It seems, therefore, that Geder and Qrt-‘nb were also conquered during the war conducted in the vicinity of the Yarmuk on the way to Yeno‘am; the Egyptian army, after completing its military actions in this area, turned back to the Jordan Valley, continuing north to Hazor and then to the Phoenician coast. Another document sometimes brought up by scholars in connection with Yeno‘am is Papyrus Anastasi I (Wilson 1969:477; for detailed discussion, see Aharoni 1957:123, 128–129). However, the toponym in the document, y‘n, is not comparable with the Egyptian transcription of the name Yeno‘am. Albright (1926:21) suggested rendering it as y‘m[u], but Egyptologists have not followed suit (e.g., Wilson 1969:477; Helck 1971:316). In view of the uncertainty concerning this name, it would best be dropped. The latest source in which the name Yeno‘am appears is the Hymn of Merneptah, where it follows Ashkelon and Gezer and precedes Israel (Wilson 1969:378; Helck 1971:224). Although this passage is of no assistance in identifying Yeno‘am, the above-suggested location of Yeno‘am may be an important contribution in interpreting this text: Israel appears in the hymn just after Yeno‘am and may refer to a confederacy of tribes sojourning at the time in Transjordan and not necessarily to a Cisjordanian group of tribes, as scholars have commonly held. Finally, we must note the negative evidence: In the biblical descriptions of the Israelite occupation and settlement, the absence of Yeno‘am is curious, because the Merneptah stele proves that even at such a late date Yeno‘am was still an important town. Its location in Transjordan solves the difficulty. It is possible that Yeno‘am was one of the sixty cities of the Bashan “fortified with high walls, gates and bars” that, according to the biblical tradition, were conquered by the Israelite tribes (Deut. 3:3–5). Identifying Yeno‘am with Tell esh-Shihab enables us to resume the discussion of the two difficult passages of the annals of Thutmose III in which

Yeno‘am

199

Yeno‘am is mentioned. After the detailed list of booty taken from the city of Megiddo appears the following: “List of what was carried off afterward by the king from the household goods of that enemy (the king of Qadesh) which were in Yeno‘am, ngs and ḥlnkr together with the property of these towns which were in vassalage to him”; a list of the booty from the latter towns then follows (Wilson 1969:237; Helck 1968–69:28). In a second inscription from the temple of Karnak, Thutmose states that he presented the God Amon with “three towns in upper Retenu — ngs the name of one, Yeno‘am the name of another and ḥlnkr the name of another — taxed with annual dues for the divine offerings of my father Amon” (Wilson 1969:237 n.42). The main difficulty in interpreting these two passages stems from the inclusion of ngs. Gardiner (1947:168*–169*), who identified this ngs with the northern Syrian kingdom of Nuḫašše, was forced to postulate that the three towns were conquered only in the 34th year of Thutmose and that the two passages were composed subsequently (see Noth 1938:63 n. 1). Helck, on the other hand, accepted the commonly held opinion regarding the passage in the annals as belonging to the Megiddo campaign of year 23 and accordingly suggested dissociating this ngs from the kingdom Nuḫašše lying far away in the north (Helck 1962:137). However, he later reversed his opinion, arguing that ngs mentioned in our passage should indeed be identified with the northern ngs = Nuḫašše, which appears in identical transcription in all other Egyptian sources. He, therefore, suggested that these three towns, ngs, Yeno‘am and ḥlnkr, were the respective capitals of the three principal districts of the “empire” of Qadesh, with ngs Nuḫašše denoting the region north of Qadesh, which Thutmose reached in the course of his first campaign (Helck 1968–69:28; 1971:133). In another discussion (Na’aman 1974:270–271), I already rejected the historical-geographical reconstruction suggested by Helck in the abovementioned article. Equally impossible is the hypothesis according to which Thutmose reached Nuḫašše, north of Qadesh, during his first campaign. Assuming that the two passages belong to the campaign of year 23, we would be obliged to dissociate ngs of our passages from the northern kingdom of Nuḫašše (the general consensus of scholars such as Breasted 1906: 187 n. 1 and Drower 1973:451). Moreover, the designation of Nuḫašše is known from all written sources as the name of a kingdom but not as a city or town (Klengel 1969:18–57), and ngs appears in the inscriptions of Thutmose as a town. The location of the other two towns also suggests a southern location for ngs: Yeno‘am is on the Yarmuk in Transjordan; Ḥlnkr (ḥa–l2-kúr, according to the transcription of Helck), probably to be identified with ḥlkr appearing in the topographical list of Thutmose III (Albright 1926:19; Jirku 1937:15 n. 7; Helck 1968–69:28; 1971:128), is located in the Bashan or in

200


southern Lebanon.6 Thutmose’s inscription refers to the three towns as situated in upper Retenu, a name denoting the mountainous region in northern Canaan according to its use during the Middle Kingdom and onward (Gardiner 1947:142*–143*; Helck 1971:266, 268). It would seem that while besieging Megiddo, Pharaoh dispatched some of his troops to the north to subdue the Lebanon and the Bashan regions, resulting in the conquest of these three towns. Here we must deal with the problem of the special status of these three towns, viz. ngs, Yeno‘am and ḥlkr, during the short period of Qadesh’s hegemony in southern Syria and Canaan. Thutmose’s annals distinguished between the property of the ruler of Qadesh in those three towns, which belonged to his private domain, and the property of other towns, which were merely subject to him. There are numerous examples from the Mitanni empire indicating that private ownership of territories situated in distant occupied lands was commonly held by Mitanni. According to the Ishmeriga treaty, nobles from Waššukanni (the capital of Mitanni) held estates in Ishmeriga and Kizzuwatna (Kempinski and Košak 1970:215–216; Na’aman 1974:270). In a letter from Nuzi (HSS IX No. 1), Sauštatar, king of Mitanni, granted estates to his vassals in the distant kingdom of Arrapḫa, and it is clear that the transferred territories had belonged to him previously (Speiser 1929; Lewy 1942: 7–9, 33–34). With these examples in mind, we may assume that, after the conquest of Canaan by Mitanni and its main ally Qadesh (Na’aman 1974:268–272), the king of Qadesh annexed the three towns to his own royal domain; after the Egyptian re-conquest the ownership of these towns passed to the victor. In view of this practice, one may ask: What was the status of Yeno‘am after the Egyptian conquest? Was the town annexed into the Pharaonic domains in Asia, or did she continue to exist as a Canaanite city, paying her taxes to the temple of the god Amon, albeit not to the royal treasury? There is no conclusive answer; we may only raise some arguments in order to clarify the matter. First, it is to be remembered that no ruler of Yeno‘am is recalled

6. Tentatively, ḥlkr of Thutmose might be compared with the mountain Hukkurūna mentioned in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal in connection with his wars against the Arabs east of Damascus (Weippert 1973:45 lines 15, 25; 80 lines 17, 32), most probably identical with the mountain of el-Leja (Weippert 1973:65–66, n. 99). Albright (1934:53) and Edel (1966:76) showed that the first sign in ḥlkr has the phonetic value of ḥu (for a different opinion see Helck 1971:554; but see Helck 1971:555 for the value ḥu); accordingly, the Egyptian toponym could be transcribed as Ḥulkuru. It is possible that assimilation of l/ k occurred in Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions, with the common west-Semitic suffix -ōn attached at the end. If this equation is valid, then the Egyptian town ḥlkr is located in the elLeja mountain, some 30–40 km. east of Tell esh-Shihab. (See Appendix).

Yeno‘am

201

in the Amarna documents (it has been shown above in note 4 that Biridashwa was the king of Ashtaroth and not of Yeno‘am), but, admittedly, not all of the names of the rulers of the city-states are known from the Amarna documents, and the seats of many rulers appearing in the epistolary are obscure. Such argumentation, therefore, is not compelling. Second, there is a certain degree of similarity between the attitude of Seti I toward Beth-shean, which was an Egyptian garrison city (Stützpunkt) from the time of Thutmose III and onward,7 and his attitude toward Yeno‘am: Seti sent troops to both cities, perhaps because both were threatened or taken over by the rebels, and in each of them he set up a stele commemorating his victory. (However, of course, one may argue that Yeno‘am took an active part in the rebellion and was conquered and subjugated as a result). Finally, it is to be noted that Biryawaza, ruler of Damascus, entered into the city of Yeno‘am (EA 197 lines 8–9). Upon analyzing the Amarna letters, it is obvious that Biryawaza held a special position in southern Syria, including the right of inspection of the Egyptian garrison-city of Kumidi (Hachmann 1970:65–84; Helck 1971:184, 251, 303; Kühne 1973:62 n.301). Accordingly, it may be assumed that his entrance into Yeno‘am was connected with his responsibilities of inspecting and guarding Yeno‘am as an Egyptian garrison-city, although this does not necessarily preclude the existence of a local ruler in the town, as would be the case with the city of Kumidi (EA 198).

7. The suggestion of Alt (1926:110–117), according to which Beth-shean became an Egyptian garrison-city (Stützpunkt) only late in the Amarna period, is not valid. Alt’s main support was EA 289 lines 18–24, from which he drew the conclusion that Tagu, ruler of Gath-carmel, had conquered the city of Beth-shean, in Alt’s opinion still a Canaanite citystate. But the term maṣṣartu appearing in that passage is consistently used in the Amarna letters to denote a garrison or a guard in the service of Egypt (Schulman 1964:17–18; Helck 1971:253–254); the passage, therefore, deals with the service of men from Gath-carmel in the Egyptian garrison-city of Beth-shean (see parallel passages in EA 253, lines 32–35; EA 294, lines 18–22; EA 296, lines 30–33) and by no means with the conquest of the city. In the above-mentioned passage (EA 289, lines 18–24) ‘Abdi-Ḫeba warns Pharaoh of impending dangers to Beth-shean and the trade route passing in its vicinity from the encamping garrison of Gath-carmel (an ally of Gezer, Shechem and Piḫilu at the time). It is to be concluded, therefore, that Beth-shean was an Egyptian garrison city even prior to the Amarna period; in my opinion, it was Thutmose III who has founded the Egyptian center there (for detailed discussion of the problem, see Na’aman 1975:189–193). There is also archaeological evidence for the early date of the Egyptian hold over the city. Level IX is the first stratum in which a great quantity of Egyptian material was found, including the stele of Mekal “lord of Beth-shean” (Rowe 1930:11–17; Rowe 1940:X). One may suggest that the earlier level, Xa, came to an end in year 23 of Thutmose III, and Stratum IX was then founded as an Egyptian center. The newly established stronghold held a central position in the Egyptian militaristic and administrative disposition in Canaan until the collapse of Egyptian rule in Canaan.

202


Contrary to all these arguments, it should be noted that Yeno‘am appears in some Egyptian topographical lists side by side with the Canaanite citystates (versus Egyptian garrison-cities) and that Yeno‘am is mentioned In the stele of Merneptah as a rebellious city conquered by the Pharaoh. Pending the discovery of new material on the subject, there is no definitive solution to the obscure status of Yeno‘am either before or after its conquest by Seti I.

References Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1964. The Canaanite Campaigns of Seti I. In: Liver, J. ed. The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times. Tel Aviv: 40–46. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Albright, W.F. 1925. Bronze Age Mounds of Northern Palestine and Hauran. BASOR 19: 5–19. Albright, W.F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 6. New Haven: 13–74. Albright, W.F. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: The Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR 35: 1–14. Albright, W.F. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. (American Oriental Series 5). New Haven. Albright, W.F. 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley. BASOR 89: 7–17. Alt, A. 1926. Zur Geschichte von Beth-sean 1500–1000 v. Chr. PJb 22: 108–120. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 246–255). Alt, A. 1928. Das Institut im Jahre 1927. PJb 24: 5–74. Breasted, J.H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents II. Chicago. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe and die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78. Drower, M.S. 1973. Syria c. 1550–1440 B.C. In: The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 417–525. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Festschrift für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29–63. Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus der Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn. Epstein, C. and Gutman, S. 1972. The Golan. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 244–298. (Hebrew). Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford. Gardiner, A.H. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford. Garstang, J. 1931. The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua-Judges. Oxford. Gauthier, H. 1925, 1926. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les texts hiéroglyphiques I, III. Cairo. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39) New Haven. Hachmann, R. 1970. Kāmid el-Lōz — Kumidi. in Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz — Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn: 63–94.

Yeno‘am

203

Helck, W. 1962. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Helck, W. 1968–69. Zur Staatlichen Organisation Syriens im Beginn der 18. Dynastie. AfO 22: 27–29. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd Revised ed. Wiesbaden. HSS IX = Pfeiffer, R.H. 1932. Excavations at Nuzi II, The Archives of Shilwateshub, Son of the King. (Harvard Semitic Series IX). Cambridge, MA. Jirku, A. 1937. Die ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig. Kempinski, A. and Košak, S. 1970. Der Išmeriga Vertrag. WO 5: 191–217. Kitchen, K.A. 1965. Theban Topographical Lists, Old and New. Orientalia 34: 1–9. Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien, Berlin. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kühne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna. (AOAT 17). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Lewy, H. 1942. The Nuzu-Feudal System. Orientalia 11: 1–40, 209–250, 297–349. Moran, W.L. 1973 The Dual Personal Pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. BASOR 211: 50–53. Na’aman, N. 1974. Syria at the Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle Babylonian Period. Ugarit Forschungen 6: 265–274. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Noth, M. 1937. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. Die Ortsliste Sethos’ I. ZDPV 60: 183–239. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsästze zur biblischen Landes-und Altertumskunde 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 22–44). Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrian (cont.). Der Aufbau der Palästinaliste Thutmoses III. ZDPV 61: 26–65. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsästze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 44–73). Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Toronto. Rowe, A. 1930. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia. Rowe, A. 1940. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. I: The Temples and Cult Objects. Philadelphia. Saarisalo, A. 1927. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali. Helsinki. Schulman, A. R. 1964. Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Berlin. Smith, G. A. 1901. Notes of a Journey through Hauran, with Inscriptions Found by the Way. PEQ 33: 340–361. Speiser, E. A. 1929. A Letter of Saushshatar and the Date of the Kirkuk Tablets. JAOS 49: 269–275. Weippert, M. 1973. Die Kämpfe des assyrischen Königs Assurbanipal gegen die Araber. Redaktionskritische Untersuchung des Berichts in Prisma A. WO 7: 39–85. Wreszinski, W. 1935. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte II. Leipzig.

Rubutu/Aruboth1 A city called Rbt/Rubutu is mentioned in Thutmose III’s and Shishak’s topographical lists and in the Taanach and Amarna letters. From the early days of modern research, scholars have suggested various locations for the city/ cities named in these sources. Sayce (1887/88:496) and Zimmern (1890:142) suggested the identification of Rubutu of the Amarna letters (EA 289:13; 290: 11) with the town of Rabbah, which is mentioned in Josh. 15:60 beside Kiriathjearim (Tell Deir el-‘Azar in Abû Ghosh). Clauss (1907:49) accepted the equation of names and located it at Charbata, north of Beth ‘Ur. Müller (1907:28) and Dhorme (1908:517) identified the Rubutu of the Amarna letters with the Rbt (No.105) of Thutmose III’s topographical list, and Abel (1938:423) identified biblical Rabbah with the town mentioned in these sources. Sellin (1904:98) suggested the identification of the Rubutu mentioned in a letter from Taanach (TT 1:26) with the Issacharite town of Rabbith (Josh. 19:20), a suggestion that was accepted by Clauss (1907:49) and Weber (in Knudtzon 1915:1342). Sellin (1904:98) considered the Rubutu of the Taanach and Amarna letters as a single town, whereas Weber (in Knudtzon 1915:1342) emphasized that they are two different towns. Müller (1907: 28 n. 2) identified the Rubutu of the Taanach letter with the Rbt (No.13) of Shishak’s topographical list. Finally, Abel (1938, 251) identified the Rubutu of the Taanach letter with Aruboth, the center of Solomon’s third district (1 Kgs. 4:10). In his discussion of the toponym Rbt (No. 105) in Thutmose III’s topographical list, Jirku (1937:16 n. 1) made the following observation: Wohl das Rubute der Briefe von El-Amarna (EA, I, 289, 290), das auch in einem der zu Ta‘anak gefundenen Keilschriftbriefe erscheint . . . In der Šošenq-Liste wird der Ort vor Ta‘anak und Šunem genannt (vgl. XXV, 13).

The identification and location of the Rubutu of the Taanach letter was discussed by Albright (1944:19 n. 36) in a long note. Due to the importance of this note, I will cite it in full. The town of Rubutu (so is the nominative) is mentioned twice in the letters of ‘AbdiḪeba of Jerusalem. Once (EA 289:13) Rubutu . . . is reported as having been occupied by


204

Rubutu/Aruboth

205

Milkilu of Gezer and Tagu, father-in-law of Lab’aya prince of Shechem, an (allegedly) disloyal act which greatly alarmed ‘Abdi-Ḫeba. A second time (EA 290:11) ‘Abdi-Ḫeba tells Pharaoh that Milkilu of Gezer and Šuwardatu (probably of Hebron . . .) have hired men of Gezer, Gath (in the north, probably Tagu’s capital . . .) and Keilah, and have occupied the land belonging to Rubutu. Apparently the town itself was not captured at this time, but fell later into the hands of Milkilu and Tagu. It must have been situated in or near the Coastal Plain between the territory of Taanach and that of Gezer. This rules out several identifications discussed by Weber in Knudtzon’s edition, p. 1342, e.g., “Rabbith” in Issachar . . . and ha-Rabbah in northern Judah both drop out of the picture. On the other hand, Rubutu is probably the R·b·t . . . of the Shishak List No. 11, followed immediately by Taanach, Shunem and Beth-shan, since the order of names points to a location southwest of Taanach near the eastern edge of the Coastal Plain. It cannot be the Ra-bi-tu of the Thutmosis III list (No.105), which occurs immediately after Qa-ḏi-ru and is probably somewhere in Eastern Palestine, between Gilead and Damascus, as may be inferred from the names appearing in its vicinity, among which are Edrei (No. 91), and ‘Ayyôna (. . .). It may well be that this Qa-ḏi-ru . . . is identical with the Gazru of Ḥaurân(?) captured by Tiglath-pileser III (. . .). Another plausible identification of Rubutu is with the Solomonic district capital of Arubboth (1 Kgs. 4:10), which must have been somewhere in the neighborhood of modern Tûl Karem, northwest of Samaria. . . . I no longer identify Arubboth with ‘Arrâbeh, Amarna Ḫarabu.

All scholars who later dealt with the identification of Rubutu disagreed with Albright’s conclusions. They separated the Rubutu of the Taanach tablet from the Rubutu of the Amarna letters and located the latter town in the northern Shephelah, not far away from the hill country of Judah. Why was Albright’s suggestion so easily dismissed by other scholars? The reason may be sought partly in B. Mazar’s analysis of the topographical list of Shishak (1957:60–63). Mazar applied the principle of boustrophedon to the first section of the list and obtained a sequence of Gaza (11), Gezer (12), Rubutu (13), Aijalon (26), qdtm (25), Beth-horon (24), Gibeon (23) . . . Rehob (17), Beth-shean (16), Shunem (15), Taanach (14), Megiddo (27). Tenth century Rbt, which Mazar identified with the Rubutu of the Amarna letters, falls within a group of northern Shephelah toponyms and, thus, was disassociated from the Rubutu of the Taanach tablet.2 Mazar’s principle of boustrophedon was followed by some scholars (e.g., Aharoni 1967:285–288; 1969:137–141; Rainey 1976b:660–661; Giveon 1979: 135–137; Ahituv 1984: 21). It was criticized by Kitchen (1973:443–444) who emphasized that the boustrophedon principle is not used in other Egyptian topographical lists and that it cannot be carried through the first section of the list. I also rejected the principle of boustrophedon and suggested instead that Row II (Nos. 14–26) was mistakenly copied upside-down (Na’aman

2. An exception is Aharoni (1967:157), who identified the Rubutu of the Taanach and Amarna letters and located it in the northern Shephelah, east of Gezer.

206


1992a:79). However, even this “minimalist” approach is redundant. Row III, which opens with Megiddo (No. 27), mainly enumerates toponyms located along the main road leading from Megiddo to Socoh. It does not differ from some other parts of Shishak’s topographical list, which are mainly (but not always) organized in geographically-defined small groups of toponyms, the direct result of the mode of multiple operations conducted simultaneously by the Egyptian troops (Noth 1938: 283–289; Kitchen 1973:446–447). Mazar’s hypothesis of the boustrophedon principle should best be abandoned. Whereas Mazar’s principle of boustrophedon was sometimes criticized, his conclusion that the Rbt of Shishak’s list is part of a well-defined group of toponyms all located in the northern Shephelah and that it is identical with the Rubutu of the Amarna letters was accepted by all scholars (see e.g., Aharoni 1959:229–230; 1967:286–287; Kallai and Tadmor 1969:143–144; Kitchen 1973: 434–435; Rainey 1976b; Ahituv 1984:165–167; Na’aman 1992a:79–80; 1992b: 277). Locating Rubutu in the northern Shephelah became a scholarly consensus and was accepted in the two recent editions of the Amarna letters (Moran 1992: 391; Liverani 1998:90 n. 2, 468). Aharoni (1969:137–141) suggested the identification of Rubutu at Khirbet Bir el-Ḥilû (Khirbet Ḥamideh), a site near Laṭrun, where Late Bronze II and Iron I-II pottery was found. Aharoni adopted the old equation of Rubutu with the Rabbah of Josh. 15:60, thereby extending the district in which Rabbah is included to the northern Shephelah (Aharoni 1959:229–230; 1967:299; 1969: 141). Although his suggestion was accepted by some scholars (e.g., Rainey 1976b; 1983:4; Ahituv 1984:166–167), Rabbah is clearly located in the hill country of Judah, near Kiriath-jearim, and its placement in the northern Shephelah is untenable. Is it necessary to look for the Rubutu of the Amarna letters and for the Rbt of Shishak’s topographical list in the northern Shephelah and disassociate it from the Rubutu of the Taanach letter? Let us re-examine the textual evidence. (1) ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, accused his adversaries, Milkilu, king of Gezer, and his allies, Tagi of Ginti-kirmil and Shuwardata of Gath (Tell eṣṢâfi), of conquering Rubutu (EA 289:11–13; 290:11–15). According to his report, the troops that participated in the attack of Rubutu arrived from Gezer, Ginti(-kirmil) and Keilah (EA 290: 11–15, 25–28) (Na’aman 1979:682–683). However, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba does not state that Rubutu was one of his towns. This is not accidental. In his letters he keeps complaining of “misdeeds” in places located outside — sometimes far away — from his borders (e.g., Zilu, Lachish, Beth-shean). Moreover, his accusations of the capture of Rubutu in EA 289: 11–13 are followed by the complaint of the service of the men of Ginti-kirmil at Beth-shean (lines 18–20). Finally, Milkilu was involved in the efforts to

Rubutu/Aruboth

207

bring the sons of Lab’ayu into Piḫilu (EA 250:35–39; see Na’aman 1999), a citystate located in northern Gilead, a plan that the allies were able to implement (see EA 255:12–21). I, therefore, suggest that the Rubutu mentioned in the two letters was located not far from Ginti-kirmil, Tagi’s capital. Milkilu, who was Tagi’s son-in-law (EA 249:8–9), and Shuwardata (assuming that ‘Abdi-Ḫeba’s accusations against him has some ground) must have helped Tagi in conquering a town located near the borders of his kingdom. The conquest of Rubutu was part of the large-scale offensive of the ShechemiteGezerite coalition which, with the help of their allies, operated then in both northern and southern Palestine. Ginti-kirmil should be identified at the large mound of the village of Jett, located in the eastern end of the plain of Sharon, as first suggested by Alt (1925: 48, n. 3) and accepted by Jirku (1930:143) and Helck (1971:185 n. 115; contra Rainey 1968). The name of the modern village preserves the component Ginti in the city’s old name. The petrographic and textual evidence for the location of Ginti-kirmil at Jett will be discussed in detail by Y. Goren, I. Finkelstein and this author in a forthcoming publication of our project on the Amarna tablets (see now Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2002). We may conclude that the Rubutu of the Amarna letters must be sought not far from Ginti-kirmil’s borders. (2) Like the topographical list of Shishak, the towns in Thutmose III’s topographical list are mainly grouped according to geographical regions (Aharoni 1967: 144–145; for a different opinion, see Redford 1982). The list is not systematically organized according to regions, and towns located in the same area are sometimes enumerated in different groups of toponyms. The following regions may be defined: the southern Lebanese Beqa‘ (Nos. 3–9), the Anti Lebanon and Hauran regions (Nos. 10–20), the Bashan (Nos. 21–30), the northern Jordan Valley (Nos. 31–34), the Jezreel and Acco plains (Nos. 35– 47), the southern coastal plain and the Sharon (Nos. 60–72),3 the Taḫshi region (Nos. 73–85), the Yarmuk River and its tributaries (Nos. 87–96),4 and the Carmel slopes (Nos. 112–117). 3. There is a marked similarity between toponyms Nos. 66–72 of Thutmose III’s list and Amenophis II’s inscriptions that relate his campaign to Canaan in his ninth year. Thutmose III’s list enumerates Aphek (66), Socoh (67), Yaḥam (68), Ḫbḏn (69), Gintu (70), Mktl (71) and ’ptn (72). Amenophis II’s inscription mentions Aphek, Socoh, Yaḥam, Mpśn, Ḫtsn, [Gintu?], ’trn and Mktlyn. It is tempting to identify Ḫbḏn and ’ptn of Thutmose’s list with the Ḫtsn and Mpśn of the inscription of Amenophis and to regard them as inaccurate variant renderings of the two toponyms. In this light, I suggest that Nos. 71–72 are part of the Sharon’s group of toponyms. 4. Rḥb (No. 87) is the Canaanite city of Rehob, mentioned in a letter of Taanach (TT 2: 22) and in Seti I’s inscription and located at Tell eṣ-Ṣārem in the Beth-shean plain (contra Ahituv 1984:164). ’qr is possibly the land of Gari mentioned in an Amarna letter (EA 256:

208


In this light, we may re-examine toponyms Nos. 104–111. Qḏr (No. 104) is, no doubt, the city of Gezer. Rbt (No. 105) is the city of Rubutu. The place of Mqr/lt (No. 106) is unknown. ‘mq (No. 107) is probably the Jezreel Valley, which is mentioned for a second time in Shishak’s topographical list (No. 65 p3‘mq). Śrt (No. 108) is probably the town of Sarid, located on the southern border of Zebulun’s allotment (Josh 19:10, 12) (Barthélemy 1982:52).5 B’rt (No. 109) may possibly be identified with the city of Berath/Beēroth, which appears in the LXX text of Josh 19:19 among the towns of Issachar (Albright 1926: 229; Görg 1974:55). No. 110 is the city of Beth-shean. Btnt (No. 111) may be identified with the city of Beten (Josh. 19:25), mentioned in the town list of Asher beside Helkath, Hali and Achshaph. Its name might be rendered Betenath, i.e., Beten + the fem. suf. –at. No. 112 is the city of Helkath, No. 113 is Jokneam, and No. 114 is Geba‘ (Tell Abū Shūsheh; see Giveon 1981:33–35; Schmitt 1987:23–41). Thus, it is evident that toponyms Nos. 107–117 are located in a well-defined area, covering the Beth-shean and Jezreel plains up to the margins of the Acco plain and the Carmel slopes. Rbt (No. 105) and Mqr/lt (No. 106) well may be combined with this group, whereas Gezer either is an isolated toponym or forms, with No. 103 (Qpt = Gibethon?; Ahituv 1984:101), a small northern Shephelah group (see next section). (3) The toponyms in the topographical list of Shishak appear in the following order: G[xx] (11), M[xx(x)] (12), Rbt (13), Taanach (14), Shunem (15), Beth-shean (16), Rehob (17), Hapharaim (18). The town of Rbt (13) safely may be combined with the towns that follow it, all located in the Jezreel and Bethshean valleys. Its identification with the Rubutu of the Taanach letter (TT 1: 26) is self-evident. As for the identity of the two broken toponyms that precede Rbt (Nos. 11– 12), toponym No. 11 was usually restored G[ḏt], i.e., Gaza (e.g., Kitchen 1973: 435; Ahituv 1984:98, n. 197). However, Shishak’s list of toponyms does not indicate that he conquered Philistine towns. On the contrary, the Philistine cit-

23). Two toponyms in this group may be included among the land of Gari’s towns also. ’bl (Nos. 90, 92) possibly may be identified with Yabilima (EA 256:28); and ‘yn (No. 95) is possibly Ḫayuna (256:28). Some other toponyms in this group (Nos. 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98) are included in a group of toponyms mentioned in the topographical list of Amenophis III and situated in the Golan and Bashan. See the comparative tablet of toponyms published by Görg 1979: 169. For the location of these toponyms, see Edel 1966:11–23; Ahituv 1981; 1984: passim; Redford 1982: 60–62; Lenzen and Knauf 1987:59–62. Toponyms Nos. 87–96 seems to have been located in a well defined area, between the Beth-shean plain in the west and the tributaries of the Yarmuk River in the east. 5. Sarid is mentioned possibly one more time in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:13); see Na’aman 1990: 424–425.

Rubutu/Aruboth

209

ies probably cooperated with the Egyptian troops who operated against their rivals in central and northern Palestine as well as in the Beer-sheba Valley and the Negeb Highlands. I suggested restoring No. 11 as G[ḏr], i.e., Gezer, which was a border town of the northern Israelite kingdom and the natural first target of the Egyptian campaign (Na’aman 1992a:79–80). The detachment of Gezer from some other towns of the northern Shephelah (Nos. 25– 26 – Aijalon and Gittaim6) is not exceptional in Shishak’s list. For example, Mahanaim (No. 22) is detached from the other towns located near the Jabbok River (Nos. 53–56); Gibeon (No. 23) and Zemaraim (No. 57) appear in different rows. Some topographical lists indeed recorded the toponyms in groups according to geographical regions, but the listing is not always systematic and some isolated toponyms are also registered. This well may be true of the registration of Gezer (No. 104) in Thutmose III’s list (see above). Whether the next town (M[xx(x)], No. 12) is the same as the Mqr/lt that appears after Rbt in Thutmose III’s list remains unknown. (4) Rubutu is mentioned in Taanach tablet No. 1 (TT 1), which was sent by Eḫli-Teshub, a neighboring ruler. Lines 24–30 of the letter run as follows (see Glock 1983:60; Rainey 1999:156*): And send back word concerning the servant girl, Kan[. . .], who is in the town of Rubutu, concerning her welfare, and if it is acceptable, [s]ell /[I will s]ell her ([t]a-daan-ši or [a-n]a-da-an-ši) either for the ransom or to a master.7

Rewashur, ruler of Taanach, holds the slave girl in Rubutu. Hence, the town was located within his kingdom. Unfortunately, the letter does not give any clue for its exact location. The background for the enslavement of the girl is unknown. Either she was captured by force and was being held until ransom was paid, or she was working in Rewashur’s household until a debt was paid. Eḫli-Teshub suggests either giving her for ransom or selling her for servitude. (5) The city of Aruboth was the center of the Solomonic third district (1 Kgs. 4:10). The district is described thus: “The son of Hesed in Aruboth; to him belonged Socoh and all the land of Hepher.” Socoh was located in the eastern plain of Sharon (Khirbet Shuweiket er-Râs), on the main road lead6. For the rendering of No. 25 (qdtm = Gittaim), see Na’aman 1992a: 80, with earlier literature. 7. For the translation of line 29, see CAD I 172b; CAD N/1 44a. Rainey’s rendering of the verb in line 29 ([n]a-da-an-ši) and his translation of lines 28–30 (“and whether he is willing to sell her for redemption money or to a husband”) is unlikely. First, he brings in to the text someone (“he”) who is not mentioned elsewhere. Second, the alternative of selling for ransom or marriage looks odd. The obvious alternative is between receiving payment for ransom and selling the servant girl for money.

210


ing from the Shephelah to the plain of Jezreel. The land of Hepher probably encompassed the territory of the five districts of Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah, which are referred to in the biblical text as “daughters” of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher. It extended between Wadi el-Far‘ah (Naḥal Tirzah) and the city of Samaria to the south, the plain of Jezreel to the north, and the plain of Sharon to the west. The southern limit of the Solomonic third district (i.e., the southern limit of the land of Hepher) is congruent with the northern border of the first district (i.e., the northern limit of Mount Ephraim) (Lemaire 1972; 1977:59–65, 287–289; Zertal 1984:65–78; Na’aman 1986:158–162). The third district included the mountainous areas called the land of Hepher and a strip of the plain of Sharon marked by the city of Socoh (for similar geographical conclusions, see Albright 1925:29; Wright 1967:62*– 64*; Mettinger 1971:113–116). The analysis of all the available sources indicates that there is no compelling evidence for the commonly held assumption of two different towns, designated by the same name, Rubutu, in southern and northern Palestine. On the contrary, all references of Rubutu/Aruboth may be attributed to a single site, probably located in the northern Samaria area, east of Ginti-kirmil (Jett) and south of Taanach. Rubutu must have been an important town, as it appears in all the major extra-biblical geographical-historical sources that we have for the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age II (i.e., the topographical lists of Thutmose III and Shishak and the Taanach and Amarna letters). It was a secondary town within the Late Bronze kingdom of Taanach, as indicated by letter TT 1. It is listed before the Jezreel Valley (No. 107 — ‘mq) in the topographical list of Thutmose III, and before the city of Taanach (No. 14) in Shishak’s list. The attack of Milkilu of Gezer, and his allies, Tagi and Shuwardata, on Rubutu (EA 289:11–13; 290:11–15) might indicate that it was located not far from Gintikirmil’s eastern border. The conquest of Rubutu was part of the attack of Shechem, Gezer and their allies on Yashdata, ruler of Taanach. The attack brought about the capture of his towns (EA 250:41–47 — Burquna, Ḫarabu and Ginti-rimûnima; for site identifications, see Rainey 1968: 7 notes 34–35, 37; Zertal 1992c: 68, 97–98) and his exile from his city (EA 248; see EA 245:1– 18). The kingdom of Taanach did not recover from the attack and soon afterward declined as evident from the archaeological excavations conducted on the site (Glock 1993:1432, with earlier literature). The identity of Canaanite Rubutu and biblical Aruboth (as suggested by Abel and Albright) is self-evident, the omission of the initial vowel has many parallels in Palestinian and ancient Near Eastern onomasticon (for references, see Zadok 1978:164–165; 1982:124). The town was a district’s center in the time of the Israelite monarchy. Albright (1925:28) linked the name

Rubutu/Aruboth

211

Aruboth with the present-day village of ‘Arrābeh, on the southeast corner of the Dothan plain; both Mettinger (1971:114) and Lemaire (1972:16; 1977: 62) accepted his suggestion. However, the linkage of names is quite uncertain, and my search for the site of Rubutu is not dependent on the similarity of the two names.8 The name Aruboth is sometimes linked with the district of Arbatta/ Narbata/Nabrachta of the Second Temple and Roman periods (Möller and Schmitt 1976:147–148, with earlier literature; Zertal 1992a; Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green 1994:193, with earlier literature). However, most scholars have placed the district of Narbata in the Sharon plain and have sought the city of Aruboth in this area (Klein 1930; Alt 1932:31–34; Weippert 1966:288–291, with earlier literature; Möller and Schmitt 1976:147–148, with earlier literature). Other scholars rejected the identification of Arbatta/Narbata with Nabrachta, locating the first district in the plain of Sharon and searching for the latter in the northern Samaria area (Grintz 1969:11–31; Safrai 1980: 48–51, 155–157). Although it is linguistically possible that the old name Rubutu/Aruboth developed into the late form Arbatta/Narbata (Alt 1932: 32; Weippert 1966:289 n. 92), the relationship between the Canaanite and Israelite town of Rubutu/Aruboth and the Second Temple city and district of Narbata is highly uncertain. In light of this uncertainty, the two toponyms should be discussed separately until new data, if found, changes the present documentary evidence. Rubutu/Aruboth should best be sought in the Dothan plain; its exact location requires some consideration. Wright (1967:63*) looked for Aruboth in the Dothan plain and mentioned Tell el-ḥafar or Tell el-Masallah as possible candidates. Zertal (1984:72–76; 1992a) suggested locating Aruboth at Khirbet el-Ḥamam, in the hilly area southwest of the plain of Dothan. However, no Late Bronze pottery has been found in Zertal’s excavations of the site, and his suggested identification is untenable. There are six Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II sites in the plain of Dothan: Burqîn, Tell el-Muḥafar, el-Khirab and er-Rujam on its northern side and Tell Dothan and el-Meshattah on its south (Zertal 1984:154–156; 1992c:51– 52). Burqîn is doubtless the site of Canaanite Burquna, and Tell Dothan is the place of biblical Dothan (Gen. 37:17; 2 Kgs. 6:13). Of the remaining sites, Tell Muḥafar is the largest and most suitable for the location of Rubutu/Aruboth. 8. In another article, Albright (1944:19 n. 36) abandoned the identification of Aruboth with ‘Arrābeh and followed Dhorme (1908:518) in identifying ‘Arrābeh with the town of Ḫarabu (EA 250:44). Rainey (1968:7 n. 34) accepted this identification, whereas Zertal (1984: 61, 101; 1992:68) identified Ḫarabu with el-Khirab, located on the northwestern side of the Dothan plain.

212


Zertal (1992b) equated it with biblical Hepher. However, a city named Hepher is mentioned neither among the hundreds of toponyms that appear in second millennium sources nor in post-biblical sources. Even in the Bible it appears only in the list of conquered Canaanite cities (Josh 12:17). Therefore, I agree with Lemaire (1972:14–16; 1977:61–62) that Hepher was not a city’s name, but rather the name of a vast region (1 Kgs. 4:10) whose five districts are personified by the names of Hepher’s five granddaughters (Num. 26:32– 33; 27:1; Josh 17:2–3). Its essence as a district’s name explains why it survived in four places in the Dothan plain: Tell el-Muḥafar, Khirbet al-Muḥafar, Khirbet Ḥafireh and Bīr el-Ḥafireh. The regional name Hepher was selected by the author of Joshua 12 to represent the northern Samarian hill country, which is not included in the conquest tradition of the Book of Joshua.9 In sum, combination of all the evidence points to the plain of Dothan as the most likely location of Rubutu/Aruboth. In light of the importance of Rubutu/Aruboth in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II, I suggest locating it at Tell el-Muḥafar, the largest mound in the plain of Dothan. The archaeological survey conducted at the site indicates that it was settled from the Early Bronze Age until the Roman period (Zertal 1984:98–99, Pls. 13–15; 1992c:108– 111). One hopes that the site will be excavated in the future, so that its archaeological data will join the historical information presented in this article and amplify our outlook of this interesting Canaanite and Israelite city.

9. I deliberately ignore the bulla recently published by Deutsch (1997 No. 100), on which appears the toponym h’rbt and which Heltzer (2000:106) identified with the city of Aruboth (although its identification with the Judean city of Rabbah is more likely). It belongs to a group of eight different bullae that suddenly appeared in the 1990s on the antique market (for references see Heltzer 2000) and whose authenticity is quite uncertain.

Rubutu/Aruboth

213

References Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris. Aharoni, Y. 1959. The Province List of Judah. VT 9: 225–246. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145. Ahituv, S. 1981. The Lebanon, Galilee and Bashan in a Topographical List of Amenophis III. Eretz Israel 15: 129–136. (Hebrew). Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1925. The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah. JPOS 5: 17–54. Albright, W.F. 1926. The Topography of the Tribe of Issachar. ZAW 44: 225–236. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orienralis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78. Deutsch, R. 1997. Messages from the Past. Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Josiah through the Destruction of the First Temple. Tel Aviv. Dhorme, P. 1908. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 5: 500–519. Edel, E. 1966. Der Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn. Giveon, R. 1979. Remarks on Some Egyptian Toponym Lists concerning Canaan. In: Görg, M., and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 135–141. Giveon, R. 1981. Geba‘ (Urk. IV, 786, 114). Göttinger Miszellen 49: 33–36. Glock, A.E. 1983. Texts and Archaeology at Tell Ta‘annek. Berytus 31: 57–66. Glock, A.E. 1993. Taanach. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4. Jerusalem: 1428–1433. Goren, I., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2002. The Seat of three Disputed Canaanite Rulers according to Petrograpic Investigation of the Amarna Tablets. Tel Aviv 29: 221-237. Görg, M. 1974. Untersuchungen zur Hieroglyphischen Wiedergabe Palästinischer Ortsnamen. Bonn. Görg, M. 1979. Identifikation von Fremdnamen. Das methodische Problem am Beispiel einer Palimpsestschreibung aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. In: Görg, M. ed. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 152–173. Grintz, M.Y. 1969. Chapters in the History of the Second Temple Times. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Heltzer, M. 2000. Some Questions Concerning the Economic Policy of Josiah, King of Judah. IEJ 50: 105–108. Hrozný, F. 1904. Keischrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. Wien: 113–122. Jirku, A. 1930. Durch Palästina und Syrien. Bericht über eine Forschungsreise in Frühjahr 1929. ZDPV 53: 136–166. Jirku, A. 1937. Die Ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig. Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).

214


Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster. Klein, S. 1930. Narbatta und die jüdischen Siedlungen westlich von Samaria. Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 74: 369–380. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Lemaire, A. 1972. Le “Pays de Hépher” et les “filles de Zelophehad” à la lumière des ostraca de Samarie. Semitica 22: 13–20. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. I. Les ostraca. Paris. Lenzen, C.J. and Knauf, E.A. 1987. Notes on Syrian Toponyms in Egyptian Sources I. Göttinger Miszellen 96: 59–64. Liverani, M. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna I-II. ( Testi del Vicino Oriente antico). Brescia. Mazar, B. 1957. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Supplement to VT 4: 57–66. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1971. Solomonic State Officials. A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Serie 5). Lund. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Möller, C. and Schmitt, G. 1976. Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 14). Tübingen. Müller, W.M. 1907. Die Palästinaliste Thutmosis III. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft Eingetragener Verien 12. Berlin: 1–40. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UgaritForschungen 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1990. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IVV). VT 40: 423–436. Na’aman, N. 1992a. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1992b. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291. Na’aman, N. 1999. Milkilu’s Messenger and the Sons of Lab’ayu (EA 250: 28–34). Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999/1: No. 27. Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege des Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. IV Die Schoschenkliste. ZDPV 61: 277–304. Rainey, A.F. 1968. Gath-padalla. IEJ 18: 1–14. Rainey, A.F. 1976a. Rabbah, ha-Rabbah. Enc. Miqr. VII: 314–315. (Hebrew). Rainey, A.F. 1976b. Shishak, Shoshak. Enc. Miqr. VII: 655–661. (Hebrew). Rainey, A.F. 1983. The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. BASOR 251: 1–22. Rainey, A.F. 1999. Taanach Letters. Eretz Israel 23: 153*–162*. Redford, D.B. 1982. A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74. Safrai, Z. 1980. Borders and Administration in Eretz Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Sayce, A.H. 1887–88. Babylonian Tablets from Tell el-Amarna, Upper Egypt. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 10: 488–525. Schmitt, G. 1987. Geba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103: 22–48. Sellin, E. 1904. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Wien. Tsafrir, Y., Di Segni, L. and Green, J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani — Maps and Gazetteer. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem.

Rubutu/Aruboth

215

Weippert, M. 1966. Archäologischer Jahresbericht. ZDPV 82: 274–330. Wright, G.E. 1967. The Provinces of Solomon. Eretz Istael 8: 58*–68*. Zadok, R. 1978. West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources. In: Avishur, Y. and Blau J., eds. Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: 163–179. Zadok, R. 1982. Remarks on the Inscription of Hdys‘y from Tell Fakhariya. Tel Aviv 9: 117– 129. Zertal, A. 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Zertal, A. 1992a. Arubboth. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. New York: 465–467. Zertal, A. 1992b. Hepher. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. New York: 138–139. Zertal, A. 1992c. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Shechem Syncline. University of Haifa. (Hebrew). Zimmern, H. 1890. Palästina um das Jahr 1400 vor Chr. Nach neuen Quellen. ZDPV 13: 133– 147.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan1 The question of the economic advantages gained for Egypt by holding the land of Canaan permanently during the Late Bronze Age has, until recently, been dealt with only in a general way.2 The isolation of the factors relating exclusively to the problems of the Egyptian permanent occupation of the land of Canaan and the Egyptian impositions on their vassals is so difficult that scholars have usually withheld judgement.3 However, Albright (1975:106) expressed the opinion that “the regular tribute alone must have been a terrific burden.” This view was combined with his earlier concept, according to which “the wealth and culture of southern Canaan decreased rather steadily under foreign misrule, until it reached an extremely low ebb in the thirteenth century” (Albright 1949:101; 1963:25). In an article published recently, Ahituv (1978:93–105) reviewed this question. As a basis for his study, he used the written documents available for the whole period of Egyptian rule in Canaan, sorting the material according to the different categories of commodities and estimating the value of each item for Egypt. His conclusions are diametrically opposite to the views held by Albright: “It is indeed probable that there was no economic interest in the Egyptian conquest of Canaan, and if such an interest existed it was very limited” (Ahituv 1978:104). This article will re-examine the economic aspects of the Egyptians’ occupation of the Land of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.

1. Reprinted with permission. Israel Exploration Journal 31 (1981), 172–185. 2. All the available economic information for the Egyptian relationships with Asia was collected by Helck 1971:chap. 27. The material in this chapter is varied, belonging to different periods, sources (documents, reliefs, paintings and vessels) and categories (booty, tribute, gifts and commerce). 3. Alt 1950; Abdul Kader Mohammad 1959:105–137; Helck 1960:1–13; 1971:246–255; Drower 1973: 467–483; Albright 1975:102–116; Kitchen 1969:80–82; de Vaux 1978:94–99; Several 1972:123–133.

216

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan

217

The Problem of the Source Material The written sources available for our inquiry are the Amarna letters, several Egyptian royal inscriptions and a handful of administrative and economic texts. No Egyptian royal archive, other than that discovered at Amarna, has been found. The administrative and economic texts were collected from various places and cover different reigns and subjects. Thus, it is clear that no comprehensive picture of the type required by the subject of this article can be drawn from them. The royal inscriptions pose a different problem. Almost all the information included there is connected with booty, and other kinds of income are rarely recorded. However, the booty lists, important as they are for the study of the economy of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, should not be taken into account in the present discussion. The establishment of a permanent body of government and the imposition of taxes and duties on the conquered population oblige the conqueror to maintain the security of that territory. Military campaigns, whose primary object is to take the maximal amount of booty, are destructive by nature, and their aim is the opposite of that of a permanent government. It is my opinion that the mixture of booty and tribute (as in Ahituv’s article) cannot contribute to the assessment of the more permanent factors of Egyptian government in Canaan. The Amarna letters are a very different case, because many aspects essential to the discussion are included there. The duration of the whole archive, the place of many letters within the chronological framework, the origin of most of the dispatches and the relative strength of the city-states mentioned in the tablets are well known. A combination of all these data together may help in the examination of the problem at hand. The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten were devoid of major military campaigns. The lack of booty made it necessary to use peaceful means (commerce, gifts and tribute) to bring needed materials to Egypt. This is a clear advantage when one is trying to identify the possible contributions of the vassals to the treasury of their overlord. The Amarna letters are crucial for the discussion. Thus, it is important to appreciate what has remained of the original archive. This unique collection includes letters brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new capital Akhetaten (Amarna) when the royal court moved there, but lacks those letters taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment. The number of letters transferred in both cases is unknown, and we don’t know the criteria for their selection. One might conjecture that only those letters that were necessary for future correspondence were brought to the new capital and taken when the royal court left Amarna (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:32–

218


36; Na’aman 1975:2–3). Also, an unknown part of the archive was totally destroyed when it was discovered and before the value of the tablets was recognized (Knudtzon 1915:1–15; Campbell 1964). Therefore, it should be kept in mind that our main source for the discussion is only a part of the original archive of Amarna. The time span of the archive is important for the discussion below. The archive covers the period from the thirtieth year of Amenophis III to the third year of Tutankhamun, when the city of Amarna was abandoned. The time span depends on whether there was co-regency between Amenophis III and Akhenaten or not. The maximal period covered by the archive is 28 years (8+17+3), and the minimal is 17 years (8+6+3).

The Economic Data of the Amarna Tablets The tribute in the Amarna letters is hopelessly confused with the gifts, and there is no way to distinguish between them. However, as vassals’ “gifts” were usually not less obligatory than tribute in the ancient Near East, this is not a real obstacle to the discussion. The term for tribute in the letters is biltu. It appears in the combination bilat šarri (EA 288:12; see EA 160:44) and bilat šamaš (EA 325:21). The terms for gifts are tāmartu (EA 99:12, 19) and qīštu (EA 53:51, 100:33, 288:22). The discussion of the economic data is divided into three main categories. We shall examine the value of the items in terms of “money” whenever this is possible, using the silver shekel as a standard. Tributes and Gifts The deliveries of both kinds will be grouped together by commodities. Silver EA 287:54 — 5000 shekels are sent from Jerusalem;4 EA 313:7–11 — 1400 shekels are sent from southern Palestine; EA 309:21 — 100 shekels are sent from southern Palestine; EA 270 — Milkilu of Gezer is severely requested to pay 2000 shekels; EA 99 — the ruler of Ammiya is ordered to send 20 shekels as a part of the dowry of his daughter.

4. Knudtzon did not restore the end of this line. Albright (1969:488b) read: “Five thousand [silver (shekels)].” The traces at the end of the line (see Schroeder 1915:No. 163, line 54) might represent broken KÙ.BABBAR signs, though the first sign looks more like a din (which, however, would make no sense in this context).


219

Copper and Bronze Bronze was used exclusively for manufacturing tools and vessels. Therefore, whenever a heavy weight is mentioned, even if the Akkadian word is siparru (“bronze”), it can only mean “copper” and not “bronze” (Oppenheim 1969:241). EA 151:47 — 5 talents of copper are sent from Tyre; EA 69:25–30 — an unspecified amount of copper was taken from Byblos; EA 77:7– 8 — Rib-Adda of Byblos is requested to send copper and bronze tools.5 The relationship of the value of silver to that of copper in Egypt at the time of the 18th Dynasty was 1:100 (Helck 1975:270; Janssen 1975:106–107). Copper was cheaper in the northern countries, roughly 1:200–400.6 Glass Four rulers, all from southern Palestine, sent raw glass (eḫlipakku) on the same occasion (EA 314, 323, 327, 331).7 The ruler of Tyre sent the same mineral (mekku — EA 148:5). The weights mentioned in the letters are 30 (EA 323:16), 50 (EA — 327:10) and 100 (EA 148:8), but it is not clear whether it designates the shekel unit or not, and we cannot estimate the value of these consignments. Wood EA 160:14–19 — Aziru of Amurru sent 8 ships loaded with wood; EA 161: 55–56 the same ruler promised to send another transport of wood (and agricultural products as well); EA 151:48 — an unknown kind of wood is sent from Tyre to Egypt. Manufactured Goods EA 266:20–33 — Tagu of Ginti-kirmil sent a chariot with all its appurtenances;8 EA 151:48 — Abi-Milki of Tyre sent a whip to the Pharaoh; EA 168:9– 10 — Aziru of Amurru sent vessels (unūtu); EA 99 — the ruler of Ammiya is ordered to send chariots and horses (besides silver and slaves) as a dowry to the Pharaoh. All the dispatches mentioned in this category are clearly gifts.9

5. For s/še-en-ni meaning bronze vessel, see Liverani 1971:261, n. 45; AHw 1164b, s.v. šannu(m). It is not clear to me why the passage EA 69:8, 10, 13 was cited in AHw 1048a, s.v. sinnu 1. 6. For Nuzi, see Eichler 1973:15; Heltzer 1978:30–31, 77–78. 7. For the identification of eḫlipakku as a raw glass, see Oppenheim 1973:259–266. 8. For this passage, see Na’aman 1977b. 9. “Thirty goblet[s of silver(?)] and gold” are mentioned in letter EA 219:25, but the tablet is so broken that the context in which the goblets appear remains obscure.

220


Cattle EA 301:19 — Shubandu of south Palestine sent 500 cattle; EA 242:11 — Biridiya of Megiddo sent 30 cattle. The price of an ox in Egypt at the time of the 18th and 19th Dynasties was about a half dbn (=5 shekels) of silver (Helck 1975:271–272; Janssen 1975:176). The price of an ox in the northern countries was 10–20 shekels of silver.10 Personnel EA 64:20–23 — ‘Abdi-Ashtarti of south Palestine sent 10 maids of an unknown description;11 EA 268:15–20 — Milkilu of Gezer sent 46 maidser[vants], 5 attendants and 5 aširūma. EA 287:54–55 — ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem sent x prisoners (asirū) and x+8 caravan escorts; EA 288:16–22 — ‘Abdi-Ḫeba sent 21 maidservants, 10 slaves and 80 prisoners (asirū);12 EA 301:20 — Shubandu of southern Palestine sent 20 girls; EA 309:19–24 — a southern Palestinian ruler sent 10 maidservants and 10 slaves on one occasion and x + 1 on another;13 EA 99 — the ruler of Ammiya is ordered to send 20 slaves as part of the dowry of his daughter to the Pharaoh. The price of a maidservant, according to an Amarna letter (EA 369), was 40 shekels of silver. This fits well the prices in Egypt (Helck 1975:211) and the north Syrian kingdoms in that period.14 Accordingly, the deliveries of slaves

10. Heltzer 1978:20–21, 74, n. 13. The average price of an ox at Nuzi was 10 shekels of silver; Eichler. 1973:15. 11. See the discussions by Krahmalkov 1971:140–143; Loretz and Mayer 1974:493–494. 12. The suggested restoration for lines 16–18 is as follows: (16) [i-nu-ma PN lúMAŠKIM šarri] (17) [k]a-ša-ad a-na mu-ḫi-ia la-a [a-nu-ma] (18) na-ad-na-ti 10 lúÌRmeš [a-na q]a-[t]i-[šu], “When PN, the commissioner of the king, came to me, now did not I hand over to him ten slaves?” The transport mentioned above in the text is actually a combination of two consecutive consignments from ‘Abdi-Ḫeba to the Pharaoh. 13. A tentative restoration of letter EA 309:19–24, partly based on the facsimile (Schroeder 1915:No. 174), is as follows: (19) [ar?]-ki ša aš-[pu?-ru?] (20) [x+]1 ÌRmeš TUR[meš?] (21) ù 1 M[E] KÙ.BABBAR[meš] (22) [a-n]a LUGAL EN-i[a] (23) 10 ÌRm[eš TUR?] [ù] (24) 10 mí GEMEmeš [. . .]; “After that I have sent x+1 young slaves and 100 (shekels) of silver to the king, my lord, [I have given(?)] 10 [young(?)] slaves and 10 maidservants.” Notes to the restoration: Line 20: the meš sign, which was restored at the end of the line, may be redundant. Line 23: the restoration is based on line 20. Line 24: It seems that the line continues on the edge of line 25, where the remnant of a Glossenkeil is seen on the facsimile. Granted that the restoration is correct, then two consecutive consignments were sent to the Pharaoh, parallel to the two consignments sent in letter EA 288. 14. For Ugarit, see Mendelsohn 1955:68; Albright 1941:44–45. For Alalakh, see Klengel 1963:1–15. It is interesting to note that the average price of a slave at Nuzi was only 30 shekels; Eichler 1973:16.


221

and maids were of very high value. In letter EA 369, the Pharaoh sent his envoy to buy 40 maids at their full price. As mentioned above, no major military campaign was conducted in those years, and the dispatch of all kinds of slaves seems to have been essential for the Pharaoh. The group called aširū(ma) needs brief consideration. Rainey (1967:296– 301) suggested that they were a kind of military personnel. Astour (1972: 15–25), on the other hand, defined them as merchants organized in groups. Without embarking on a detailed discussion, it seems to me that the material from Canaan supports Rainey’s suggestion. Thus, in letter No. 5 from Taanach, Amenophis orders the ruler of Taanach to send him tribute and troops, in which aširū are also included.15 Milkilu of Gezer and ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem sent transports to the Pharaoh, which included slaves, maidservants, attendants, caravan escorts, prisoners and aširūma (EA 268:20). Merchants are out of question in this context. The aširū(ma) may well be a kind of warrior, perhaps even bodyguards of the rulers.

Pharaonic Territories and Their Products Alongside the old Canaanite city-states, the Egyptians established a network of garrison cities to administer the territories under their power, probably set up by Thutmose III. Four were situated on the coast, Gaza and Joppa in the south and Ullasa and Ṣumur in the north; one city (or perhaps two) was located on the major caravan-route linking Mesopotamia and Syria with Palestine and Egypt (Beth-shean and possibly Yeno‘am; see Na’aman 1977a); another such city, Kumidi, lay on the major crossroad of the Lebanese Beqa‘. In all these places (except Kumidi) the city-state rulers were deposed and replaced by Egyptian officials who assumed administration of the city, in cooperation with the local urban institutions (see EA 102:22–2316). The vassal city-state rulers were liable to corvée of different kinds, which they fulfilled in the Egyptian garrison cities and the surrounding territories. They garrisoned the cities (EA 60:20–25, 103:13–15, 289:18–20; see EA 190:4– 5, 197:37–39, 253:32–35), defended their walls and gates (EA 296:30–33) and

15. Taanach tablet No. 5, lines 4–15. There is no textual justification for Albright’s translation (1944:23–24), which began a new sentence in line 8, thus, separating the aširū from the preceding lines. 16. The passage is related to the Egyptian garrison-city of Ṣumur, and the official mentioned there was probably Appiḫa (EA 69:25,29, 100:12, 105:35; see EA 103:11–15, 106:21–22). I cannot accept the opinion of A. Altman (1978:101) that the passage is related to the city of Ambi; Ambi was under the sovereignty of Byblos and, as a subordinate town, was not directly supervised by an Egyptian official.

222


guarded special installations (EA 294:16–24). They were also liable to repair damages (EA 160:26–28; 161:35–40). The most instructive letters are those relating to the cultivation of the Egyptian territories in the area of the garrison cities. Letter EA 365 is the well-known episode of gathering corvée workers for cultivating the fields of Shunem.17 It has been suggested that the fields of Shunem were incorporated as a result of the destruction of the city by Lab’ayu (Alt 1924:34–41). However, another solution seems preferable; in the annals of Thutmose III, after the list of booty taken from three Transjordanian cities (Na’aman 1977a), the following passage (Wilson 1969:238) appears: Now the fields (3ḫw.t) were made into arable plots (‘ḥw.t) and assigned to inspectors of the palace . . . in order to reap their harvest. List of the harvest which his majesty carried off from the Megiddo arable plots (‘ḥw.t): 207,300 [+x] sacks of wheat, apart from what was cut as forage by his majesty’s army.

The first part of the passage is related to the fields of the above-mentioned three cities, which were reparcelled and assigned to the supervision of the palace’s inspectors. The second part is related to the fields in the neighborhood of Megiddo, using the same Egyptian term, ‘ḥw.t, as in the first sentence. The word ‘ḥw.t (“arable plots”), in contrast to 3ḫw.t (“fields”), designates the administrative status of the territory belonging to the state.18 Thus, the enormous amount of reaped sacks of grain came from a large area of arable land incorporated by the Pharaoh after the conquest of Megiddo. Therefore, one may conjecture that the fields, including the area around Shunem, were supervised by the nearby Egyptian garrison-city of Beth-shean, which was annexed at that time. Further light on these incorporated territories is gained from letter No. 2 of Taanach (Albright 1944:20–23, with earlier references; Rainey 1977:33–64). The letter was sent by Aḫiyami, the ruler of Rehob, a city situated in the Beth-

17. For full bibliography, see Rainey 1978:28–31. The crux of the letter is lines 26– 29. The identification of uru Ia-puki with Japhia in Galilee (Rainey 1978:105; Röllig 1976–80: 260), in my opinion, should be abandoned. Not only has Late Bronze pottery never been found at this site (Kallai 1967:157–158), but the place clearly belongs to the nearby citystate of Shamḫuna. Doubtless, Yapû must be identified with the Egyptian garrison-city of Joppa, appearing with the same writing in other Amarna letters, where workers were concentrated for the corvée. The second toponym, Nuribta, may possibly be identified with Narbata, a Second Temple town situated to the east of Caesarea, on the main road leading from Joppa to Shunem (see Avi-Yonah 1976:82). Tentatively, lines 26–29 of EA 365 might be translated as follows: ‘They came here from the town of Joppa, from [your(?)] hand(?) (iš-tu ŠU-[ka?]) and from the town of Nuribta’; see EA 245:35: i-na ŠU-ti-šu. 18. For ‘ḥw.t see Gardiner 1948:55.


223

shean valley (Albright 1944:23, n. 70) In one section (lines 13–16) he writes: “Command your towns that they should do their (corvée) work. I am responsible for anyone who stays in the town.”19 The responsibility of the ruler of Rehob for the corvée work of the towns of Taanach is an exact parallel to the responsibility of Biridiya of Megiddo for workers coming to Shunem from Joppa and Nuribta (EA 365). It seems that rulers situated in the bordering areas were (in turn?) responsible for the cultivation and harvesting of the Pharaonic fields in the Jezreel Valley and for supervising workers originating from other city-states. The Jezreel Valley was in all likelihood crown property at this time, as it was in later periods.20 The territorial scope of the other Egyptian garrison-cities is less clear. Kumidi’s position in the Lebanese Beqa‘ is similar to that of Beth-shean in the Jezreel Valley. Was the annexation of Kumidi combined with the incorporation of the nearby fertile fields? This may well be an important factor in the foundation of an Egyptian garrison city in the Lebanese Beqa‘. In letter EA 60, ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru says: “And I had harvested the grain of Ṣumur” (lines 26–27).21 Ṣumur was an Egyptian garrison city; thus, its fields were cultivated by the neighboring vassals. We know about royal granaries (šunuti) in the Egyptian garrison city of Joppa from letter EA 294:22. What grain was brought there? One possibility is that it originated from fields in the territory of vassals. However, apart from a single case (EA 224), such imposts were always connected with the preparations for an Egyptian military campaign (see below). Therefore, another possibility may be suggested: The grain came from incorporated territories located near Joppa. Unfortunately, only late and indirect arguments can be brought in support of this assumption. Joppa is absent from the conquered Canaanite cities in Joshua 12 and is excluded from the territory of Dan (Josh. 19:40–46);22 this might indicate that Joppa was not annexed by the kingdom of Israel in the tenth century BCE. Indeed, according to the annals of Sennacherib, Joppa, with Beth-dagon, Bene-berak and Azor, belonged at that time to the kingdom of Ashkelon. Ashkelon apparently seized the harbor of Joppa with its territory to the east after the collapse of Egyptian rule in southern Palestine and held

19. For line 16, see EA 174:8–9 and 363:7–8: nīnu ibašânu ana māt Amqi, “we were in the land of ‘Amqi.” 20. Alt 1924:34–41; 1937:79–83; Avi-Yonah 1966:136–137, 141–142; Kallai 1958:632–634. 21. The translation of CAD (E 340a) is not acceptable since it combines two compound sentences with the same verb. 22. Josh. 19:40–46; see Kallai-Kleinmann 1958:134–160; Mazar 1960:65–77; Aharoni 1966:266–267.

224


it until the eighth century BCE.23 Granted this reconstruction, the territory to the east of Joppa was an integral part of the Egyptian garrison-city. The city of Gaza poses another problem. There is much textual and archaeological evidence for intensified Egyptian activity in southern Palestine in the time of the 19th and 20th Egyptian Dynasties (see below). But the only evidence known to me for the area out of Gaza during the 18th Dynasty is a tablet unearthed at Tell el-Ḥesi (EA 333j.24 Inasmuch as the tablet was sent to an Egyptian official (rabû), it seems that his seat was at Tell el-Ḥesi and that the place may have belonged to the Egyptian center at Gaza. Summarizing the discussion, it seems to me that Thutmose III annexed not only the above-mentioned six garrison cities (as well as the Transjordanian triad), but also considerable territory in their neighborhood. The clearest case is for the Egyptian lands in the Jezreel valley, around Bethshean; the evidence for the other Egyptian garrison cities is more limited or even obscure. The Canaanite vassals performed part of their corvée by cultivating these fields, whose produce was gathered in the cities. Part of the produce might well have been sent to Egypt, with the rest serving for the maintenance of the Egyptian troops and administration stationed temporarily or permanently in the country.

Preparations for Egyptian Military Campaigns Egyptian campaigns to the north were supported by extensive preparations undertaken by the vassals in Asia, relieving Egypt of the economic burden usually involved in such campaigns. It is assumed that, as the commodities needed for these campaigns were collected from Canaanite cities, they formed an additional burden on the vassals of Thutmose III and his successors. The steps taken by Thutmose III in organizing his campaigns to the north are very well known. He collected food supplies and all the equipment and materials needed for future campaigns at several bases situated along the Phoenician coast (Alt 1950). Thus, for example, even the boats designed to cross the Euphrates were prepared in the mountains of Lebanon, near the Phoenician coast (Wilson 1969:240). Thutmose III conducted his campaigns from bases located along the Phoenician coast, and, therefore, only the maritime bases are mentioned in his inscriptions. The Amarna letters (and letters Nos. 5–6 from Taanach as

23. For the historical continuity between the Egyptians and the Philistines, see Alt 1944:14–20. See also Mazar 1964: 5–6. 24. See the detailed discussion by Albright 1942:32–38.


225

well) reflect the preparation made in anticipation of an expedition traversing Palestine and southern Syria.25 The products mentioned in many of the Amarna letters (bread, grain, beer, wine, olive oil, honey, goats, cattle and straw) are similar to the commodities collected in the port towns in the days of Thutmose III (bread, olive oil, incense, wine, honey and fruit) (Wilson 1969: 239b). The vassals were also obliged to take part in the campaigns. It is reasonable to suggest that, as in many other cases, it was Thutmose III who invented this administrative device; his heirs followed the same pattern.

Comparative Material To evaluate the data collected in the preceding paragraph, we shall bring some comparative material from two other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. The tribute paid by Ugarit to the Hittite kingdom was recorded in the treaty of Shuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu (Dietrich and Loretz 1966:206–245). The tribute consisted of 500 large shekels of gold, goblets of gold amounting to 100 shekels, goblets of silver amounting to 180 shekels, 13 garments of linen, 1300 garments of dark red wool and 1300 garments of light red wool. The tribute paid by Aziru of Amurru to the Hittites is mentioned in the treaty between Murshili II and Duppi-Teshub: 300 shekels of refined gold.26 The rate of gold to silver in the contemporary northern states was 1:4–9 (Leemans 1957–71:512–513; Heltzer 1978:14, 27). Other data concerning tribute are known from the Assyrian empire in the first millennium BCE. The ruler of Bit Zamani (a north Mesopotamian state) paid Ashurnaṣirpal II two minas of gold, 13 minas of silver, 1000 sheep and 2000 (measures) of barley (Luckenbill 1926:§475). In the days of Shalmaneser III, the north Syrian kingdoms paid the following sums: Patina — 1 talent of silver, 2 talents of dark red wool and 200 logs of cedar; Carchemish — 10 minas of gold, 1 talent of silver and 2 talents of dark red wool; Sam’al — 10 minas of silver, 200 logs of cedar and 1 homer of cedar resin; Kummuh — 20 minas of silver and 300 logs of cedar (Luckenbill 1926:§601). A partial list of the tribute imposed by Esarhaddon on Egypt after its conquest is also known (Borger 1956:114, II:13–19). The annual payment of tribute (šattišam, “yearly”) is repeated innumerable times in the Assyrian royal inscriptions; withholding tribute was always

25. For this campaign, see Schulman 1964:51–69; Reviv 1966:45–51; Liverani 1971:259– 260, n. 41; Pintore 1972:101–131; 1973:299–318. 26. Goetze 1969:203b. For the tribute of Cyprus, see Güterbock 1967: 77–78. 51.

226


considered a sign of rebellion. Therefore, it is quite surprising to find a relatively small number of documents recording the payments of tribute, although the royal archives of Assyria mostly have been discovered.27 The same is true of the Hittites. It can be said that without the evidence of the royal inscriptions and treaties only a general and somewhat ambiguous picture of the vassals’ tributes could have been drawn. This fact will be taken into account when the question of the Egyptian revenues from Canaan is discussed below.

Conclusions The discussion so far has shown how complicated is the problem at hand. No clear-cut picture is to be expected under such circumstances, but certain conclusions may be drawn from the evidence. One of the main objects of a historical discussion is to judge properly the balance of documentation. The Hittite and Assyrian royal archives illustrate the wide gap between the amounts of the annual tributes and the fragmentary evidence relating to the payments that was actually found in the daily records. Only the royal inscriptions and treaties enable us to appreciate the overall amount of the tributes. In Egypt, such information was not included in the royal inscriptions, and only the partial archive from Amarna has been found. The vassals were certainly obliged to pay their tribute on a yearly basis, and an uninterrupted payment of the tribute was always considered an essential sign of loyalty to the Pharaoh (see EA 60:19–32, 254: 10–15). Apparently, however, only a relatively small part of the contributions to Egypt were mentioned in those letters. Most of the contributions must have been collected by the Egyptian officials during their excursions in the country without being recorded in the letters. Only on the occasion of writing on other matters were the payments of tributes by the vassals mentioned, to emphasize their loyalty to the Pharaoh. The conclusion is inevitable: Even our main source, the Amarna letters, contains only a small part of the whole set of contributions and must be used only as a guide to the overall picture. The sums paid by several south Palestinian vassals are quite remarkable. Jerusalem sent (undoubtedly during a short time) two very valuable consignments of 5000 shekels of silver and scores of different kinds of personnel.28

27. For the material concerning the Assyrian tributes and gifts, see Martin 1936; Postgate 1974; Elat 1977. 28. One might express reservations about the high numbers included in letter EA 287:53–57, because the caravan was robbed on its way and did not reach Egypt. Thus, it


227

Milkilu of Gezer sent 50 persons of various kinds and was obliged to pay on another occasion 2000 shekels of silver; 1400 shekels of silver were sent by an unknown southern ruler, 100 shekels and 20 slaves by another, 20 maids and 500 cattle by Shubandu and 10 maids by ‘Abdi-Ashtarti. There are also the four deliveries of raw glass from the same area. Several consignments were sent from north Palestine and the Phoenician coast, but there is no record of tribute from the south Syrian and Transjordanian cities.29 I have claimed elsewhere that Helck’s division of the Egyptian province of Canaan into three administrative districts (Canaan, Amurru and Upi in Helck’s terminology) (Helck 1971:248–252; see Aharoni 1967:146– 153; de Vaux 1968:25–28) is not acceptable. Rather, I have suggested that the Phoenician coast and Palestine (apart from its northern parts) were one administrative unit, and southern Syria (including the Bashan and the kingdom of Hazor) was treated separately. This structure was apparently the outcome of the events of the Middle Bronze Age, when southern Palestine and the Phoenician coast were under Egyptian influence (though not necessarily direct rule), and southern Syria and northern Palestine were grouped with the Syro-Mesopotamian West Semitic kingdoms. These kingdoms, thus, acquired an altogether different administrative and cultural tradition from the other territories of Canaan, and was organized within a separate framework (Na’aman 1975:166–172, 227). The Egyptian policy in the two districts under their control might have been different; the northern and less effectively controlled areas of Syria were relieved, partially or even totally, from the burden of paying the yearly tribute. A comparison of the above-mentioned contributions to the tribute paid by the much larger and richer north Mesopotamian and north Syrian states to the Hittites and the Assyrians shows that the Egyptian burden was not light at all. Admittedly, the Amarna letters mixed together tribute and gifts, and the Hittite and Assyrian royal inscriptions and treaties mentioned mainly (or even exclusively) tribute. On the other hand, the Amarna contributions were only a portion of the levies imposed by the Egyptians on their vassals. This point should be elaborated: The involvement of Egypt in the affairs of can be argued that ‘Abdi-Ḫeba intentionally exaggerated, to reduce his future payments (see lines 57–59: “Let the king, my lord, know that I cannot send a caravan to the king, my lord.”). 29. Astour (1972:23) has suggested that a group of 10 aširūma were sent to Egypt from one of the kingdoms situated in the land of Amqi (EA 173:13–14). But this letter dealt entirely with military operations, and its sender was probably an Egyptian official, sending the Pharaoh 10 prisoners of war (asirū).

228


Canaan was more profound than the Hittites’ and the Assyrians’ involvement in their vassal states. Canaan under Egyptian rule might be described as halfway between an incorporated province and a vassal state, with a balance between the local rulers with their city-states on the one hand and the Egyptian troops and administration with their garrison-cities on the other hand. This difference in the relationships of the empires with their vassal states should be kept in mind when comparing the burden that they imposed.30 The nature of the tribute and gifts is also significant. Most of the consignments from Palestine were of silver, cattle and personnel, with extraordinary dispatches of raw glass and a chariot. From the Phoenician coast were sent wood, copper/bronze and special deliveries like raw glass and vessels. It is clear, therefore, that all those contributions were actually directed to the Egyptian court and not to the Egyptian garrison-cities in Canaan. Apart from cattle, agricultural products are only sporadically mentioned. Grain and oil appear only once, and wine, honey, and so forth, are absent. However, because agricultural land was a part of the Egyptian garrison-cities’ territories, the products of that land might have been sent Egypt. Agricultural products like wine and oil probably were sent from Canaan to Egypt either by commerce or even as tribute, although it is not attested in our letters.31 The existence of a network of supply for the Egyptian army embarking on military campaigns to the north, both along inland roads and along the coast, was an important military and economic factor of the Egyptian occupation of the land. Byblos is an exceptional case. No less than 70 letters pertain to that city; nevertheless, Rib-Adda is ordered only once to send copper and bronze to Egypt (EA 77:6–15), and he answers that he has none. On another occasion, he gave copper to the Egyptian messenger Appiḫa (EA 69:25–28).32 On the other hand, Rib-Adda asks in many letters for provisions, stressing his distress. This situation might well explain the lack of contributions from Byblos, and it is significant that his only payment (EA 69:25–29) is probably dated just after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru (Campbell 1964:80, 134). Was the despondent tone of Rib-Adda a device to escape the payment of tribute to Egypt? There are several signs testifying to the intensification of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan, particularly in southern Palestine, during the time of the 30. For the Egyptian point of view, see Redford 1972:149–155. 31. For export of grain, oil and wine from Syro-Palestine to Egypt during the Ptolemaic period, see Tcherikover 1937:20–23. 32. The apparent consignment mentioned in EA 126:4–6 is very doubtful and, therefore, has been excluded from the above discussion.


229

19th and the beginning of the 20th Dynasties in Egypt. Alt was the first to observe this phenomenon, relying mainly on the written sources (Alt 1944). The new excavations at Aphek, Lachish, Tel Sera‘, Tel Masos, Deir el-Balaḥ and Timna33 support Alt’s proposal. This intensification of the Egyptian involvement in Palestine might well have caused the flourishing of the above-mentioned Palestinian sites in the last stage of the Late Bronze Age. Thus, the opinion that there was a collapse of the Canaanite culture in the thirteenth century BCE should be abandoned. The intensified Egyptian activity in the country may well have brought changes in the picture drawn above, which was mainly based on evidence of the fifteenth-fourteenth centuries. However, the discussion which is necessary in order to trace the main lines of the Ramesside pattern of government in Canaan is beyond the scope of this article.

References Abdul Kader Mohammad, M. 1959. The Administration of Syro-Palestine during the New Kingdom. Annales du Service des Antiquités de I’Égypte 56: 105–137. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105. AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Albright, W.F. 1941. Two Letters from Ugarit. BASOR 82: 43–49. Albright W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish, with Some Remarks on the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Albright, W.F.1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth. Albright, W.F. 1963. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York. Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98–116. Albright, A. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490. Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175). Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33: 52–88. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 363–395). Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 1–20. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 216–230). Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 107–140).

33. Kochavi 1978:12–17; Ussishkin 1978:91; Oren and Netzer 1973:53–56; Groll 1973:56– 57; Oren 1978:1065–1066; Kempinski 1978:35–37; Dothan 1979: Rothenberg 1972.

230


Altman, A. 1978. Some Controversial Toponyms from the Amurru Region in the Amarna Archive. ZDPV 94: 99–107. Astour, M. 1972. The Merchant Class of Ugarit. In: Edzard, D.O. ed. Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten. (XVIII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale). München: 11–25. Avi-Yonah, M. 1966. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography. Grand Rapids. Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. (Qedem 51). Jerusalem. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrian. (AfO Beiheft 9). Graz. (Reprint 1967. Osnabrück). Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters with Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1966. Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu. Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie. WO 3: 206–245. Dothan, T. 1979. Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balaḥ. (Qedem 10). Jerusalem. Drower, M. 1973. Syria c. 1550–1400 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1, 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 417–525. Eichler, B.L. 1973. Indenture at Nuzi. The Personal tidennūtu Contract and Its Mesopotamian Analogues. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 5). New Haven and London. Elat, M. 1977. Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 1000–539 B.C. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Gardiner, A.H. 1948. The Wilbur Papyrus. II. Commentary. Oxford. Goetze, A. 1969. Hittite Treaties. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 201–206. Groll, S. 1973. A Note on the Hieratic Texts from Tel Sera‘. Qadmoniot 6: 56–57. (Hebrew). Güterbock, H.G. 1967. The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered, JNES 26: 73–81. Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den syrischen Besitzungen. MDOG 92: 1–13. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Helck, W. 1975. Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Alten Ägypten im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Handbuch der Orientalistik). Leiden and Köln. Heltzer, M. 1978. Goods, Prices and the Organization of the Trade in Ugarit. Wiesbaden. Janssen, J.J. 1975. Commodity Prices from the Ramesside Period. Leiden. Kallai, Z. 1958. Jezreel, Jezreel Valley. Enc. Miqr III: 628–634. (Hebrew). Kallai(-Kleinmann), Z. 1958. The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan. VT 8: 134–160. Kallai, Z. 1967. The Tribes of Israel: A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kempinski, A. 1978. Tel Masos. Expedition 20/4: 29–37. Kitchen, K.A. 1969. Interrelations of Egypt and Syria. In: Liverani, M. ed. La Siria nel Tardo Bronzo. (Orientis Antiqvi Collectio 9). Rome: 77–94. Klengel, H. 1963. Zur Sklaverei in Alalakh. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11: 1–15. Knudtzon, J.A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kochavi, M. 1978. Canaanite Aphek. Expedition 20/4: 12–17. Krahmalkov, C. 1971. Northwest Semitic Glosses in Amarna Letter No. 64:22–23. JNES 30: 140–143. Leemans, W.F. 1957–71. Gold. RLA III: 512–513.


231

Liverani, M. 1971. Le Lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268. Loretz, O. and Mayer, W. 1974. Die Glossen mi-ke-tu und ia-pa-aq-ti in EA 64:22–23. UgaritForschungen 6: 493–494. Luckenbill, D.D. 1926. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I. Chicago. Martin, W.J. 1936. Tribut and Tributleistungen bei den Assyrern. Studia Orientalia 8/1. Mazar, B. 1960. The Cities of the Territory of Dan. IEJ 10: 65–77. Mazar, B. 1964. The Philistines and the Rise of Israel and Tyre, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1/7. Mendelsohn, I. 1955. On Slavery in Alalakh. IEJ 5: 65–72. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1977a. Yeno‘am. Tel Aviv 4: 168–177. Na’aman, N. 1977b. ašītu (Sg.) and ašâtu (Pl.) – Strap and Reins. JCS 29: 237–239. Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C. JCS 21: 236–254. Oppenheim, A.L. 1973. Towards a History of Glass in the Ancient Near East. JAOS 93: 259– 266. Oren, E.D. 1978. Esh-Shari‘a Tell (Tel Sera‘). In: Enc. Arch. Exc. IV: 1059–1069. Oren, E.D. and Netzer, E. 1973. A Cult-Building in the Excavations of Tel Sera‘. Qadmoniot 6: 53–56 (Hebrew). Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di elAmarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131. Pintore, F. 1973. La prassi della marcia Armata nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 12: 299–318. Postgate, J.N. 1974. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 3). Rome. Rainey, A.F. 1967. āširu and asīru in Ugarit and the Land of Canaan. JNES 26: 296–301. Rainey, A.F. 1977. Verbal Usages in the Taanach Texts. Israel Oriental Studies 7: 33–64. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets: 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tablets. 2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Redford, D.B. 1972. The Taxation System of Solomon. in: Wevers, J.W. and Redford, D.B. eds. Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World. Toronto: 149–155. Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew). Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis’ IV. OLZ 42: 145–148. Röllig, W. 1976–1980. Japu. RLA V: 260. Rothenberg, B. 1972. Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London. Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Sdhriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69. Several, M.Y. 1972. Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire in Palestine during the Amarna Period. PEQ 104: 123–133. Tcherikover, V. 1937. Palestine under the Ptolemies. Mizraim 4–5: 9–90. Ussishkin, D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977. Tel Aviv 5: 1–97. de Vaux, R. 1968. Le Pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23–30. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel I-II. London. Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264. Wiseman, J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age1 The Jezreel Valley was regarded as crown property that had a special administrative and juridical status from ancient times to the period of the Second Temple and even later. These royal estates had been maintained for centuries and were transferred from one conquering power to another.2 When analyzing an Amarna letter (EA 365) concerning the cultivation of the fields of Shunem by corvée workers arriving from various places, A. Alt (1924:34–41) suggested that the fields where pharaonic land. According to his reconstruction, they had been annexed by the Egyptians, following the offensive of Lab’ayu, ruler of Shechem, and the destruction of the city of Shunem (EA 250:41–47). Alt further assumed that the settlement of the sons of Issachar in the plain of Jezreel was connected with the cultivation of these crown lands. The description of Issachar (etymologically “man of hire”) as a “strong ass” who “bowed his shoulder to bear and became a slave at forced labour” (Gen. 49:14–15) was, in his opinion, derived from his status as a corvée labourer of these fields. Alt’s attractive hypothesis of the early settlement of the Issacharite families in the plain of Jezreel was recently refuted by Z. Gal (1982:79–86) on archaeological grounds. Furthermore, his reconstruction of the historical background of the annexation of the lands in the Jezreel Valley (and of the foundation of the Egyptian garrison city of Beth-shean as well) is open to debate. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this problem in greater detail, basing the analysis on other Late Bronze Age documents that have not been discussed so far in this context. The point of departure for the investigation is letter no. 2 from Taanach (TT 2). The Taanach tablets were discovered by E. Sellin in 1903-04 and were subsequently published by F. Hrozný (1904:113–122; 1906:36–41). For many

1. Reprinted with permission. Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. 1988. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–185. 2. Alt 1937:81–84; Kallai 1958:628–634, with further bibliography; Avi-Yonah 1966:136– 137, 141–142.

232

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age

233

years the tablets have been discussed on the basis of Hrozný’s decipherment.3 They were collated by E. I. Gordon and A. E. Glock in 1966, and the results of the collation were published by Glock (1983:58–63). The grammatical traits of the letters from Taanach were meticulously studied by A.F. Rainey (1977:33– 64). The considerable improvement in both the reading and the understanding of the letters enables us to re-examine letter TT 2 and to suggest a new interpretation for certain parts of it. Here is a translation of the letter, accompanied by a commentary and an analysis of its contents. (1) To Rewashur, speak. (2) Thus says Aḫiyami: May the Lord of the Gods (3) protect your life. You are a brother (4) and beloved in that place, (5) and you are aware that (6) I have entered (to rule) in an empty house.(7) So give me a few (things) (8) two wheels and a bow (9) and two (sets of) harness(?); and (10) if the bow is finished (11), being manufactured for me, then send it to me (12) by the hand of Purdaya. (13) Another matter: command your towns (14) that they carry out their work. (15) I am responsible for everyone (16) that stays in the towns. (17) Now, look at me, so that (18) I will make an alliance with you. (19) Another matter: if there are copper arrows, (20) then let them be given (to me). (21) Another matter: let Ili-rāpi’ enter (22) into the city of Raḫābu and let (23) me send my man to you (24) and let a marriage be arranged.

Commentary Line 1: For the second element of the name, see Gröndahl 1967:298, with earlier bibliography. The first element (either ri or tal) is problematic. However, scribes from three different places consistently employed only one sign rather than two; thus, the transcription ri was preferred. For the history of the research of the name, see Glock 1983:59, n. 10. Line 2: The translation follows that of Albright 1944:20, n. 45. The god Ba‘lu is certainly referred to by the title “the Lord of the Gods.” For a different translation and interpretation of the blessing, see Rainey 1977:50. Line 4: The phrase “in that place” (ina ašri šuwat) refers to the city of the addressee (i.e., Taanach). For a similar expression, compare TT 1:17 “from there” (ištu ašrānum), which also refers to the place of the addressee.

3. For a comprehensive bibliography, see Borger 1967:198. See in particular, Albright 1944:12–27.

234


line 6: For the grammatical analysis of the phrase arbaku ina bīti rāqi (“I have entered into an empty house”), see Rainey 1977:60. To understand the phrase properly, it should be compared with similar expressions in the Amarna letters. Rib-Adda of Byblos wrote to the Egyptian high commissioner Yanḫamu, whose appointment at that time as governor of the garrison city of Ṣumur was described as follows (EA 102:11–12): tīrbu ana bīti rēqi (“you will enter into an empty house”). The assumption of a new office is described as “entering (into a house),” the city of Ṣumur is portrayed as “an empty house.” Pu-Ba‘lu of Yurza wrote to the Egyptian royal scribe, thus, (EA 216:18–20): ianu mimma ina bītija ina iribiya ana šašu (“there was nothing in my house when I entered it”). The city or the palace of Pu-Ba‘lu is referred to by the words “my house,” the verb erēbu referring to the ruler’s accession to the throne of Yurza, his preoccupation in this matter serving as an excuse for the long delay in sending the gift. The verb erēbu has a similar meaning in letters EA 103:9–10 and 286:12–13 and should be comprehended in all these passages as an idiomatic expression for assuming a new office, and in particular, for the accession to the throne. Line 7: The noun ubānu (“finger”) appears in TT 1:20 and may be translated “a little,” “a few” (i.e., a finger measure). A similar phrase appears in several Amarna letters (EA 264:8,12; 273:22; cf. 287:73). Line 9: túguppašianima is a Hurrian noun that is known from the Nuzi and Alalakh tablets (AHW, p. 1424a uppaš/sannu “ein Lederteil am Wagen”). In two Nuzi texts (HSS XIII: 227, lines 9–13; HSS XV: 95, lines 1–6) uppaš/sannu appears alongside ṣimittum “yoke” and in a third text (Pfeiffer and Speiser 1936: No. 11, line 10) it appears together with iltēnutum “set (consisting of several objects).” The translation “harness” is tentative, based on contextual similarity with two other letters, one from Gath-carmel (EA 266:26–33) and the second from Kāmid el-Lōz, in which the equipment of a chariot is recorded (see Na’aman 1977a:238). CAD (K, p. 550b, and M/l, p.33–34) mistakenly rendered this noun as kuppašianu. Line 16: For bašû ana āli, compare EA 174:8–9 and 363:7–8 ninu ebašānu ana māt ‘Amqi (“we were in the land of ‘Amqi”), where ana replaces ina. Line 18: For the Akkadian expression ṭābuta epēšu, “to make a treaty,” see Moran 1963:173–176; Fitzmyer 1967:73–74. Line 20: For the vocalization of the toponym, see Albright 1934:48, no. 15. The old shift of stressed ā to ō is attested in Canaan only from the Amarna period and onward, whereas the Taanach letters may represent an earlier stage. See Zadok 1977–78:38–41, with earlier bibliography. Letter TT 2 may be interpreted as follows: Aḫiyami, who sent the letter to the ruler of Taanach, has recently ascended the throne of Raḫābu. The city is mentioned several times in Egyptian sources and is commonly identified


235

with Tell eṣ-Ṣārem, a site located south of the city of Beth-shean (Albright 1926:38–39; Aharoni 1967:112, 157, 165). The objects that Aḫiyami has requested (wheels, a bow, arrows and sets of harness) are related to chariotry, and it is not unlikely that the city of Taanach had a small chariot workshop at that time. The ruler of Raḫābu further offered to make an alliance (or probably to renew an old one) with the king of Taanach and to strengthen it by marriage between the two royal houses. He, therefore, suggested that either Rewashur’s messenger (Ili-rāpi’) would come to his city or his own messenger would be sent to Taanach to make arrangements for the wedding. All these matters illustrate peaceful and mutually a good relationship between these neighboring Canaanite rulers. The words of Aḫiyami in lines 13–16 (“command your towns that they carry out their work. I am responsible for everyone that stays in the towns”), on the other hand, are exceptional. Certain questions come to mind: Under what circumstances was the ruler of Raḫābu, a city located in the Beth-shean Valley, responsible for the work of the inhabitants of the towns of Taanach? Before which authority was he responsible for the workmen of the neighboring city-state? To answer these questions, we may analyze letter EA 365, which reflects a similar situation. A translation and interpretation of the letter are presented below (Rainey 1978:28–31, with earlier bibliography). (1) Say to the king, my lord and my sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord and my Sun, seven times and seven times. (8) May the king, my lord, be informed concerning his servant and concerning his city. In fact, only I am cultivating in the city of Shunem, and only I am furnishing corvée workers (awīlī massa). (15) But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in the city of Shunem, and they do not furnish corvée workers; Only I, by myself, furnish corvée workers. (26) From the city of Joppa (uruIa-puki) they come here (an-ni ki-ma), from [your(?)] hand (iš-tu ŠU-[ka?]), and from the city of Nuribta. (30) And may the king, my lord, be informed concerning his city.

The location of the city of Ia-pu is the key for the proper understanding of the problematic passage in lines 26–29. The city has, until now, generally been identified with biblical Japhia, located on the southern border of the inheritance of Zebulun (Joshua 19:12) (Alt 1924:38; Aharoni 1967:161: Rainey 1978:105; Röllig 1976–80:260), which lies within the territory of the kingdom of Shim‘on, Megiddo’s northeastern neighbor.4 However, if the town Japhia 4. The site of biblical Japhia is, unfortunately, unknown; its identification with the Arabic village Yâfā does not accord well with the description of Zebulun’s southern border. Thus, the antiquity of Japhia cannot archaeologically be examined.

236


was intended, the correct form would be Yapiḫu* rather then Yapu, whereas, in fact, Yapu should be identified with the coastal city of Joppa, whose name appears in exactly the same form in at least two Amarna letters (EA 294:20; 296:33; see also possibly EA 138:6) and in a letter from Ugarit discovered at Tel Aphek (Owen 1981:7, line 17, and p. 12). Joppa had been an Egyptian garrison city since its capture by Thutmose III (Broshi 1958:737–743, with further bibliography; Na’aman 1981a:177–180). Royal granaries were set up in the city (EA 294:22), Egyptian officials resided there and vassal kings were responsible for guarding the city gate and the royal granaries (EA 294:16–24; 296:30–33). Line 27 has tentatively been restored as iš-tu ŠU-[ka] on the basis of a second letter from Megiddo (EA 245:35) i-na ŠU-ti-šu (“in his hand”). Biridiya emphasized that the workers were sent to Megiddo (“here”) by the pharaonic authority (“from your hand”), i.e., from a place under his direct control, because the city of Joppa was an Egyptian garrison city and, hence, a possession of the pharaoh. We may conclude that workers conscripted in the coastal region were brought to the Jezreel Valley to work as forced laborers. The second city, Nuribta, may tentatively be identified with the city of Narbata, which is mentioned in Second Temple sources and was located near the main road leading from Joppa to Megiddo (Avi-Yonah 1976:82, with earlier bibliography). The identification, however, is by no means certain.5 In both the letter of Raḫābu (TT 2) and that of Megiddo (EA 365), the rulers of city-states near the Jezreel Valley were responsible for the work performed by “imported” labor. Biridiya of Megiddo supervised corvée workers who came from Joppa and probably the Sharon plain and complained that his neighboring rulers refused to provide any man-power. Aḫiyami of Raḫābu was responsible for the work performed by the subjects of the ruler of Taanach. According to the Megiddo letter, the agricultural workers were needed at Shunem, in the Jezreel Valley. Raḫābu lay south of the garrison city of Beth-shean; therefore, the kingdom of Taanach was probably its closest neighbor west of Beth-shean. We may well assume that the areas north of Beth-shean, including the region of Shunem, were pharaonic lands on which the above-mentioned workers were forced to work. Further light on the status of these lands may be gained from another source. Following the description of the battle of Megiddo and the capture of the town by Thutmose III, there appears a long list of the booty and

5. Narbata was recently equated with Arubboth of the third Solomonic district (1 Kgs. 4:10) and identified with Khirbet el-Ḥammam, some 5 km west of ‘Arrabeh, the large Arab village near the Dothan plain. See Zertal 1984:72–76, 112–114, 133–136.


237

tribute taken from the city, as well as from three towns probably located in Transjordan, namely Ngs, Ḥrnkr and Yeno‘am (Na’aman 1977b:171–172; Spalinger 1983:99–100). Thutmose then describes the organization of the arable lands near these towns as follows (Wilson 1969:238): Now the fields (3ḫwt) were made into arable plots (‘ḥwt) and measured by controllers of the palace — life, prosperity, health! — in order to reap their harvest. List of the harvest which his majesty carried off from the Megiddo arable plots (‘ḥwt): 207,300 [+ x] sacks of wheat, apart from what was cut as forage by his majesty’s army.

It seems that the fields (3ḫwt) had undergone a change in legal status, the phrase “made into ‘ḥwt” designating this new administrative status of the land, which is subsequently called “the Megiddo ‘ḥwt.” Measuring the fields, probably for the reassessment of their potential crop yields for tax purposes, was part of the procedure involved in changing their status (Goldwasser 1984: 86, n. 11, with further bibliography). The enormous number — 207,300 [+ x] — of sacks of wheat came from the ‘ḥwt lands located in the vicinity of Megiddo. S. Ahituv (1978:98) calculated that this amount of grain is approximately equal to 11,250 tons. Assuming an average yield of 800 kg per acre, he concluded that the grain was harvested from an area of about 12,500 acres. Whatever the exact size of the arable land, it is clear that very large tracts in the Jezreel Valley changed their status at that time and became pharaonic lands whose yields were the property of the Egyptian authorities. Combining the three sources, the following picture emerges: After the battle of Megiddo and the capture of the city, the Egyptians took over large tracts of arable land in the Jezreel Valley, including the fields of Shunem. The city of Beth-shean became an Egyptian garrison city at that time, the supervision of these lands being part of its function. Responsibility for cultivation and harvesting was imposed, at least partially, on the rulers of the citystates of the western Jezreel Valley (the land of Gina, see below) and the plain of Beth-shean. Details of the distribution of both onus and responsibility are lacking, however. Corvée workers may have been brought from remote places, but probably only in cases of severe manpower shortage. The offensive of Lab’ayu of Shechem against the “people of the land of Gina” (EA 250:17,21) also reached Egyptian territory in this area. A. Alt (1926: 109–110) suggested that the lands of Shunem, as well as the city of Bethshean, were incorporated into Egyptian territory only at that time. As proposed above, establishment of Egyptian hegemony and the territorial arrangements in the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys had already been effected under Thutmose III and remained unchanged for a long time. Unfortunately, it is not known whether Egyptian territory in the northern plains was expanded during the XIXth and beginning of the XXth Dynasties, at the time

238


when large areas in southern Canaan were requisitioned by the Egyptians and new administrative centers were built to consolidate their rule.6 The city of Raḫābu is missing from the biblical tradition of the conquest and settlement, “Beth-shean and its villages” representing the entire area of the valley of Beth-shean (Josh. 17:11; cf. Judg. 1:27; 1 Kgs. 4:12). Does this mean that Raḫābu’s position as the major center in the valley had been taken over by Beth-shean in the 12th–11th centuries BCE? Only archaeological excavations in the site of ancient Raḫābu or the discovery of new written sources can clarify the history of the Beth-shean Valley and the Egyptian lands in the Jezreel Valley in the final phase of the Egyptian rule in the Land of Canaan.7

Appendix The Ancient Name of the Jezreel Valley The valley near the city of Megiddo was called “the Qina Valley” in the annals of Thutmose III and the wadi running through it “the Qina brook.” In an Amarna letter (EA 250), the sons of Lab’ayu urge the ruler of Gath-padalla (a city-state in the Sharon) to take action against Gina: Commence hostilities against the people of the land of Gina because they slew our father; and if you do not commence hostilities, then we will be hostile to you. And I answered them: May the god of the king, my lord, deliver me from entering into hostilities with the people of the land of Gina, the vassals of the king, my lord (lines 16–22).

The identity of those who slew Lab’ayu can be inferred from another letter (EA 245), which is the second part of a long defense plea of Biridiya, ruler of Megiddo, in answer to the pharaoh’s accusation blaming him for the killing of Lab’ayu. Biridiya is trying to clear himself and his ally, the ruler of Taanach, from the accusation, by charging his other partners (whose names are not mentioned) for the crime. The Jezreel Valley west of Naḥal Kishon was apparently called “the valley/land of Gina” in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty. The sons of Lab’ayu accused the people of this region, most prominent of which are the cities of Megiddo and Taanach, Lab’ayu’s main rivals, for slaying their father.

6. Alt 1944:1–20; Weinstein 1981:17–28, with earlier bibliography; Na’aman 1981a:185; 1982:241–251; Beck and. Kochavi 1983:47–51; Goldwasser 1984:77–93; Oren 1985:183–199. 7. For the archaeological survey in the site of ancient Raḫābu (Tell eṣ-Ṣārem), see Zori 1962:176–178.


239

This interpretation accords well with the sources of the Second Temple period, in which the village on the border of the Samaria hills and the Jezreel Valley is called “Ginae,” and the wadi flowing nearby “the Ginae brook” (AviYonah 1976:62, with earlier bibliography). This village had preserved the name of the valley, whose original name was replaced by the “Jezreel Valley.” Whether other biblical toponyms, such as Beth-haggan (2 Kgs. 9:27) or Engannim (Josh. 19:21), were derived from the old name Gina is not known, through it is by no means impossible.

Postscriptum In his new French edition of the Amarna letters, W. L. Moran (1987) suggested the following translation for EA 250:40–47: And thus the two sons of Lab’ayu keep saying to me: Wage war against the king, your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Shunem, Burquna and Ḫarabu, and deported the evil ones, li[fti]ng up the loyal. He also seized Gath-rimmon and cultivated (yupatti) the fi[el]ds (ugāri) of the king, your lord.

The mention of “the fields of the king” is another reference for the Egyptian lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Amarna period.

References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105. AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Albright, W.F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 6. New Haven: 13–74. Albright, W.F. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. (American Oriental Series 5). New Haven. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint: 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175). Alt, A. 1926. Zur Geschichte von Beth-sean 1500–1000 v. Chr. PJb 22: 108–120. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 246–255). Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33: 52–88. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 363–395). Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 1– 20. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 216–230). Avi-Yonah, M. 1966. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography. Grand Rapids. Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. (Qedem 5). Jerusalem. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1983. The Egyptian Governor’s Palace at Aphek. Qadmoniot 16: 47– 51. (Hebrew).

240


Borger, R. 1967. Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur I, Berlin. Broshi, M. 1958. Joppa. Enc. Miqr. III: 737–743. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Fitzmyer, J.A. 1967. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. (Biblica et Orientalia 19). Rome. Gal, Z. 1982. The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations. Tel Aviv 9: 79–86. Glock, A.E. 1983. Texts and Archaeology at Tell Taannek. Berytus 31: 58–63. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera‘ in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11: 77–93. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome. Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Wien: 113–122. Hrozný, F. 1906. Die neugefundenen Keilschrifttexte von Ta‘annek. in Sellin, E. Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta‘annek in Palästina. Wien: 36–41. HSS XIII = Pfeiffer, R.H. and Lacheman, E.-R. 1942. Excavations at Nuzi IV. Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi I. (Harvard Semitic Series XIII). Cambridge, MA. HSS XV = Lacheman, E.-R. 1955. Excavations at Nuzi VI. The Administrative Archives. (Harvard Semitic Series XV). Cambridge, MA. Kallai, Z. 1958. Jezreel, Jezreel Valley. Enc. Miqr. III: 628–634. (Hebrew). Moran, W.L. 1963. A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas. JNES 22: 173–176. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13). Paris. Na’aman, N. 1977a. ašītu (Sg.) and ašâtu (Pl.) — Strap and Reins. JCS 29: 237–239. Na’aman, N. 1977b. Yeno‘am. Tel Aviv 4: 168–177. Na’aman, N. 1981a. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N. 1981b. Royal Estates in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age and Under the Israelite Monarchy. Eretz Israel 15: 140–144. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1982. Political History of Eretz Israel in the Time of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. The Early Periods. Jerusalem: 129– 256. (Hebrew). Oren, E.D. 1985. “Governors’ Residencies” in Canaan Under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37–56. Owen, D.I. 1981. An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8: 8–17. Pfeiffer, R.H. and Speiser E.A. 1936. One Hundred New Selected Nui Texts. (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 16). New Haven. Rainey, A.F. 1977. Verbal Usages in the Taanach Texts. Israel Oriental Studies 7:33–64. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets:359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tablets. 2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Röllig, W. 1976–80. Japu. RLA V: 260. Spalinger, A. 1983. The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 89–101. TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Wien: 113–122. Weinstein, J. M. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1–28.


241

Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264. Zadok, R. 1977–78. Historical and Onomastic Notes. WO 9: 35–56, 240–241. Zertal, A. 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Zori, N. 1962. An Archaeological Survey of the Beth-Shean Valley. In. Aviram, J. ed. The Bethshean Valley (The 17th Archaeological Convention). Jerusalem: 135–198. (Hebrew).

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters1 The Amarna Letters, discovered more than a century ago, are still our main source for the history and culture of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Many details concerning the land and its inhabitants have been extracted from these letters, and the overall picture, to a certain extent, is based on the analysis of this source material. Due to its central position in scientific research, the archive still deserves special attention, and progress in the understanding of difficult passages and terms could contribute to a better understanding of the historical and cultural situation. On the other hand, mistaken interpretations may lead scholars to stray far from ancient reality, because in certain cases, there are no other sources against which these conclusions and inferences may be checked. Four problems relating to gods and/or Canaanite scribal traditions will be discussed in this paper. These problems are: (a) the passage referring to Ummaḫnu in the letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos, (b) the identity of the god whose name is written d A, (c) the identity of the god whose name is written d NIN.URTA, and (d) the references to DINGIRmeš in the Amarna letters. W.L. Moran’s authoritative new translation (including many important notes and new readings) of the Amarna letters (1987) is the point of departure for all textual discussions in this article.2

1. Ummaḫnu, Servant of the Lady of Byblos In the correspondence of Rib-Hadda, ruler of Byblos, the episode of Ummaḫnu is mentioned four times: three times at the end of letters sent to the Pharaoh (EA 83:52–57; 84:42–44; 85:84–87) and once in the middle of a letter sent to Amanappa (EA 86:23–30). All four passages are fragmented and were restored only partially in former text editions. I will first suggest a reconstruction and translation of the four passages and then discuss the background of the episode.

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 22 (1990), pp. 247–255. 2. One part of the original article was omitted.

242

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters

243

EA 85: (84) fUm-m[a-aḫ-nu] (85) [ù mu]-ut-ši mMil-ku-ru GÉME dN[IN ša] uruGub[la u] (86) [li-ib–1]u-uṭ LUGAL-ru a-di GÉME d[NI]N i-na [. . . ù] (87) [tu-d]a-na i-na qaat lúGAL [ša] dNI[N ša uruGub-la]; “Ummaḫnu — and her husband Milkuru — servant of the Lady of Byblos, and by the life of the king (I swear) that the servant of the Lady is in [your country(?)] and may she be delivered to the hand of the official of the Lady of Byblos.” EA 83: (51) ù (52) Ii-ma-ad al-le-mi (53) fUm-ma-aḫ-nu ù m Mil-ku-ru (54) muut-še GÉME ša dNIN (SS) [ša ur]uG[ub-I]a [x (x)] KALA.GA (56) [ù tu-da-na i-na qa-at lú]ra-b[u] (57) [š]a d[NIN ša uruGub-la]; “And may you be informed: surely Ummaḫnu and Milkuru her husband — is a servant of the Lady of Byblos, the powerful [. . .], and may she be delivered to the hand of the official of the Lady of Byblos.” EA 86: (23) [ù l]i-ma-[ad al-le-mi] (24) [fU]m-ma-aḫ-[nu ù mu-ut-ši] (25) [m Milk]u-ru G[ÉME dNIN] (26) [ša] uruGub-[la x (x)] (27) [KALA.G]A a-na is-x [x (x)] (28) [ù] qí-bi a-na LUGAL-r[i ù] (29) [t]u-da-na a-na dN[IN ù] (30) [ú]-ul ti-ka-li-s[i i-na . . .]; “And may you be informed: surely Ummaḫnu — and Milkuru her husband — is a servant of the Lady of Byblos, the powerful [. . ., . . . ]; thus say to the king and may she be delivered to the Lady and do not detain her [in your land(?)].” EA 84: (42) [ša-ni-tam] a-mur fU[m]-ma-[aḫ-nu] GÉME d[NIN ša] (43) [uruGublú la] mu-ut-ši m Mil-kur-[ru ù] (44) [a-na pa-a]n EZEN ye-ni uš-ši-r[a-ši] “Further, behold, Ummaḫnu servant of the Lady of Byblos — her husband is Milkuru — and send her back before the wine festival.” Notes: The reading ye-ni was noted by Moran (1987:268, n. 14). For the Canaanite noun yēnu in a cuneiform tablet from Tel Aphek, see Rainey 1976: 138–139. The four passages make it clear that Ummaḫnu, who had formerly served in the temple of Ba‘alath of Byblos, and her husband Milkuru stayed some time in Egypt. She probably served there in the temple of Hathor = Ba‘alath of Byblos and was detained for a while. This may well be an indication of the close cultic relations at that time between the temples of Ba‘alath at Byblos and Egypt.3 Rib-Hadda requested her immediate return, emphasizing in one of his letters that she should participate in the wine festival conducted in his town. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the date and cultural background of this local festival. The official in charge of the servant of the Lady of Byblos held the title of rabû; his local Canaanite title remains unknown (compare Ugaritic rb khnm).

3. For the antiquity of the cult of Ba‘alath of Byblos in Egypt, see Stadelmann 1967:5– 13, 142.

244


The results of Rib-Hadda’s urgent requests are not recorded, but as he does not mention the matter in his later correspondence, we may assume that the maidservant was returned to Byblos and performed her duties in the service of the deity.

2. The God A (d A) in a letter of Aziru of Amurru (EA 161:40) Letter EA 164 marks a turning point in the policies of Aziru of Amurru toward Egypt. He promises that he would come to Egypt as soon as the danger of the Hittite attack passed, but makes one condition: that the Pharaoh and his officials swear a solemn oath not to conspire against him. He sent his god with a messenger to Egypt concluding his request with the words (lines 39– 46): “And so you will take the oath in front of my god and the god A (d A).” Knudtzon did not try to identify d A. Schroeder, however, (1915a:326–327) suggested identifying him with Amon. The basis for the suggestion are several letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos in which Amon is called “the god of the king” (EA 71:4; 86:3; see also EA 87:5; 95:3). The context of EA 164:40 requires the name of the personal god of the Pharaoh; thus, Schroeder identified d A with Amon, the Egyptian national god. Schroeder’s suggestion was also adopted by other scholars (Rainey 1978:108; Moran 1987:403). The identification suggested by Schroeder, however, is unacceptable. Aziru’s preparation for the journey to Egypt took place in the later years of Akhenaten (Kitchen 1962:17–18, 44; Campbell 1964:88–89, 135; Helck 1971:174– 78). At that time, the Sun-God Aten had been raised high above all other gods in Egypt; Amon, having lost his former position as the Egyptian national god, was certainly not the god in front of which Akhenaten would have taken the oath. The god whose name was written dA can only be the Sun-God Aten who was, at that time, the personal god of the king and the official god of the kingdom. When did the god Amon disappear from the Amarna correspondence? This problem will be discussed briefly, to provide a better understanding of the reference to d A in the letter of Aziru. Amon is mentioned in the letters of Kadashman-Enlil of Babylon (EA 1: 46), of Tushratta of Mitanni (EA 19:15,24,76; 20:26,74; 24:passim; and possibly EA 27:87), of Rib-Hadda of Byblos (EA 71:4; 77:3; 86:3; 87:5; 95:3) and in a letter sent by the Pharaoh to Milkilu of Gezer (EA 369:29). The letters of Kadashman-Enlil and most of the letters of Tushratta were sent to Nimmuriya, i.e., Amenophis III. Letter EA 27, which was sent to Napḫururiya, i.e., Akhenaten, poses a special problem. The date of the letter is disputed, but 4. For the discussion of the date of EA 27, see Redford 1967:144–146, 162–64; Kühne 1973:43–45, 127–29, with earlier literature; Moran 1987:53.


245

should best be dated in the second year of Akhenaten.4 The text in lines 87–88 is fragmented and what is left are the words “Teshub and [. . .] may direct that I and my brother [. . .].” In light of parallel passages, one may expect that the name “Amon” was written after the break in line 87 (EA 19:15,75–76; 20:74). However, in his textual edition of the Amarna tablets, Knudtzon (1915:236, n. g.) noted on the break in line 87 (after the ù sign): “Ob der Gottesname getilgt gewesen ist, lässt sich nicht entscheiden, weil die Zeichen sehr verstümmelt sind.” In the facsimile of the tablet, Schroeder simply left a blank space after the ù sign (Schroeder 1915b:No. 11, line 87). Thus, it remains unclear whether the name of Amon was written (or even written and then erased) in letter EA 27. All the letters sent by Rib-Hadda, in which the name of Amon was written, pre-dated the Egyptian campaign launched to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru, which took place under Amenophis III — as is witnessed by the group of Byblian letters in which the ruler of Byblos reminds Pharaoh Akhenaten of the campaign conducted during the reign of his father.5 Thus, they can safely be dated in the time of Amenophis III. The Egyptian letter to Milkilu of Gezer (EA 369) certainly was written before the religious reform of Akhenaten, because, in all subsequent letters sent from Egypt to Canaan, Amon is omitted from the concluding formula (EA 99, 162, 163, 367, 370). We may conclude that the god Amon disappeared from the Amarna correspondence shortly after the coronation of Akhenaten. This conclusion may be corroborated by the analysis of the greeting formula in EA 102:5–8: “May the Lady of Byblos, goddess of the king, my lord, give you dignity before the king, your lord, the Sun of (all) the countries.” At the time of Amenophis III, it was either the god Amon (EA 71:4–6; 86:3–5) or Amon and the Lady of Byblos (EA 77:3–5) who were designated in greeting formulae “god(s) of the king.” In letter EA 102, the name of Amon is omitted, and Ba‘alath alone is referred to as “goddess of the king.” The letter was written after the nomination of Yanḫamu as commissioner of Ṣumur, subsequent to the fall of Ullasa into the hands of Aziru and his brothers (Na’aman 1975:208, 229). Thus, it is evident that soon after the ascent of Akhenaten to the throne, Amon disappeared from the Amarna correspondence. Therefore, we may assume that both “great kings” and vassals were told, probably verbally by the Pharaoh’s messengers, to stop using the name of Amon in their letters. The assumption well explains the sudden disappearance of the god’s name in letters written by all the addressees of the new Egyptian king. 5. Moran 1969:98*; 1985:175–176, n. 9; Na’aman 1988:187, with earlier literature in n. 34.

246


It is not my task to discuss the many references to the Sun-God in the Amarna letters from the time of Akhenaten. The god’s name is consistently written dUTU (Šamaš/Šamši), and, in several letters, he is anonymously called “your god” (EA 161:32; 179:23; 189:r. 14; 250:20,49; 337:14). The name Aten never appears in the Amarna correspondence. The letter of Aziru discussed above (EA 164:30) may well be an exception. Aziru asks the Pharaoh and his officials to take an oath before his and the Pharaoh’s personal gods. He apparently tried to be as specific as possible and, therefore, uses the abbreviated proper name of the new Egyptian Sun-God, i.e., d A = Aten.

3. The Identity of the God NIN.URTA in the Amarna Letters6 The god NIN.URTA appears four times in the Amarna letters: twice as a theophoric element in proper names (EA 84:39 — mÌR-NIN.URTA; 170:36 — mÌRd URTA), once as a place name in the kingdom of Jerusalem (EA 290:16 — É dNIN.URTA) and once probably as a name of a temple (EA 74:31 É NIN.URTA).7 The name mÌR-dNIN.URTA also appears on a tablet from Ugarit, which carries the seal of “‘Abdi-NIN.URTA king of Siyannu” (Nougayrol 1956:230–231). Which West Semitic god might have been the equivalent of the Mesopotamian god Ninurta? In the early days of research, scholars sought the solution to this problem in later Babylonian god lists.8 However, in a special study dedicated to the identity of the god Ninurta in the Jerusalemite letter EA 290:16, Kallai and Tadmor demonstrated that these lists are irrelevant to the problem of the scribal tradition common in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.9 They suggested

6. The problem of the identity of dNIN.URTA in the Amarna letters has been discussed in greater detail in my doctoral dissertation (1975:105–108). A similar solution to the problem, although discussed only briefly, was reached by Astour 1979:21. 7. The suggestion by Kestemont (1971:49) to read EA 117:4 either uruŠal–l[u] or uru NI[N.URTA] is not acceptable. The sign NIN does not fit the traces in Schroeder’s facsimile of EA 117 (Schroeder 1915b:No. 62, line 41), and a town called by the name of a deity is without parallel. One may restore EA 117:40–42 as follows: (40) ú-ul š[ul-mu] (41) a-na šašu-nu iš-tu uru Ṣ[u-mu-ra a-di] (42) uruUl-la-sà; “Are they not enjoying peace from the city of Ṣ[umur to] the city of Ullasa.” For a comparison of EA 117:40–42 with EA 288:26–28, a passage from a letter of ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem, see Na’aman 1975:vol. 2, p. 43*, n. 56. 8. For the history of research and the various suggestions offered by scholars, see Kallai and Tadmor 1969:139. 9. Kallai and Tadmor 1969:138–141. For the same reason, I cannot accept the suggestion, by Lipińiski (1973:443–445), to identify the god Ninurta in EA 290:16 with the Hurrian god Tašmiš. The rendering of Hurrian words by logograms is restricted to those areas where Hurrian was the mother tongue of the scribes; however, the logographic writing d NIN.URTA appears in letters from Amurru, Byblos and Jerusalem, where West Semitic was the mother language of the scribes.


247

identifying the god Ninurta with the god Ḥoron, one of the central West Semitic deities of Syro-Canaan in the second millennium BCE. According to their analysis of the literary sources, Ḥoron was first of all a war-god and, in this aspect, was close to the Mesopotamian god Ninurta.10 Like other important West Semitic gods (i.e., Ba‘al, Hadad, Rashap, Shamash), his name was written by a logogram. The place name mentioned in letter EA 290:16 should be rendered Bīt-Horon and, thus, can be identified with biblical Beth-ḥoron, a town located on the main road leading from the northern Shephelah to the city of Jerusalem.11 However, this attractive solution to the problem of the identity of the town mentioned in EA 290:16 is not free of doubts. First, Ḥoron had a distinctive chthonic character — as is evident from both the derivation of his name, from the absence of his name in the offering texts in Ugarit and from texts in which he fights the evil forces. He was not a war-god who participated in cosmic fighting against the enemies of nature and mankind, but, rather, he was the protector of human beings from demonic forces.12 Second, according to the god lists from Ugarit, Ḥoron did not rank high in the local pantheon — unlike the god Ninurta in the Mesopotamian pantheon. Third, and most important of all, Ḥoron does not appear as the theophoric element in any Late Bronze Age proper name that has been published so far.13 Three out of the five references to d NIN.URTA are proper names; thus, his identification with Ḥoron is unlikely. Needless to say, this constitutes another distinctive difference between Ḥoron and Ninurta, who was a popular god whose name frequently served as the theophoric element in proper names. In the god lists of Ugarit, Ninurta is identified with Gasharu (Hallo and Moran 1979:72, n. 23; Moran 1987:252, n. 10). The god Gasharu, however, is entirely unknown in Canaan and can hardly have been referred to in the Amarna letters under the name dNIN.URTA.

10. For the god Ḥoron in the second millennium BCE, see Albright 1936:1–12; 1941: 7–12; Posener 1945:20–42; Xella 1972:271–286, and further literature on p. 271, n. 1; 1988:55–58; Stadelmann 1967:76–88; Helck 1971:454–455, 471–472; Caquot 1979–80: 173–180. 11. Kallai and Tadmor 1969:141–147. It should be noted that the identification of d NIN.URTA with Ḥoron was suggested previously by Albright 1936:7, n. 20; 1968:120. 12. Stadelmann 1967:80–81; de Moor 1970:222; Caquot 1979–80:175–177; Xella, 1988: 55–57. 13. It must be recalled that the two assumed references to the god Ḥoron in Ugaritic proper names (Gröndahl 1967:386) are mistaken. See Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1976: KTU 4.350, line 13 and KTU 4.75, VI line 1. For the possible reasons for the unpopularity of the god Ḥoron, see Xella 1988:57.

248


A possible solution to the identity of dNIN.URTA in the Amama letters may be found in two Ugaritic edicts that refer to the political status of the kingdom of Siyannu in the fourteenth century BCE. For many years, Siyannu was part of the kingdom of Ugarit — until Murshili II, king of Hatti, confirmed the secession of Siyannu from Ugarit and its transfer as a vassal state to the allegiance of Carchemish. Two documents that deal with the secession refer to the same territory, around the town of Ḫarmana. One document (RS 17.170) carries the seal of “Niqmepa son of Niqmaddu king of Ugarit” and calls the other party ‘Abdi-‘Anati. The second document (RS 17.123) carries the seal of “‘Abdi dNIN.URTA king of Siyannu” and calls the other party “the king of Ugarit” (Nougayrol 1956:78 and 230–231). Though Nougayrol (1956:7, 244) and Liverani (1962:151–152) treated ‘Abdi-‘Anati and ‘Abdi-dNIN.URTA as two different kings, the two names may well refer to one and the same person. ‘Abdi-dNIN.URTA is not mentioned in any other document from Ugarit and, with the omission of his name, the number of kings of Siyannu becomes identical to that of the kings of Ugarit at that time.14 Regarding the identification of Ninurta with ‘Anat, we may first of all note that, in spite of the importance of the latter goddess in the West Semitic pantheon during the second millennium BCE, no logographic divine equivalent for her name was ever discovered.15 Second, like Ninurta, ‘Anat is a war-goddess whose name is common as a theophoric element in proper names. Third, toponyms combined with the divine name ‘Anat are known from Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (Beth-‘Anath) and in the Iron Age (Beth-‘Anath and ‘Anathoth).16 The location of the Beth-‘Anath mentioned in EA 290:16 remains unknown, although it may be sought, tentatively, not far from Keilah (EA 290: 14–18 “And now, moreover, a town of Jerusalem, Beth-‘Anath is its name, has deserted with the city of Keilah”; see CAD A/2 415b). Why was the name of a male god identified with a goddess (compare Lambert 1969)? One may suggest that it was the result of the first element of the name Ninurta, i.e., dNIN = bēltu = “lady.” The goddess ‘Anat, one of the major goddesses in the West Semitic pantheon, has no fitting counterpart among the Mesopotamian goddesses (Ishtar was already identified with ‘Ashtoreth); therefore, she was identified with the god of war and hunting,

14. For the territory of the kingdom of Siyannu, see Astour 1979:13–28. 15. For dIGI-at as a pseudo-logographic writing of the goddess name ‘Anat, see Gröndahl 1967:111. 16. See Ahituv 1984:75–76. The place-name Beth-anoth (Josh 15:59), on the other hand, is the result of a scribal error: The original name was probably Beth-‘Anon. See Auld 1977: 85–86.


249

whose name has the element dNIN. The name of this great “lady” was usually written syllabically, and sometimes by the logographic form dNIN.URTA.

4. DINGIRmeš in the Amarna Letters From the early days of research into the Amarna letters, it has been recognized that some of the references to DINGIRmeš (ilāni) in the letters should be translated as a singular, i.e., “god” (see Hartmann 1973–74:72–74). Thus, in the most common introduction to the letters — “Speak to the king, my lord, my god (DINGIRmeš-ia), my Sun . . .” — DINGIRmeš stands as a singular. Note also EA 198:1–3 “Say to the king, my lord, my personal god (DINGIRmeš SAG.DU-ia).” In the most common submission formula — “At the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god (DINGIRmeš-ia), seven time and seven times I have fallen” — DINGIRmeš stands for the singular. In the greeting formula of letters EA 96:4– 7 and 97:3, the verbal form liš’al proves that DINGIRmeš should be translated as singular. Thus, it is clear that ilāni — like Hebrew ’elôhîm — is sometimes a singular form (pluralis majestatum). To demonstrate that the decision in the case of DINGIRmeš may be quite complicated, I would like to add some further examples of DINGIRmeš as a singular form. Most of the examples suggested below are taken from passages already discussed in this article. Moran (1960:4, n.3; 1987:268, n.10) has pointed out that ilāni both in EA 84:35 (where it refers to dDA.MU-ia) and in EA 129:51 (ilāni balṭi) is singular in meaning. The passage EA 77:30–35 has been restored by Moran (1987:257 and 258, n.8), and it is evident that DIN[GIRmeš] directly refers to the Lady of Byblos and is a singular form. In EA 74:57 DINGIRmeš-nu is in apposition to the Lady of Byblos, the passage (lines 56–57) may be translated “I will guard the city loyal to him together with our lady, our goddess, for you.” In letter EA 164 discussed above (see Part 2), Aziru expressed his will to travel to Egypt and appear before the Pharaoh, but makes one condition: that the latter and his officials first take an oath before his and the Pharaoh’s gods not to conspire against him. It is clear that DINGIRmeš-ia (lines 31, 40) refers to his personal god, which he had sent to Egypt together with his messenger. Finally, it seems that in several letters the “god of the king” (i.e., the Pharaoh) is written either in singular (DINGIR) or in plural (DINGIRmeš) form. The singular form appears in letters EA 179:23, 250:20,49 and 337:14; the plural appears in letters EA 161:32 and 189:r. 14. dUTU in the latter texts is in apposition to DINGIRmeš-nu-ka, as is evident from EA 189;r. 13 which has the sin17. It is not clear whether Etaqqama refers here to a standard that was carried at the head of the advanced army, or whether he used these words only as a metaphor for the

250


gular verbal form ellak. EA 189:r. 13–15 may be translated: “And I came (in time), and your god, namely the Sun, went before me.”17 EA 161:32–33 “Your god, namely the Sun, be my witness. . . .” As was noted in Part 2, all these five references to the “god of the king” were written in the time of Akhenaten and reflect the rise of the Sun-God to the status of the supreme god of the kingdom and the personal god of the king. In conclusion, we may note that in many cases ilāni is a singular form and that sometimes it is quite difficult to decide whether it stands for the singular or the plural. Understanding the context may be the key for the correct form; each and every case should be analyzed in its own right.

References Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1936. The Canaanite God Ḥaurôn (Ḥôrôn). American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 53: 1–12. Albright, W.F. 1941. The Egypto-Canaanite Deity Ḥaurôn. BASOR 84: 7–12. Albright, W.F. 1968. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. London. Astour, M. 1979. The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 13–28. Auld, A.G. 1977. A Judean Sanctuary of ‘Anat (Josh 15:59)? Tel Aviv 4: 85–86. Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Caquot, A. 1979–80. Horon: revue critique et données nouvelles. Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 29–30: 173–80. Dietrich, M. Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. (AOAT 24). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome. Hallo, W.W. and Moran, W.L. 1979. The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth. JCS 31: 65–115. Hartmann, B. 1973–74. Elōhīm als Singular. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 48: 67–76. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd ed., Wiesbaden. Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bīt Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew). Kestemont, G. 1971. Le Nahr el-Kebir et le pays d’Amurru. Berytus 20: 47–55. Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. Liverpool. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig Kühne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna. (AOAT 17). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.

great effect of the Sun-God on the success of his loyal vassal. For a detailed discussion, see Na’aman 1975:193–197.


251

Lambert, W.G. 1969. The Reading of the God Name dKA.DI. ZA 59: 100–103. Lipińiski, E. 1973. Beth-Schemesch und der Tempel der Herrin der Grabkammer in den Amarna-Briefen. VT 23: 443–445. Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici. (Studi Semitici 6). Rome. de Moor, J.C. 1970. The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 2: 187–228. Moran, W.L. 1960. Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 1–19. Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*–99*. Moran, W.L. 1985. Rib-Hadda: Job at Byblos?. In: Kort, A. and Morschauser, S. eds. Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Winona Lake: 173–181. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les letters d’EI-Amarna. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13. Paris. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna Letters. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–194. Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des archives sud (Archives internationales). (Mission de Ras Shamra 9). Paris. Posener, G. 1945. Houroun: nouvelles mentions de cette Divinité. JNES 4: 240–242. Rainey, A.F. 1976. A Tri-Lingual Cuneiform Fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3: 137–140. Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln. 2nd revised ed. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Seven Studies. Toronto. Schroeder, O. 1915a. ilu A = ilu A-ma-na.” OLZ 18: 326–327. Schroeder, O. 1915b. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Stadelmann, R. 1967. Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden. Xella, P. 1972. Per una riconsiderazione della morfologia del dio Ḥoron. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 32: 271–286. Xella, P. 1988. D’Ugarit à Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Ḥoron, Eshmun. WO 19: 45– 64.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere1 The question of whether or not the Ḫabiru should be equated with the Hebrews (‘ibrîm) has now been discussed for almost a century, but a scholarly consensus still has not been reached.2 The Ḫabiru were first discovered in the Amarna letters, where their name is sometimes written with the Sumerian logogram SA.GAZ. The Ḫabiru are mentioned as a source of trouble and rebellion in many Canaanite city-states. The resemblance between the names Ḫabiru and Hebrew, the proximity of their location, as well as the close chronological relationship between the Amarna Ḫabiru and the Israelites aroused the imagination of scholars, bringing about the immediate equation of the two groups. The discovery of additional ancient Near Eastern documents in which the Ḫabiru are occasionally mentioned, however, altered this view. When it was definitely established that the term Ḫabiru is an appellation representing a certain social element and that all existing documents clearly support this view, certain scholars even went so far as to deny any connection whatever between the two names.3 Others tried to solve the problem by claiming that the biblical term “Hebrew” is basically a social rather than ethnic designation.4

1. Reprinted with permission. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), 271–286. 2. The two basic works that deal with the Ḫabiru problem are Bottéro 1954 and Greenberg 1955. Both include a complete bibliography covering the period up to 1953. For subsequent studies and bibliography, see Bottéro 1972–75:14–27, with earlier literature on p. 14; Rowton 1976b:13–20, with earlier literature on p. 13 n. 2. For additional studies, see Liverani 1965a:315–336; 1965b:267–277; 1979:65–77; Greenberg 1970:188–200, 279–281; Mendenhall 1973:122–141; Cazelles 1973:1–28; de Geus 1976:182–187; Buccellati 1977:145– 147; Gottwald 1979:389–425, 435–485; Riesener 1979:115–127; Lemche 1979:1–23; Bottéro 1981:89–107. see also my articles 1982c:27–33; and 1979: 676–682. 3. This view was emphasized strongly by Borger 1958:121–132; see Landsberger 1954: 161; Koch 1969:68–71. 4. See, for example, Gray 1958:173–188, 193–196; Liverani 1965a:334–335; Cazelles 1973: 1–3, 21–24; Mendenhall 1973:135–138; Gottwald 1979:417–425, 493–497; see also Rowton 1976b:18–20.

252

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 253 Anthropological research in the field of tribal society in ancient times5 has made a major contribution in clarifying the problem at hand.6 Documents discovered at Mari and recently published also contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of the term “Ḫabiru” (see below) (Birot 1974:nos. 50, 72). Recent archaeological research in Palestine and, in particular, in the hill country where the Israelites settled in the pre-monarchical period also have helped eliminate certain erroneous notions about the Ḫabiru. This evidence encourages new discussion of the relationship between the Ḫabiru and Hebrews and may even offer somewhat different answers to these questions.

I. The Ḫabiru in Ancient Near Eastern Documents The Ḫabiru are mentioned in more than 210 texts written in the course of the second millennium BCE in many Western Asiatic kingdoms.7 The earliest documents in which they appear belong to the first half of the eighteenth century BCE. The latest hieratic and cuneiform occurrences mentioning the Ḫabiru are dated to the twelfth and eleventh centuries, respectively. At any rate, it seems clear that Ḫabiru as a general Western Asiatic phenomenon disappeared from the historical arena some time toward the end of the second millennium BCE. Common to all the people designated as “Ḫabiru” is the fact that they were uprooted from their original political and social framework and forced to adapt to a new environment. The different traits and social behavior of the Ḫabiru in each area of Western Asia are the outcome of this adaptation to new circumstances. Among the reasons for breaking off their former political and social ties were wars, disasters, famine, debt, heavy taxes, prolonged military service, and so on. Recent studies on tribes have shown that the poorest tribal elements, those whose livestock or land diminished to the point at which it was no longer sufficient to sustain a family, often left their tribes to seek a living elsewhere (Rowton 1976b:14). It should be emphasized that the 5. The term “tribe” is so deeply entrenched in discussions of ancient Western Asiatic society, and particularly in the description of the early history of Israel, that, in spite of recent suggestions not to use the term (see Fried 1975), one can hardly avoid it. For a convenient definition of the expression “tribe,” see Kamp and Yoffee 1980: 88–89. 6. See the works of Mendenhall 1973; Rowton, 1976b; Gottwald 1979. For a complete list of Rowton’s publications, see Rowton 1976:17–18, n. 4; 1981:25–36. For a criticism of Rowton’s approach see Gottwald, 1979:889–894; Kamp and Yoffee, 1980:91–94. 7. For an updated list of documents, see Bottéro 1972–75:15–21; for additional notes on the list, see Bottéro 1981:90–91, n. 4. Bottéro’s list of texts includes sources that concern the ḫabbatu as well as others that mention only personal names.

254


tribal framework was basically territorial and included inhabitants of small towns and villages as well as nomads.8 Tribal ties encompassed large areas and functioned as a loose, social structure that united many groups and families of a diverse nature: farmers, nomads, and sometimes even members of urban populations. Thus, the discussion of migrants from the tribal sector is by no means restricted to people of nomadic background. Indeed, J. Bottéro (1981:96–97) has demonstrated recently that most of the people designated as “Ḫabiru,” insofar as their background can be established, actually came from the sedentary population and not from among the nomads. They originated from the two major sectors of the “dimorphic society” of the ancient Near East — the urban and the tribal — and were an intermediate social element between these two groups. As it happened, individuals sometimes moved from their homeland to neighboring countries and served either in the public or private sector for subsistence or wages. Usually, however, they did not migrate alone, but formed a band. These bands were independent bodies and were restricted in number and unified, often having a single prominent leader. No further hierarchy or institutional organization was needed for this tiny social structure, and it is for this reason that none of the institutions that typify either clan or tribe ever appeared in connection with the Ḫabiru (Bottéro 1972–75:26; 1981: 94). The predatory nature of the bands was a direct outcome of their social status. M.B. Rowton (1977:193) emphasized that “in tribal society the most predatory elements were usually the small and poor tribes or tribal splinter groups. These lacked the strength to assert their claim to pasture. As a result they would turn to brigandage.” This statement is even more true of the groups of Ḫabiru who had neither tribal territory nor large fields and herds, and they often became dangerous to sedentary society. On occasion, however, they served as mercenaries to rulers in neighboring areas, and service in the armies of established kingdoms opened the way for the re-integration of the Ḫabiru into sedentary society and may have even been a stepping-stone to a military career for a leader of a band (Rowton 1977:193). Further details about the Ḫabiru-bands and their origin, organization, and activity can be gleaned from the Bible, as I hope to show below. The social status “Ḫabiru,” i.e., “uprooted migrants,” did not last very long (Bottéro 1981:93–106). The stable organization of these bands, mainly based on the personality of their leader and cohesion of their members, was short-

8. The importance of the territorial factor for the study of tribal society was emphasized by Mendenhall 1962: 69–71; see Mendenhall 1973:174–178; Gottwald 1979:294–298, 470, with additional bibliography.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 255 lived. Sooner or later their members married, had children, and their number expanded to a degree that necessitated support from a larger political group. Thus, the bands appear to have re-integrated themselves either into tribal society or (through military service) into urban society; they may have even formed the nucleus of an entirely new tribe (Rowton 1977:194). It appears that individual refugees often became re-integrated into society through their service in ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. One may safely conclude that the people designated as “Ḫabiru,” who appeared in different places at different times in various Western Asiatic regions, had nothing in common, apart from their similar social status. Each society had its own “Ḫabiru-people.” In general, the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru can be described as a circular process, one in which people were uprooted from the society in which they were born, lived for a while as foreigners in another country, and then were absorbed into their new environment. The problem of the etymology and exact meaning of the term “Ḫabiru” was clarified recently by the publication of newly discovered letters from Mari. The verb ḫabāru appears in two of these tablets and was translated by the editor, M. Birot (1974:nos. 50, 72, and p. 228) as “immigrer.” Bottéro (1981:95 f), however, disagreed and suggested that the verb was derived from the noun Ḫabiru and should be translated “est-devenu-ḫabiru.” It is noteworthy that the single appearance of the same verb in a Cappadocian tablet (Stephens 1944:No. 226) is earlier than all other occurrences of the term Ḫabiru. The inconsistency in the recording of the verb ḫabāru may well be due to its West-Semitic origin. Be that as it may, the light that the new Mari tablets can shed on the original concept of the appellation Ḫabiru is certainly more important than its assumed etymological contribution. To demonstrate this, I present the tablets in more detail below. (1) ARM 14 50. A certain person, Ami-ibâl, came from the town of Nasher in Ilānṣura and was accused of being registered as an elite soldier who had defected from his unit, which was stationed at Ilānṣura. Ami-ibâl rejected the accusation by claiming that four years before the assumed registration he had migrated (verb ḫabāru) from Ilānṣura to Subartu (the reasons for the move are not specified) and had returned to his homeland only recently because of the advance of Atamrum.9 It is clear from this letter that there was a markedly perceived difference between a deserter (pāṭeru) and a migrant (Ḫabiru). Desertion was regarded as a grave offence, and the government sought out deserters and punished

9. For the career of Atamrum see Rouault 1970: 110–118.

256


them severely when they were caught. Migration, on the other hand, was regarded as a legal, voluntary act. (2) ARM 14 72. Addu-sharrum was a Babylonian and an overseer (waklum) of a group of soldiers. He was accepted, together with his band, as a replacement in the kingdom of Mari. Eight months later, the Babylonians demanded his extradition, claiming that he had defected from the army after the Babylonian troops came to Mari. To this claim Addu-sharrum answered that he had fled from Babylonia to Mari and, thus, was a migrant (Ḫabiru) who should not be extradited. Yaqqim-Addu, the governor of Saggaratum who wrote the letter, sent Addu-sharrum to the king of Mari suggesting that the latter should check to see “if this man fled from Babylonia or whether he came up with the troops and then stayed” (lines 30–32). The two letters reflect a similar problem, i.e., determining the legal status of a man who is accused of being a deserter, but who states he is a migrant and, thus, a Ḫabiru. If he is the latter, he has broken no law and should be neither punished nor extradited. (3) ARM 14 73. This letter is closely connected with letter no. 72 above; unfortunately, only the second half is preserved. Yaqqim-Addu cites the words of the group of replacements overseen by Addu-sharrum, saying: “Is there a country which extradites its replacements? Not only us: a messenger who was used to hearing the secrets of his lord, if he enters the service of another king, he becomes the son of (that) country. Now, why should you extradite us?” (rev. lines 5–12). The second claim reminds us of the case of David, “the servant of Saul, king of Israel,” who later joined Achish, king of Gath, and was with him “for, days and years since he deserted” (1 Sam. 29:3). Migrating to a neighboring kingdom and serving under its king is regarded in this letter as an acceptable move, even if the migrant had previously served in the court of another king. It should be emphasized, however, that these claims were raised by replacements whose extradition had been requested (see rev. lines 13–14) and who were desperately trying to escape this fate. Keeping this background in mind, I can now attempt to define the difference between the Ḫabiru and munnabtum.10 The latter term seems to have had a more general meaning, designating various types of runaways, even slaves who ran away from their masters. In certain cases, therefore, people designated munnabtum were treated like the pāṭeru of the Mari tablets and were prosecuted and extradited. The Ḫabiru, on the other hand, who were re-

10. For this problem, see Landsberger 1954:160–161; Buccellati 1977:145–47; Bottéro 1981:97–98.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 257 garded as migrants, were immune from such acts of prosecution. Once their status was recognized, they were allowed to remain (as aliens) in the ancient Near Eastern kingdoms to which they had fled, and in no case were they captured or extradited. Thus, it is clear that Bottéro was justified in defining the Ḫabiru as “réfugié,”11 in contrast with the prevailing definitions (e.g., “resident aliens,” “aliens,” “outlaws”), which emphasized the status of the Ḫabiru subsequent to their migration. Hence, it appears that it is only the act of migration, and not any specific status resulting from conditions in the new environment, that defines the appellative designation “Ḫabiru” in Western Asiatic societies of the second millennium BCE.

II. The Ḫabiru in the Amarna Letters: From Social Appellation to Expression of Derogation The largest single group of documents in which the term “Ḫabiru” is mentioned, the Amarna tablets, was the first to be discovered. Most of the tablets were sent by Canaanite rulers to the Egyptian court during the first half of the fourteenth century BCE. The Ḫabiru appear in these letters as a distinct component of the population, scattered in all areas of Canaan. They had an important effect on events that took place in the regions under Egyptian rule. They were usually portrayed as a negative element wreaking havoc in all areas of Canaan and a cause of concern to and complaints by the city-state rulers. In only a few instances are the Ḫabiru referred to without this tone of reproach and accusation. The Amarna correspondence shows a marked development in the history of the appellation “Ḫabiru.” On many occasions, the term went beyond its original meaning (i.e., a designation for uprooted people) and became a derogatory appellation for rebels against Egyptian authority.12 This is particularly clear in the letters from Byblos, where there is a similarity between statements in which the Ḫabiru are mentioned and statements in which ‘Abdi-Ashirta or his sons appear.13 Also, the expression “to become Ḫabiru,” which is repeated in many letters from all areas of Canaan, implies deser-

11. Bottéro 1954:191–198; see also Liverani 1965a:317. 12. See, for example, Greenberg 1960:15; Weippert 1971:71–74; Mendenhall 1973:122– 135; Liverani 1979:71, with additional bibliography in nn. 18–19. 13. Greenberg 1955:70–72; Mendenhall 1973:124–126. One of the supposed references to Aziru as SA.GAZ (see Mendenhall 1973:124) should probably be read differently. In light of several parallel passages (EA 76:17–19; 91:23–25; 132:19–21), letter EA 67:16–18 may be restored as follows: “Now he has gathered all] (p[u!-ḫi-ir ka-li]) the Ḫabiru, runaway dog(s), and has captured Ṣumur, the city of the Sun, my lord.”

258


tion from the Pharaoh and his representatives, the various rulers of the citystates, and defection to the side of their opponents, who were regarded as outlaws (Liverani 1979:65–77). The extension of the term “Ḫabiru” to denote elements that were opposed to the Pharaoh and the rulers of the city-states is certainly connected with the political nature of the Amarna correspondence: The letters were diplomatic exchanges sent to the overlord, the Egyptian Pharaoh, and, thus, every city-state ruler tried to justify his own deeds and to denigrate his enemies. The use of the appellation “Ḫabiru” as a kind of derogatory expression presupposes, of course, the actual presence of Ḫabiru bands, which were a major cause of disruption in the Egyptian province of Canaan. The term “Ḫabiru” had a negative connotation in the Egyptian court. Thus, it was extended to include all real, ostensible, or fabricated forces acting against the Egyptian authorities. Of course, this must be taken into account when dealing with the Amarna correspondence, especially when trying to determine the role of authentic Ḫabiru-bands and Ḫabiru-soldiers in the political events and their effect on social and economic conditions of the time. Recent studies on the Amarna correspondence have made it clear that the archive reflects no breakdown in the Egyptian rule of Canaan. Rather, the letters portray a situation of “business as usual,” one in which the Egyptians were strong enough to maintain their rule over their Asiatic provinces.14 From an Egyptian point of view, the Ḫabiru were regarded more as a disturbing element than as a real threat to their rule in Asia. For the rulers of the city-states, on the other hand, the Ḫabiru may have been a direct threat, and the Amarna letters supply many indications of this. It is in this context — taking into account the complicated problems involved in the evaluation of the source material — that the historical role of the Ḫabiru in the land of Canaan can be established. What might the relationship have been between the Ḫabiru of the Amarna period and the Israelites of the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE? It has been suggested in recent studies that the Canaanite city-state system gradually decayed and finally collapsed during the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries and that large population groups simultaneously withdrew from the crumbling urban society, subsequently united with each other, and later formed the nucleus of a confederacy of the Israelite tribes.15 Accordingly, the

14. See, among others, Schulman 1964:51–69; Several 1972:123–133; Na’aman 1981:172– 185; Weinstein 1981:15–17, with additional bibliography. 15. The hypothesis of an increasing withdrawal from the control of the central government, in which the bands of Ḫabiru played an important role, is central in Mendenhall’s

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 259 masses of Ḫabiru withdrawing from the Canaanite cities during the Amarna period could have played an important role in this scenario, because they have been regarded as the link between the Ḫabiru of the Amarna period and the Israelite tribes.16 There is enough evidence today, however, both from contemporary documents and archaeology, to call this theory into question. First, there are no archaeological indications for large-scale settlement during the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries BCE in the mountainous parts of Palestine, i.e., where the Israelites of the twelfth-eleventh centuries would have settled. Furthermore, there is a clear cultural break in the settlement of these mountain areas between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Also, there are clear indications of the intensification of Egyptian involvement in Palestine at the time of the Nineteenth and the beginning of the Twentieth Dynasties in Egypt (Weinstein 1981:17–23, with additional bibliography; Na’aman 1982a: 241–255). It appears that the Egyptian occupation of southern Canaan in the thirteenth and the first half of the twelfth centuries BCE was stronger, and their involvement more intense, than it was during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Finally, there is archaeological evidence that suggests that Canaanite culture flourished in this last phase of Egyptian rule in Palestine, in marked contrast to earlier concepts that characterized the thirteenth century BCE as a period of extreme decline in Canaanite civilization. The picture of the gradual collapse of the city-state system from the Amarna period on and the simultaneous gradual strengthening of the forces withdrawing from Canaanite society is, in my opinion, untenable. One may further ask whether a large-scale migration from the city state system was actually taking place during the Amarna period at all (Mendenhall 1962:71–84; 1973:122–38; Liverani 1965a:323–327). The assumption that there was such a migration is based mainly on the letters of RibAdda of Byblos, which, however, reflect a singular historical moment: the foundation of the strong kingdom of Amurru. This event is exceptional for Late Bronze Age Canaan, a period characterized by the stability of the citystates. Also, the letters of Rib-Adda are well known for their polemical nature and tendentious use of the term “Ḫabiru” (see above) (Liverani 1971: 253–268; 1974:175–205). The results of archaeological excavations conducted in many Palestinian sites indicate that no important Canaanite city was abandoned

and Gottwald’s descriptions of the settlement of the Israelite tribes. See Mendenhall 1962: 71–84; 1973:chaps. 1, 5, 7, 8; Gottwald 1979:pt. 8. 16. For a criticism of Mendenhall’s early statements on the Ḫabiru-Hebrew problem, see Weippert 1971:66, 82–102.

260


during the fourteenth century, but rather, several new settlements were founded during this period along the Coastal Plain and in the Shephelah region. The continual rebuilding of Late Bronze Age towns on their earlier scale clearly shows that the former population of these towns was in fact unwilling to withdraw from urban society and that these inhabitants actually returned to their hometowns. It is only later, in the thirteenth century, that central Canaanite cities were destroyed and abandoned. The large-scale exit from the city-states and the assumed adaptation of a nomadic way of life in the peripheral areas of Palestine by large groups of people were probably the result of the destruction of many Canaanite cities in the thirteenth-twelfth centuries (Mendenhall, 1973:142–153; Liverani 1965a:326–327, 332–335). One doubts, however, whether the deserters of the Amarna period played an important role in this assumed process of nomadization. Thus, it seems that the Ḫabiru were part of the society of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, appearing because of certain political, social, and economic conditions and then becoming reabsorbed and assimilated into the same society. One may conclude that no direct link connects the Ḫabiru of the Amarna period with the Israelites of the pre-monarchical period (twelftheleventh centuries). The Ḫabiru of the Late Bronze Age, like all other groups of Ḫabiru in the ancient Near East, should be studied in the context of the environment from which they emerged.

III. Hebrews and Israelites in the Old Testament Tradition 1. The Nature of the Problem Given the background of the Ḫabiru and their historical role in the Western Asiatic society of the second millennium BCE, I can now attempt to clarify the relationship of the Ḫabiru to the biblical Hebrews (‘ibrîm). The etymological relationship of the term (Ḫabiru) of the ancient Near Eastern texts and the biblical term ‘ibrî can be established reasonably securely.17 The major obstacle to equating the two terms is their difference in usage: the name “Hebrew” served as an ethnicon for the Israelites in particular historical and social situations. The appellation “Ḫabiru,” on the other hand, was never used as a gentilic designation; in fact the absence of a gentilic ending is one of its most remarkable features and distinguishes it from all ethnic names. M. Greenberg (1955:198; see Riesener 1979:115–127), in his discussion of the Ḫabiru-Hebrew problem, correctly noted that “no scriptural passage gives explicit ground for

17. See the thorough philological discussion of the problem by Weippert 1971:74–82.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 261 extending the scope of ‘ibrî beyond Israelites.” Indeed, one is justified in discussing the Ḫabiru-Hebrew equation only within the context of the history of Israel. By accepting the identity of the two names, one would necessarily have to assume that the term was transformed from a social appellation into an ethnic term. The question that needs to be asked is how and for what reasons did this shift occur in Old Testament tradition? Before discussing these questions, which have both historical and literary aspects, we must first examine the relationship of the Israelites and the Hebrews in biblical tradition.

2. Migration from Israelite Society in the Pre-Monarchical and Early Monarchical Periods The name ‘ibrî(m) occurs in the Bible mainly in the description of two historical periods: the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt and Philistine-Israelite relations. It is used many times by foreigners, for example, by the Egyptians (Gen. 39:14, 17; 41:12; Exod. 1:16; 2: 6) and Philistines (1 Sam. 4:6, 9; 13:3, 19; 14:11; 29:3) and also by the narrator with reference to Israelites in the context of Egyptians vis-à-vis Israelites (Gen. 40:15; Exod. 1:19; 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3). It refers mainly to Israelites in the pre-monarchical period and is used to distinguish them from other ethnic groups; it usually appears in unfavorable contexts, thus, lacking the halo generally associated with the term “Israelite.” One should begin with the occurrences of the term in the books of Samuel, because, of all the traditions relating to the early history of Israel, the stories in these books were the first to be set down in writing. Moreover, only a relatively short time separates the events described therein from the date of their recording, and, in addition, the author(s) lived in the same area where the reported events took place. Thus, the books of Samuel are doubtless the best source for a historical study of the problem of the Hebrews, much better than all other biblical sources. The designation ‘ibrîm appears seven times in 1 Samuel.18 Scholars have already noted that 1 Sam. 14:21–22 is the key to its proper understanding.19 With the help of the LXX, the passage may be translated thus: Now the Hebrews who had been with the Philistines before that time and who had gone up with them into the camp, even they also turned to be with the Israelites who

18. The 1 Sam. 13:7 passage was omitted from the discussion, because it is obviously corrupt. See Driver 1913:99–100. 19. See, for example, Gray 1958:180–181; Weingreen 1967:64–65; Weippert 1971:88; Gottwald 1979:422–423.

262

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE were with Saul and Jonathan. Likewise, when all the men of Israel who had hid themselves in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines were fleeing, they too followed hard after them in the battle.

The passage relates the joining of two different groups to the side of the victor in the Battle of Michmash: the Hebrews who served in the Philistine camp and the Israelites who hid themselves in Mount Ephraim (see 1 Sam. 13: 6). The narrator precisely defined the two groups, making it clear that the difference was not merely literary. In the other six references, the name “Hebrews” is used by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:6, 9; 13:3,20 19; 14:11; 29:3). One may assume that by using this term, the narrator intentionally emphasized the Philistines’ scorn of the uprooted elements who were in their service and who were apparently considered an inferior group. However, in five out of six references, the degrading appellation is directed toward the Israelites, the rivals of the Philistines. The application of the term “Hebrews” to the Israelites requires some explanation; some background information about the activity of uprooted elements in the premonarchical and the early monarchical periods is necessary. As was recognized long ago, the bands of Jephthah and David were socially identical with the Ḫabiru-bands of the second millennium BCE.21 The appellation “Hebrews” is applied once to David and his band, who were scornfully defined as such by the Philistine lords (1 Sam. 29:3). In fact, the best descriptions of bands within the entire literature of the ancient Near East appear in the biblical stories of Jephthah and David. They portray the background of the flight, the emergence of the bands, their methods of survival, and the manner in which they were re-integrated into Israelite society. Jephthah was the son of a “harlot” and, as such, not entitled to an inheritance in his father’s house; he was obliged to migrate to a marginal territory (the Land of Tob). Known as a “mighty warrior,” he assembled a band of “worthless fellows,” which he commanded. When the inhabitants of the Gilead region were oppressed by the Ammonites, Jephthah was called by his compatriots to lead, with his strong band, the armed forces of Gilead against the aggressors. As a result of his success in the battles against the Ammonites, he was able to acquire both wealth and authority in Gileadite society of the eleventh century BCE (Judg. 11).

20. The 1 Sam. 13: 3 passage is emended in accordance with the version of the LXX. See Driver 1913:98. 21. See, for example, Buccellati 1962:95–99; Mazar 1963:310–312; Mendenhall 1973:133, 135–136.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 263 Even more instructive are the stories of David’s rise to power. Serving first as a military commander under Saul, king of Israel, and married to the king’s daughter, he was later obliged to flee from his father-in-law, who sought to kill him. “David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam; and when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him. And everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented, gathered to him; and he became captain over them. And there were with him about four hundred men” (1 Sam. 22:1–2). In contrast to this description are the words of Nabal, David’s enemy, who refused to give them supplies, calling them slaves “who are breaking away from their masters” and men “who come from I know not where” (1 Sam. 25:10–11). By his authority and personal influence, David was able to attract not only his relatives, but also elements of a lower social status, men who had complaints against the incumbent regime as well as others seeking a new fortune, thus, becoming the leader of a powerful, well-organized military force. The band also included a priest (Abiathar, 1 Sam. 22:20–23) and a prophet (Gad, 1 Sam. 22:5). This reminds us of the story of Idrimi, who was not only the captain of his band but also its diviner.22 The narrator describes in great detail how David, leading his band, was able to escape pursuit of the king of Israel. He sought places of refuge in the inaccessible desert borderlands and in hidden caves. Of particular interest are the ways in which David was able to maintain and sustain his band. He demanded protection money from the wealthier landowners in his area, even threatening death when anyone refused to pay (1 Sam. 25). David also married women of southern Judean origin — Abigail of Carmel and Ahinoam of Jezreel (see Josh. 15: 55–56) — and was certainly supported by his fathers-inlaw. Because of the dangers involved in wandering within Israelite territory, David later moved to Philistia, becoming a vassal of the Philistine king of Gath, Saul’s main enemy. The band under David’s command served as mercenaries in the Philistine camp, even in campaigns directed against their countrymen (1 Sam. 27: 1–6; 28: 1–2; 29). The king of Gath gave him Ziklag, and from there he systematically raided groups of pastoral nomads situated on the southern borders of Palestine (1 Sam. 27:7–11). Because Ziklag was located in the vicinity of the land of Judah, David began to create political alliances by defending the settlements of southern Judah against the pastoral nomads of the desert, even sending them gifts from the spoil of their hated enemies (1 Sam. 30). It

22. For the most recent treatment of the story of Idrimi, see Dietrich and Loretz 1981: 201–269, with additional bibliography. A priest Ishḫara is likewise mentioned among the Ḫabiru groups in the tablet from Alalakh Level IV (AT 180:20); see Mendenhall 1973:133.

264


was only after the death of Saul that David’s special position was recognized by the inhabitants of the land of Judah, who anointed him as their king in Hebron (2 Sam. 2:1–4). His band became the nucleus of the growing army of the new kingdom. The case of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, is different (Judg. 9). He started his career by hiring “worthless and reckless fellows, who followed him” (Judg. 9: 4) and, thus, came to power. However, he remained within the confines of his clan and tribe and never became a Ḫabiru. Using uprooted refugees to help him gain political power, Abimelech resembles the Canaanite city-state rulers who hired soldiers from among the Ḫabiru for similar reasons (see Judg. 11:4–11). Gaal and his “kinsmen,” on the other hand, were refugees, probably of Israelite origin, who assembled as a band and found shelter in the city of Shechem under the protection of the “lords” of Shechem (Judg. 9:26–29). Later, they were expelled from the town as a result of Abimelech’s military pressure (vv. 30–41). This situation finds an exact parallel in the case of the band of Ḫabiru who stayed in the city of Tushulti under the patronage of its ruler (Amanḫatpi), until they were forced to leave after the attack by Tushulti’s neighboring rulers (EA 185 and 186). In still another example, David and his band stayed in the city of Keilah under the patronage of the “lords” of the city until they heard of Saul’s expected campaign against the city; they then were forced to escape (1 Sam. 23:1–13). Another instance of a leader of a band who subsequently seized the throne is Rezon, the son of Eliada (1 Kgs. 11:23–24). Although the precise details are not known, the story is not unlike that of David and his rise to power in Israel. Rezon fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and became the leader of a marauding band. After the defeat of Hadadezer, Rezon gradually gained more and more power and finally became the king of Aram-Damascus during the reign of Solomon. A literary depiction of a band is portrayed in Judg. 18. The plot has been correctly characterized as a “chronique scandaleuse” and is certainly a polemic against the sanctuary and cult of the city of Dan (Noth 1962:68–77). The migrating Danites are presented as a brigade of 600 armed men (Judg. 18:11, 16, 17), exactly like the bards of David (1 Sam. 23:13; 27:2; 30:9) and Rezon (1 Kgs. 11:24). The mood of the Danites is characterized by the term mārēi nepeš, “angry fellows” (Judg. 18:25), an expression that also describes the mood of the men who attached themselves to David after his flight from Saul (1 Sam. 22:2). On their way northward, the Danites took both the cult objects and the priest of Micah’s temple by force and threatened to kill him if he tried to stop them. Finally, they made a surprise attack on the peaceful city of Laish, annihilated its population, and eventually settled there (see 1 Sam. 27:8–11). The

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 265 Danites’ behavior is more brigandish than that of a pastoral clan and is an accurate literary reflection of the way of life of the bands of the pre-monarchical and early monarchical periods.

3. The Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sam. 20) The revolt of Sheba ben Bichri follows, in the “succession narrative,” the rebellion of Absalom and is described as the direct outcome of the latter (2 Sam. 19:41–44; 20:1–2). The two stories form a coherent literary unit and should be discussed together. Some general introductory remarks on these two episodes are essential before we try to connect Sheba’s rebellion with the subject at hand.23 Reading the stories about Absalom and Sheba’s rebellions carefully (2 Sam. 15–20) and attempting to interpret them historically, one finds a remarkable discrepancy between the terminology used to indicate the rebellious elements and the actual participants in these revolts. Absalom was of the tribe of Judah. He was proclaimed king in Hebron, the central city of Judah, David’s former capital. His commander-in-chief was Amasa, a Judean; and his advisor, Ahithophel of Giloh, was also Judahite. David was forced to abandon Jerusalem, his capital, in great haste and to cross the Jordan because of the advancing rebel army from Hebron. One can hardly doubt the initiative and the decisive role played by the tribe of Judah in the revolt. For this reason, the elders of Judah were afraid to contact David after the death of Absalom and the quelling of the rebellion (2 Sam. 19:10–13). Yet, in contrast to all these concrete data, the rebels are consistently called “men of Israel,” “all the men of Israel,” and “all the elders of Israel.” The “men of Judah” and the “elders of Judah” appear suddenly in the story at the start of the negotiations that follow the crushing of the revolt. A similar inconsistency is also reflected in the story of Sheba’s rebellion. The participants in the revolt are Sheba and his followers, who were obliged to find shelter in the far-off city of Abel of Beth-maacah. Moreover, there is no sign of the formation of a military organization of any kind on the rebel side; yet, it is related that “all the men of Israel withdrew from David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri” (2 Sam. 20:2). These remarkable internal contradictions in the two stories, in my opinion, can be explained as the result of the bias of the Judean scribes who composed the stories.24 The narrator was reluctant to blame his own tribe, which 23. For the rebellion of Sheba, see Crüsemann 1978:104–111, with bibliography; Tadmor 1982:247–150. 24. For other passages reflecting the bias of the Judean scribes, see Na’aman 1982b: 156–157.

266


was also the king’s tribe, for Absalom’s rebellion. Therefore, he systematically used the all-inclusive designations “men of Israel” and “all the men of Israel” for the followers of Absalom, until reaching the point in the story when the tribe of Judah once again supported the king. Thereafter, he changed his terminology and called them by their real name, “men of Judah.” Thus, an analysis of only the terminology used cannot help us determine the chain of events.25 I would propose that until Absalom’s entrance into Jerusalem, only the tribe of Judah was involved in the rebellion. The main issue discussed in the meeting between Absalom and his followers in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 17:1– 14) was whether to attack immediately, backed only by the tribe of Judah, or whether to broaden their base of support. It was only after the acceptance of Hushai’s advice that the other Israelite tribes became involved in the rebellion and, at least partially, participated on the side of the rebels. The same explanation, namely, the bias of the Judean scribe, also applies to the description of Sheba’s revolt. To further blur the earlier anti-Davidic position of the tribe of Judah, the narrator intentionally magnified the importance of this second revolt, transforming it into an all-northern Israelite tribal act against David. The narrator, thus, wanted his readers to infer that two general insurrections occurred at that time: one all-Israelite headed by Absalom and a second northern Israelite headed by Sheba. In fact, there were two rebellions: one mainly Judahite headed by Absalom and a second, local one, headed by Sheba. Sheba’s revolt started at an inopportune time for David, immediately after the quelling of Absalom’s rebellion, when he began to show his preference for Judah during the incident of the crossing of the Jordan (2 Sam. 19:12–16, 41–44). Sheba was trying to take advantage of the dissatisfaction among the northern tribes and incite a second rebellion. There is no indication, however, that he won them over, although the revolt caused much apprehension in David’s camp (2 Sam. 20:6). What might have been the background of Sheba ben Bichri? We are told that he was of the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. 20:1), probably of the Benjaminite clan of Becher (see 2 Sam. 16: 5, Shimei ben Gera) (Driver 1913:340); that he lived in Mount Ephraim (2 Sam. 20:21); and that his followers are called kl hbrym (2 Sam. 20:14). There is a marked inconsistency between Sheba’s two designations — “a Benjaminite” and “of Mount Ephraim” — because the latter was located north of the tribal inheritance of Benjamin. All the places that are explicitly located in Mount Ephraim (Timnath-serah, Ramah, Bethel,

25. See Crüsemann 1978:94–104, with additional bibliography; note also Langlamet’s reviews of Crüsemann (1980:420–424); Tadmor 1982:239–249.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 267 Mount Zemaraim, Shechem, Shamir) are situated north of Benjamin’s border. Furthermore, two districts within the Solomonic administrative division are called “Mount Ephraim” (1 Kgs. 4:8) and “Benjamin” (1 Kgs. 4:18), indicating the separation of the two territories. No single reference supports the idea that parts of Benjamin’s inheritance were ever included in Mount Ephraim.26 One might even propose that the name Benjamin (“son of the south”) for the southern tribe of the House of Joseph was given on account of its position south of Mount Ephraim, the seat of the tribe of Ephraim and part of the tribe of Manasseh.27 How can we account for the fact that the rebel lived outside of the territory of his tribal inheritance? Mount Ephraim, where Sheba lived, especially its western slopes, was a common hiding place for runaway peoples. This is evident from the description in 1 Sam. 13–14, where those escaping the Philistine’s attack hid themselves in Mount Ephraim (1 Sam. 14:22; see 13:6). Certain parts of Mount Ephraim are explicitly called “Seirah,” i.e., a wooded (“shaggy”) area, in the story of Ehud’s escape from the Moabites (Judg. 3:26–27; see also Josh. 15: 10).28 Assuming that Saul was of the clan of Becher (1 Sam. 9:1, Bechorath probably represents Becher) (Marquart 1896:14; Cook 1899–1900:166, n. 46; 26. Kallai (1971:191–195) suggested that Mount Ephraim was originally a general designation for the mountainous area north of Jerusalem that may have included the territory of Benjamin. He based his conclusion mainly on the sequence in 1 Sam. 9:4–5 suggesting that the territories of Shalisha, Shaalim, Jemini (= Benjamin), and Zuph were all included in Mount Ephraim, which headed the list of “lands.” The geographical description of the search for the lost asses, however, should be explained differently. Saul started the search from his birthplace, Gibeah. From Gibeah, he went northward to Mount Ephraim; (b) continued eastwards to the land of Shalisha; (c) proceeded southward to the land of Shaalim; (d) passed westward to the land of Jemini (= Benjamin); and (e) went northward to the land of Zuph, where the city of Ramah is situated (1 Sam. 1:1). It is clear that the narrator has arranged the territories (“lands”) in a deliberate geographical sequence, emphasizing that Saul, in the search for the lost asses, has made a vast circle around the city of Ramah before at last entering the city according to the divine plan. One may further note that all sources in which Mount Ephraim is mentioned were written only after the establishment of the Israelite monarchy, thus, reflecting the territorial concepts common at that time. All biblical references to Mount Ephraim indicate that the northern boundary of Benjamin’s inheritance marks its southern border. Whether the term “Mount Ephraim” was originally associated with other areas cannot be established. 27. For the northern border of Mount Ephraim, see Na’aman 1983:8–12. 28. See Astour 1975:331–332, 365; Soggin 1981:52. In light of Josh. 15:10 and Judg. 3:26, one may also clarify the problems involved with the mention of mātāti še’eri in an Amarna letter from Jerusalem (EA 288:26). The toponym can hardly refer to the region of Seir (Edom), located far away, southeast of the area of Jerusalem. Seir (še’eri) is probably a descriptive designation for the wooded mountainous areas where the bands of Ḫabiru, ‘AbdiḪeba’s enemies, found shelter. The passage in EA 288:26–28 may be translated thus: “Unto

268


Malamat 1968:171, n. 28), one may infer that Sheba, who was kin to the house of Saul, was persecuted by David and, thus, was obliged to leave his family and tribe to seek refuge in this mountainous area. The followers of Sheba are called kl hbrym in the MT version, and various suggestions have been offered to explain this enigmatic name.29 Taking into account the variant kl h‘rym in several manuscripts (LXX and S), one may suggest the reading kl h‘brym. Thus, 2 Sam. 20:14 could be translated as follows: “And Sheba passed through all the tribes of Israel to Abel of Beth-maacah; and all the ‘Hebrews’ assembled and followed him in.” The term “Hebrews” fits nicely into the historical context of the episode, and one can easily explain how it became corrupt at a later date due to a misunderstanding. With this in mind, we may reconstruct the chain of events. Sheba was a refugee who stayed with his band of “Hebrews” in the inaccessible area of Mount Ephraim. At a moment of political crisis following Absalom’s rebellion, he tried to take advantage of the situation by inciting a revolt. The moment selected for the revolt was not unlike those occasions on which Jephthah, David, and Rezon rose to power. It is for this reason that David, who was personally acquainted with the dangers involved in this kind of situation, was so anxious to put an immediate end to the rebellion (2 Sam. 20:4–6). Sheba, however, unable to gain support from the northern tribes, was obliged to flee with his band of “Hebrews” and sought refuge at Abel of Beth-maacah, probably part of the Danite enclave in Upper Galilee (1 Kgs. 15:20; see the LXX version of 2 Sam. 20:18). The rebel hoped to find shelter there, depending upon the close relationship between the Danites, who had emigrated from the Shephelah northward (Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18), and the Benjaminites, their former neighbors. Sheba’s hopes for asylum were in vain: He was betrayed and killed after a short siege (see the episode in 1 Sam. 23:1–13). Rowton (1977: 193) noted that “history has doubtless forgotten far more parasocial leaders than those who did leave a mark in the chronicles or in local tradition. For usually only those are remembered who met success.” Sheba is an exception; he is remembered because of the role the episode played in the author’s deliberate presentation of the history of David.

the wooded (‘shaggy’) areas (and) unto Ginti-kirmil all the city-state rulers are at peace, but there is a war against me.” 29. For the various proposals offered by scholars for 2 Sam. 20:14, see Crüsemann 1978: 110, n. 25, with further bibliography.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 269

4. The Transfer of the Term “Hebrews” to the Sphere of Literature With their status as uprooted people living on the margins of society, the bands described in the books of Judges and Samuel are identical to the Ḫabiru of the ancient Near Eastern texts. The term “Ḫabiru,” however, is an appellation that has exclusively social connotations, whereas the term “Hebrews” has both social and ethnic connotations and is used as a gentilic only for the Israelites. How, then, did the social appellation Ḫabiru become a “social ethnonym”30 in the biblical tradition, and why was it applied in these stories to the Israelites? As was demonstrated above, the “Hebrews” originated from among Israelite tribal society just as all other Ḫabiru-people originated from the neighboring Western Asiatic societies of the second millennium BCE. Moreover, in certain historical moments, such as the struggles with the Ammonites or the Philistines, groups of “Hebrews” cooperated with their compatriots and were subsequently re-integrated into Israelite society. Thus, there was a kind of ethnic connection between the Israelites and the Hebrews in the sense that the latter were part of Israelite tribal society both at the beginning and the end of their history. Even David, who established the kingdom and founded the capital city and royal dynasty of Israel, was a “Hebrew.” It is no wonder that the social appellation acquired an ethnic meaning and that the refugees of Israelite origin were called “Hebrews.” Taking into account this specific usage for the term “Hebrew,” the author of the stories of 1 Samuel used a subtle literary device: in the description of the Philistine scorn for the Israelite uprisings, the Philistines mockingly call their enemies “Hebrew,” the term for the marginal groups who had come to their aid and, thus, we see the beginning of the literary process that would culminate with a considerable difference in meaning between the terms “Ḫabiru” and “Hebrew.” This narrator, however, certainly knew the difference between the designations “Israelite” and “Hebrew”: it is only the Philistines who would use this degrading name to denigrate their rivals, the Israelites. Nowhere does the narrator use the term “Hebrews” as a gentilic for the Israelite tribes. As shown above, the scribes of the Amarna letters used the appellation “Ḫabiru” in a similar way — as both a derogatory term indicating scorn and as a label for all real or ostensible rebels against the Egyptians and their allies among the city-state rulers of Canaan.31 By the way, the scribes of the books 30. For the term “social ethnonym,” Rowton 1976b:15. 31. Weippert (1971:87–88) has noted correctly the resemblance between the description of the Israelites, who resisted the Philistine claim to supremacy, as “Hebrews” and the analogous use of the term “Ḫabiru” in the Amarna letters. See Gottwald 1979: 421–422.

270


of Judges and Samuel — when describing the Israelite scorn for their rivals, the Philistines — also had them derisively call their enemies by the humiliating name ‘arēlîm, “uncircumcised” (Judg. 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20). When the term “Ḫabiru “ vanished from the Western Asiatic historical arena, partly because of the foundation of “national states” in the region of the western Euphrates at the beginning of the first millennium BCE and partly because it was replaced by another term,32 the appellation “Hebrew” continued to be used in Biblical Hebrew. When examining the remaining biblical references in which the designation “Hebrew” is used, one recognizes two distinct features characterizing the original social position of the Ḫabiru: (1) their status as aliens who have migrated to places far from their homeland, and (2) their low social status as enslaved and exploited workers. At least one of these characteristics is prominent in all descriptions of the Hebrews in the Bible, particularly in the stories of the migration to Egypt and their sojourn there. These features alone, however, differentiate those Hebrews from the Israelites. It is clear that the appellation “Hebrew” has been transformed in these traditions to designate Israelites in exceptional situations. To illustrate this, I cite a few examples below. (1) “Hebrew” as a designation for Israelites migrating to a foreign country: Joseph, who was brought by force from Canaan to Egypt is called “a Hebrew” (Gen. 39:14) and “a young Hebrew” (Gen. 41:12). Regarding the Israelites who stayed in Egypt and who were frequently called “Hebrews” in the stories of Exodus, it is explicitly stated “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 23:9). The prophet Jonah, when leaving his homeland and fleeing to a foreign country, calls himself “a Hebrew” (Jon. 1:9). Also, Abraham may have been called “the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), because he was commanded by the Lord “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you” (Gen. 12:1). The Gen. 14:13 passage may, however, reflect the later post-biblical ethnic usage of the term, meaning simply “Israelite” (see below) (Weippert, 1971:93–101). (2) ”Hebrew” as a designation for Israelites in a position of slavery: This usage is common in the stories of the book of Exodus, in which it is applied to Israelites who were enslaved and exploited by the Egyptians for hard labor. In addition, in biblical law, the term “Hebrew slave” designates Israelites who were enslaved (Exod. 21:2; Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:9, 14).

32. The ethnic term “Sutean” probably evolved in the first millennium BCE into a social ethnonym. See Rowton 1976b:16.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 271 It seems clear that all biblical references to the “Hebrews” reflect some traits borrowed from the image of the second millennium Ḫabiru. However, one should not minimize the difference in the use of the two terms and the changes that the appellation “Ḫabiru” underwent in the tradition of the Old Testament. The distinct biblical term “Hebrew slave” may well illustrate this transformation. The situation of a “Hebrew slave” has been compared many times with that of the Ḫabiru-people in the contracts from Nuzi.33 However, the latter were called “Ḫabiru” due to their status as migrants entering Nuzi from neighboring countries. The “Hebrew slave,” on the other hand, was designated as such because of his social status as an Israelite who was enslaved within his own society. The comparison clearly illustrates the development of the term “Hebrew” within the biblical tradition and the increasing difference that developed in the use of the terms “Ḫabiru” and “Hebrew.” To what extent was the term “Hebrew” used in the colloquial language of the time of the First Temple? Analysis of daily language on the basis of literary sources — and the Bible is a literary source — is extremely problematic. However, from its occurrence in various parts of the Old Testament, it seems reasonably clear that the term “Hebrew” was mainly restricted to the literary tradition. It rarely appears in the prophetic books (Jer. 34:9, 14; Jon. 1:9), and only in the term “Hebrew slave” in biblical law, in both cases designating an individual. One may safely suggest that in the colloquial language the term always referred to individuals. The application of the term “Hebrews” to large groups of Israelites was probably confined exclusively to the literary sphere, possibly influenced by the stories in the books of Samuel. The transfer of the term “Hebrew” to the field of literature brought about, in my opinion, its separation from the historical appellation “Ḫabiru” — the term “Hebrew” becoming an appellation unique to Biblical Hebrew. The “literarization” of the term “Hebrew” in the tradition of the Old Testament further affected the late development of the name in the postOld Testament period. As is well known, the designation “Hebrew” appears in non-canonical Jewish-literature: Josephus, Philo, and the New Testament, where it becomes a synonym of the ethnicon “Israelite” (Parzen 1932–33: 255–258; Lewy 1957:1; Gray 1958:188–193). The use of the term in these late periods depends entirely on the terminology of the Old Testament, reflecting the influence of biblical literary traditions on authors who could not have been aware of the complicated background and changes that occurred in the use of the term. Was the term applied indiscriminately to all Israelites

33. See, for example, Weippert, 1971:85–87, with earlier bibliography; Rowton, 1976b: 19, with further bibliography in n. 28; Lemche 1975:129–144.

272


because the destruction of the First Temple forced a large number of them into exile?

IV. Conclusion In summary, it seems that a change in the use of the term “Hebrew” in the tradition of the Old Testament and its separation from the appellation “Ḫabiru” occurred in two major stages. The first stage is evident in the books of Samuel, which were composed at a time when the phenomenon of migration was still common in the growing Israelite society. The appellation “Hebrew” was apparently used at this time as a social ethnonym, designating the uprooted Israelites who were obliged to leave their families and seek their fortunes elsewhere. On a literary level, it became a derogatory term for the Israelites, used by their main adversaries during that period, the Philistines. Later, when the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru/Hebrews entirely disappeared from daily reality, the term “Hebrew” was restricted, in the colloquial language, to individual Israelites who were either migrants or slaves. In the literary tradition, the term was further transformed and became a general designation for groups of Israelites who were outside their homeland, that is, living in oppression in foreign lands. This latter stage opened the way for the post-Old Testament use of the ethnicon “Hebrew,” in which all traces of the original meaning of the appellation disappeared, and the name simply became another term for the Israelites.

References Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels 2. (Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 251–369. Birot, M. 1974. Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu gouverneur de Sagarâtum. (Archives Royal de Mari XIV). Paris. Borger, R. 1958. Das Problem der ‘apīru (‘Ḫabiru’). ZDPV 74: 121–132. Bottéro, J. 1954. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. (Cahiers de la société asiatique 12). Paris. Bottéro, J. 1972–75. Ḫabiru. RLA IV: 14–27. Bottéro, J. 1981. Les Ḫabiru, les nomades et les sédentaires. In: Castillo, J.S. ed. Nomads and Sedentary Peoples. Mexico City: 89–107. (= 1980. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 6: 201–213). Buccellati, G. 1962. La ‘carriera’ di David a quella di Idrimi, re di Alalac. Bibbia e Oriente 4: 95–99. Buccellati, G. 1977. ‘Apirū and Munnabtūtu — The Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age. JNES 36: 145–147. Campbell, E.F. 1960. The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period. BA 23: 2–22. Cazelles, H. 1973. The Hebrews. In: Wiseman, D.J. ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: 1–28.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 273 Cook, S.A. 1899–1900. Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 16: 145–177. Crüsemann, F. 1978. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alters Testamentes and der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament 49). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1981. Die Inschrift der Statue des Königs Idrimi von Alalaḫ. Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 201–269. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel. 2nd revised ed. Oxford. Fried, M.H. 1975. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park, California. de Geus, C.H. J. 1976. The Tribes of Israel. An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 18). Assen and Amsterdam. Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250– 1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York. Gray, M.P. 1958. The Ḫabirū-Hebrew Problem in the Light of the Source Material Available at Present. Hebrew Union College Annual 29: 135–202. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Greenberg, M. 1970. Ḫab/piru and Hebrews. In: Mazar, B. ed. Patriarchs. (The World History of the Jewish People 2). Jerusalem: 188–200, 279–281. Kallai, Z. 1971. Baal Shalisha and Ephraim. In: Uffenheimer, B. ed. Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Tel Aviv: 191–204 (Hebrew). Kamp, K.A. and Yoffee, N. 1980. Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia During the Early Second Millennium B.C.: Archaeological Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Prospectives. BASOR 237: 85–104. Koch, K. 1969. Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Grossreich Davids. VT 19: 37– 71. Landsberger, B. 1954. Note. In: Bottéro, J. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Paris: 159–161. Langlamet, F. 1980. Review: Crüsemann, F. 1978. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Neukirchen Vluyn. RB 87: 420–424. Lemche, N.P. 1975. The “Hebrew Slave.” Comments on the Slave Law Ex. XXI 2–11. VT 25: 129–144. Lemche, N.P. 1979. “Hebrew” as a National Name for Israel. Studia Theologica 33: 1–23. Lewy, J. 1957. Origin and Signification of the Biblical Term “Hebrew.” Hebrew Union College Annual 28: 1–13. Liverani, M. 1965a. Il fuoruscitismo in Siria nella tarda età del Bronzo. Rivista Storica Italiana 77: 315–336. Liverani, M. 1965b. Implicazioni sociali nella politica di Abdi-Aširta di Amurru. Rivista degli Studi 0rientali 40: 267–277. (= 1979. Social Implications in the Politics of Abdi-Aširta of Amurru. Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/5. Malibu: 14–20). Liverani, M. 1971. Le lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268. (= 1979. Pharaoh’s Letters to Rib-Adda. Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/5. Malibu: 3–13) Liverani, M. 1974. Rib-Adda, giusto sofferente. Altorientalische Forschungen 1: 178–205. Liverani, M. 1979. Farsi Ḫabiru. Vicino Oriente 2: 65–77. Malamat, A. 1968. King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies. JAOS 88: 163–173. Marquart, J. 1896. Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer Geschichte. Göttingen. Mazar, B. 1963. The Military Elite of King David. VT 13: 310–320.

274


Mendenhall, G.E. 1962. The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: 66–87. Mendenhall, G.E. 1973. The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UgaritForschung 11: 673–684. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–185. Na’aman, N. 1982a. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and the Late Bronze Ages. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. Jerusalem: 129–256. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1982b. The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the “Land that yet Remaineth.” Eretz Israel 16: 152–158. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1982c. The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the ‘Apiru and the Shosu. Göttinger Miszellen 57: 27–33. Na’aman, N. 1983. The District-System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy. Zion 48: 1–20. (Hebrew). Noth, M. 1962. The Background of Judges 17–18. In: Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W. eds. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. New York: 68–85. Parzen, H. 1932–33. The Problem of the Ibrim (=”Hebrews”) in the Bible. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 49: 254–261. Riesener, I. 1979. Der Stamm ‘bd im Alten Testament. Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methode. (Beiträge zur ZAW 149). Berlin and New York. Rouault, O. 1970. Andariq et Atamrum. RA 64: 110–118. Rowton, M.B. 1976a. Dimorphic Structure and Topology. Oriens Antiquus 15: 17–30. Rowton, M.B. 1976b. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apirû-‘ibrîm. JNES 35: 13–20. Rowton, M.B. 1977. Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element. JNES 36: 181–197. Rowton, M.B. 1981. Economic and Political Factors in Ancient Nomadism. In: Castillo, J.S. ed. Nomads and Sedentary Peoples. Mexico City: 25–36. Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69. Several, M.W. 1972. Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire in Palestine during the Amarna Period. PEQ 104: 123–33. Soggin, J.A. 1981. Judges: A Commentary. (Old Testament. Library). Philadelphia. Stephens, F.J. 1944. Old Assyrian Letters and Business Documents. (Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J.B. Nies 6). New Haven. Tadmor, H. 1982. Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 239–257. Weingreen, J. 1967. Saul and the Habirū. Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem: 63–66. Weinstein, J.A. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: a Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1–28. Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the ‘Apiru and the Shasu1 In Knudtzon’s edition of the Amarna tablets, a city named Inamta appears twice, in letters EA 83:38 and 104:52. As F. Thureau-Dangin first recognized, in the Amarna letters the sign NAM could also be read as bir5 (ThureauDangin 1940–41:171; cf. Mendenhall 1947:123; von Soden and Röllig, 1967:11 no. 54). The syllable bir5 appears twice in the correspondence of Rib-Adda of Byblos (EA 74:34 and 129:82), and the town’s name i-NAM-ta, accordingly, may be read as i- bir5-ta.2 The name Ibirta may be analyzed as a derivative of the Semitic verb ‘br, meaning “crossing (place).” According to EA 104, Rib-Adda was frustrated by the fall of Ullasa, the Egyptian garrison-city, into the hands of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s sons and the gradual increase of their power. He was even afraid to leave his own town to go to the Egyptian garrison-city of Ṣumur, because “Gubla would become ‘Apiru. I will be going to Ibirta and will seek to join the ‘Apiru.”3 The passage makes it clear that the town of Ibirta was an important ‘Apiru center, so that the defecting people of Byblos would appeal to this particular place to contact the ‘Apiru. According to letter EA 83, a man of Ibirta was sent by Rib-Adda to Egypt and was held there in the house of the Egyptian commissioner Yanḫamu (lines 34–39). The man was probably called ‘Abdi-NIN.URTA and was the Byblian envoy Puḫewa’s escort to Egypt (EA 84:39–41). Rib-Adda was accused by “his (‘Abdi-NIN.URTA’s) men” of sending ‘Abdi-NIN.URTA to Egypt to detain him (EA 83:35–37). The fact that ‘Apirus were employed by RibAdda as messengers is known from his own letter (EA 112:43–47). It may be possible that an ‘Apiru leader from the town of Ibirta was detained in Egypt after his arrival as a messenger so as to ensure the non-aggression of his followers.

1. Reprinted with permission. Göttinger Miszellen 57 (1982), 27–33. 2. The writing Ibirta (instead of Inamta) had already been proposed by Liverani 1979: 74 no. 12. 3. For previous discussions and translations of the passage, see CAD E:216a; Greenberg 1955:38; Liverani 1979.

275

276


The “Satirical letter,” Papyrus Anastasi I, describes the area from Ṣumur southwards, to the area of the Eleutheros (Nahr el-Kebīr). The scribe mentions first the city of Ḫalba, situated on the Tripoli-Ḥoms road, and then the two cities of Qadesh and Tubiḫu, situated, respectively, on the northern and southern branches of this road after it reached the Orontes river.4 In the next passage, the description focuses on a particular area, the “district of the Shasu” (‘ n š3sw),5 emphasizing its difficulties and dangers. One of the toponyms mentioned in this area, p3 mgr, was identified by Weippert (1970:275) as the Grotto of Adonis, near the Lebanese town of Afqa. Next comes Mount š3-w3, which is probably located east of the town of Tripoli.6 The third toponym in this passage is described thus (Wilson 1969:477a; Helck 1971:316): “Pray, let [me tell thee of . . .]-brt. You are hastened at its ascent after you had crossed its stream above it.” Helck has transcribed the toponym as . . .-bí-r-tá. The reading of the r as sheva is evident from several other toponyms appearing in this papyrus, all using exactly the same writing for the r (i.e., Zarephath, Tyre, Harnam, Jordan and also maryannu). One can hardly doubt the restoration of the town’s name as [I]birta and its identity with the ‘Apiru’s town of the Byblian Amarna’s letters. Its name was probably borrowed from the river crossing, which, according to the Egyptian text, was located below the town. The exact location of Ibirta still eludes us, although, tentatively, one may locate it east of Tripoli, at the foot of Mount Lebanon where Mount Shawe was identified. The above equation of the ‘Apiru’s town of the Amarna letters with the Shasu’s town of the Egyptian document requires a short discussion of the

4. For the translation of Papyrus Anastasi I, see Wilson 1969:476–478; Helck 1971:315– 319. For the town of Ḫalba, see Rainey 1971:142–143. 5. The translation “the district of the Shasu” was first proposed by Gardiner 1911:63. Following the publication of a parallel text from Deir el-Medineh, Gardiner’s translation was adopted by Wilson 1969; Giveon 1971:125–128; Helck 1971; Weippert 1974:273. There is nothing to support Rainey’s proposed emendation of the text into ‘(y)n š3sw (1975:14f.). Not only are all other occurrences of the proposed toponym written syllabically (i.e., ‘ayin) or with the EYE determinative, but the syllabic writing of toponyms is consistently used by the scribe of Papyrus Anastasi I throughout the text. The writing of ‘n without the YOD in the two extant copies of the text cannot be considered a mistake. Furthermore, the rest of the passage makes it quite clear that it is the territory of the Shasu that is indeed referred to (see below). 6. The relation of Mount š3-w3 with mountain Shawe, mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, is not clear, because the latter is identified with Jebel el-Anṣariyeh, situated outside the Egyptian province of Canaan. See Forrer 1920:57f.; Weippert 1974:273; Kessler 1975:61; Na’aman 1977–78:231. For the derivation of the name Shawe, see Zadok 1978:174.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the Apiru and the Shasu

277

problem of the identity of the two groups, a subject that had been discussed by scholars in the past.7 The Shasu and the ‘Apiru appear side by side in the booty list of Amenophis II only. In most occurrences, the Egyptian scribes refer to the two groups in quite different terms and under different circumstances. The Shasu are described mainly as living in the peripheral areas of the land of Canaan, as well as within the Egyptian Delta, and being the target of Pharaonic military operations. The ‘Apiru, on the other hand, are described mainly as a distinguished group performing various services within the Nile Valley. Only sporadically are the ‘Apiru mentioned as an ethnic group living within the Land of Canaan. The corresponding pair of the Amarna letters are the ‘Apiru and the Sutu. These two groups appear in situations that are not dissimilar, and the difference between them is not as clear as that between the above-mentioned Egyptian pair. They appear in three occurrences side by side in the same letter (EA 196:24–29; 246:r.6–7;8 318:10–14). On the other hand, in two letters from Gezer, sent within a short period (see Na’aman 1979:679–681), the city ruler Yapaḫu accuses both the ‘Apiru and the Sutu of having plundered his country (compare EA 297:11–16 and 299:17–26). It is reasonable to assume that the same group was intended by this double name. The interchange of names is not entirely surprising once we remember the derogatory sense that accompanied the name “‘Apiru” in the Amarna letters and the development of the meaning “Rebel” (with a connotation of contempt) in many letters where the ‘Apiru are recalled.9 One may assume that the Amarna scribes did not take the trouble to specify the precise name of the trouble-makers from among the various social groups then living in the Land of Canaan, because, by employing the name “‘Apiru,” they could create the correct impression in the Egyptian court. Besides these inner considerations of both the Egyptian and the Akkadian texts, there is still another, and more perplexing problem. According to the Amarna letters, the anti-monarchal forces and the troublesome elements within the Land of Canaan are called ‘Apiru. The Egyptian scribes, on the other hand, name the Shasu as the major enemies of the Pharaohs, against whom military campaigns are directed within that self-same territory. Only rarely are the ‘Apiru mentioned as actual enemies in the Egyptian texts, and 7. Helck 1968:472–480; Giveon 1971:4–5; Gottwald 1979:458, 477–480; see Görg, 1979: 199–202; 1980:18–20. 8. In EA 246 r. 8 read LÚmeš KUR S[u-ti]. Compare EA 122:34 and 297:16. It is quite unlikely that the Nubians (amēlūti mat Kaši) served as mercenaries under the sons of Lab’ayu. 9. Weippert 1971:71–74; Liverani 1979:71, with further bibliography in notes 18–19.

278


the same is true of the Sutu in the Amarna letters. What, then, might be the relationship between the Egyptian Shasu and the Amarna ‘Apiru? It should be emphasized that the tribally organized groups (Shasu, Sutu) and the splinter groups that were organized as independent bands (‘Apiru) were not identical. When discussing their accurate identity within the Egyptian and the Akkadian texts, one should, in my opinion, also take into account the literary tradition of both the Egyptian and the Akkadian scribal schools. Once we understand the connotations of both names — the Shasu in the Egyptian royal inscriptions and the ‘Apiru in the Akkadian correspondence — the way is open for a reconsideration of the identity of both names and even for a new inquiry into their possible resemblance in certain passages. To demonstrate the problem of literary tradition, we offer here one example. Two tablets from the Egyptian garrison-city of Kumidi (Kāmid el-Lōz) deal with the deportation of groups of ‘Apiru from northern Canaan to Nubia (Edzard 1970:55–60). The two tablets were sent from Egypt, and, being written in Akkadian, the scribes used the well known term “‘Apiru” to designate the banished trouble-makers. Would an Egyptian scribe composing a royal inscription call that same group by the name “‘Apiru,” or would he rather use the name “Shasu”? It is with this observation in mind that the references to the town of Ibirta in the “Satirical Letter” and the Amarna letters should be understood. The designation of the area as the “district of the Shasu” may be compared with the famous ‘Apiru territory (eqli lúSA.GAZ) situated in the Land of Hatti, not far from the border of Ugarit (Nougayrol 1956:107f). The town of Ibirta as an ‘Apiru center may be equated with the town Ḫlb ‘prm mentioned in the tablets from Ugarit. Surprisingly, the phrase “he made himself into the likeness (iry.f sw m ki n) of an Asiatic” in the passage relating to the town of Ibirta in Papyrus Anastasi I is parallel to the well-known phrase “he became (nēpušu ana) ‘Apiru” common to the Amarna letters (Nougayrol 1956:107f). The territory was perhaps bound together by some sort of tribal organization, simultaneously sheltering scattered bands of ‘Apiru. The Egyptian and the Amarna scribes selected their designations for these groups according to the literary traditions of their respective cultures, Shasu in Egyptian and ‘Apiru in Akkadian.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the Apiru and the Shasu

279

References Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz — Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn: 55–62. Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrisches Reiches. Leipzig. Gardiner, A.H. 1911. Egyptian Hieratic Texts. Leipzig. Giveon, R. 1971. Les Bédouins Shosu des documents égyptiens. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden. Görg, M. 1979. Tuthmosis III. und die Š3św-Region JNES 38: 199–202. Görg, M. 1980. Namenstudien VII: Š3św-Beduinen und Sutû-Nomaden. Biblische Notizen 11: 18–20. Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250– 1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Helck, W. 1968. Die Bedrohung Palästinas durch einwandernde Gruppen am Ende der 18. und am Anfang der 19. Dynastie. VT 18: 472–480. Helck. W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden. Kessler, K. 1975. Die Anzahl der assyrischen Provinzen des Jahres 738 v. Chr. in Nordsyrien. WO 8: 49–63. Liverani, M. 1979. Farsi Ḫabiru. Vicino Oriente 2: 65–77. Mendenhall, G.E. 1947. The Message of Abdi-Ashirta to the Warriors, EA 74. JNES 6: 123– 124. Na’aman, N. 1977–78. Looking for KTK. WO 9: 220–237. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 673–684. Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives Internationales). (Missions de Ras Shamra IX). Paris. Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149. Rainey, A.F. 1975. Toponymic Problems: ‘Ain-Shasu. Tel Aviv. 2: 13–16. von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das Akkadische Syllabar. 2nd revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia 42). Rome. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1940–41. Bir-ia-wa-za. RA 37: 171. Weippert, M. 1970. Die Nomadenquelle. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds. Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen: 259–272. Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London. Weippert, M. 1974. Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über die Š3św der ägyptischen Quellen. Biblica 55: 265–280, 427–433. Wilson, J.A. 1969. An Egyptian Letter. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 475–479. Zadok, R. 1978. West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources. In: Avishur, Y. and Blau, J. eds. Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: 163–179.

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt (“Rural Settlements”)1 Amarna tablet EA 137 is one of the latest letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos, written shortly after his expulsion from his home town and dispatched to the Pharaoh by the hand of his son. Rib-Hadda describes in great detail the background for the expulsion, explaining how his young brother and the citizens of Byblos had driven him out of his town and trying again and again to persuade his overlord to send troops to conquer the town. This long, well-preserved, colorful and artistically portrayed document did not fail to attract the attention of scholars and has been translated and interpreted several times in the last forty years (e.g., by W.F. Albright, A.L. Oppenheim, M.J. Seux and W.L. Moran).2 Remarkable in the letter is the sudden appearance of a town called Buruzilim (lines 64, 67, 85) in which Rib-Hadda asks for permission of residence in case the Pharaoh should install another candidate on the throne of Byblos. The reading of the place name was first suggested by H. Winckler (1896:No. 71) in his edition of the Amarna tablets and was accepted subsequently by all scholars who discussed the letter (see recently, Moran 1987: 358–359, 596). However, deciphering of the assumed town name involves problems in all three references to the name. First, there is no qualifying URU determinative before BU-ru-zi-ŠI in lines 64 and 85. Line 85 reads URU-la (āla) iš-tu B[U-r]u-z[i-ŠI], having no determinative before the assumed toponym. Line 64 reads URU-la BU-ru-zi-ŠI. The sign URU with phonetic complements (la/li/lu) appears several times in the letter (lines 18, 25, 60, 73, 80, 93, 101), referring always to a noun (āla/āli/ ālu), whereas URU as a determinative always appears without phonetic complement (lines 17, 31, 41, 73). Line 64 should be transcribed āla BU-ru-zi-ŠI, the assumed town name again having no qualifying determinative before it.

1. Reprinted with permission. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4 (1991), 72–75. 2. For the publication of the Amarna letters, see Knudtzon 1915. For a new translation of all the Amarna letters, including many invaluable notes and new readings, see Moran 1987. For the various translations of EA 137, see the literature cited by Moran 1987:357.

280

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt

281

Second, when one reads uru Bu-ru-zi-lim in line 67, “Les lignes 67s. sont extrémement difficiles” (Moran 1987:361, n. 13). And third, a town called Buruzilim is not mentioned in any other document from the coast of Lebanon. Thus, one would very much doubt whether a city with this name ever existed; another solution for the enigmatic BU-ru-zi-ŠI should be sought. To clarify the problem, I will first suggest a new transliteration and translation (with some notes) to the difficult passage in lines 66–68, to be followed by a translation of the relevant section of the letter (lines 59–87). The enigmatic ālu/ālāni pu-ru-zi will then be compared with some biblical references to kpr/‘ry hprzy/hprzwt, which, in my opinion, is the key for the correct interpretation of the Byblian noun. (A) Transliteration: (66) i-nu-ma (67) NA.KAR5-ra-at (nakrat) URUki (āli) didli URU (ālāni) pu-ru-zi-ši (68) na KÚR-ru (nakrū) pal-ḫa-tu DUMUmeš (mārē) ÌR-aš-ra-ti. Translation: “When the city (i.e., Byblos) rebels, its p. settlements rebel, being afraid of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.”

Notes: For KAR5 (NA.KAR5-ra-at), compare line 17 (i-na-kar5-mi) and EA 119:26 (kar5-ṣí). For the reading didliURU (ālāni), compare line 76 (didliURUki). With Moran (1987:361, n. 13), I interpret palḫatu as a fem. sing. participle. RibHadda claims that the city’s rebellion and his expulsion are the result of the city’s fear of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. Lines 120–121 of letter EA 138 may be restored and interpreted in the same manner: (120) pal-ḫa-tu [DUMUmeš ÌR-aš-ra-ti . . .] (121) URUki LÚ-la ar-[ni] LUGAL. “Being afraid [of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashrati], the city [accepted(?)] the traitor to the king (i.e., Rib-Hadda’s younger brother; compare lines 59, 104 and see CAD A/2 299a).” (B) Translation of lines 59–87: The king, my lord, should not neglect the city (āli). Verily, there is very much gold and silver within it, there are many possessions in its temple. If the king, my lord, shall capture it, then he may do to his servant as he pleases, but let him give (me) one of its (i.e., Byblos) p. settlements (āla pu-ru-zi-ši) for my residence. At the moment I am with Ḫammuniri. When the city (āli) rebels, its p. settlements (ālāni pu-ru-zi-ši) rebel, being afraid of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. When I went to Ḫammuniri it was on account of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta, because they were powerful against me and because there was no breath from the mouth of the king to me, and I said to my lord: “behold, Byblos became their city (ālu-ši-na). There are many possessions of the king in it, the property of our ancestors of old. If the king neglects the town, all the cities of the land of Canaan will cease to belong to him.” The king must not neglect this matter! Now, your servant, my son, I have sent to the king, my lord, and let the king send him back quickly with troops in order to capture the city (āla). If the king, my lord, be gracious to me and return me to the city (āli), then I will guard it as before for the king, my

282

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE lord. If the king, my lord, [does not bring me back] into it, then [let him give me (ia-diin-ni; compare line 64)] a town (āla) out of its p. settlements (is-tu p[u-r]u-z[i-ši]). [Let the king, my lord, do to his servant] as he pleases, [but] he [must not] aban[don me].”

It is remarkable that in all three passages where the noun ālu/ālāni pu-ruzi is mentioned, the post-determinative KI does not appear after the URU sign (line 64 URU-la; line 67 didliURU; line 85 URU-la), whereas in all other passages (with one exception in line 101 URU-lu-mi), the post-determinative KI follows the noun ālu (URU) (lines 18, 25, 47, 51, 53, 56, 57, 60, 67, 73, 75, 76, 80, 82, 93, 99, 101). It is clear that the scribe deliberately emphasized the difference between the towns and cities of Canaan, on the one hand, and the ālu/ālāni puru-zi, on the other hand, and that the latter were regarded by him as a kind of semi-settlements. As is well known, the noun ālu refers to a very wide range of settlement forms, e.g., city, town, village, manor, estate, fort, etc. (see CAD A/1 379–388). Various nouns have been selected by the scribes to describe the surroundings of the cities and sometimes they appear in contrast to the city (CAD A/1 380–381). However, the noun pu-ru-zi is mentioned nowhere else in cuneiform texts. Therefore, one would assume that it is a Canaanite loan word selected by the scribe from the local Byblian vocabulary to accurately define the message of his lord. (C) When one looks for a similar noun in the West Semitic vocabulary, the biblical root prz immediately comes to mind.3 Five passages seem particularly relevant to the Byblian references and will be translated here in sequential order (following the Revised Standard Version): Deut 3:5 “All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides very many unwalled villages (‘ry hprzy).” 1 Sam. 6:18 “Also the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both fortified cities to unwalled villages (kpr hprzy).” Ezek. 38:11 “and say: I will go up against the land of unwalled villages (’rṣ przwt); I will fall upon quiet people who dwell securely, all of them dwelling without walls and having no bars or gates.” Zech. 2:4–5. “and said to him: Run, say to that young man, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as villages without walls (przwt), because of the multitude of men and cattle in it. For I will be to her a wall of fire round about, says the Lord. . . .” Esth. 9:19 “Therefore the Jews of the villages (hprwzym), who live in the open towns (b‘ry hprzwt), hold the fourteenth day of the month of Adar as a day for gladness and feasting and holiday-making.” 3. See Brown, Driver and Briggs 1906:826; Driver 1962/63:8–9; Koehler and Baumgartner 1983:908–909, with earlier literature.

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt

283

Common to all five references is the marked contrast between the fortified cities and the unwalled rural villages. The number of the latter group was far more than the number of the former (Deut. 3:5; 1 Sam. 6:18). A similar picture appears in the annals of Sennacherib in which the Assyrian king described his attack on the Kingdom of Judah: “I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities (ālānišu dannūti), walled forts, and to the countless small villages (ālāni ṣeḫrūti) in their vicinity and conquered (them)” (Oppenheim 1969:288). The unwalled rural settlements must have been of a variegated character, i.e., villages, hamlets, manors, farms, etc., and located either on the border of the fortified cities or in isolated places all around the countryside .4 Remembering this background, we can interpret the references to ālu/ ālāni pu-ru-zi in the Byblian letter. Rib-Hadda tried to convince the Pharaoh to send troops to capture the city. Rib-Hadda’s personal fate following the conquest should be left (so he wrote in his letter) to his lord’s decision. The Pharaoh may decide to put him back on his throne, or he may install another candidate on the throne of Byblos (lines 62–65, 81–87). In the latter case, RibHadda asks the Pharaoh to give him one of the rural settlements of Byblos for his residence (lines 64–65, 84–85). The present hostility of Byblos and its rural settlements (ālāni pu-ru-zi-ši) is the result of the fear of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s sons (lines 66–68). The capture of Byblos by the Egyptian troops would immediately pacify them, so he would be able to live peacefully in one of these settlements. We may conclude that ālāni pu-ru-zi in Rib-Hadda’s letter and ‘ry hprzy/ hprzwt in the biblical references have exactly the same meaning of “rural unwalled settlements.” The territory of the city-state of Byblos was relatively small, and many of its rural settlements must have been located not far from the capital city. “One of its rural settlements” (line 64) and “a town out of its rural settlements” (line 85) refer to sites in the neighborhood of Byblos, where Rib-Hadda would have been able to find shelter in his late years, provided that the city was taken by Egyptian troops and governed by someone favorable to him.

4. For the spatial organization of the land of Israel in the second and first millennium BCE, see Portugali 1984:282–290, with earlier literature.

284


References Brown, F., Driver S.R. and Briggs, C. A. 1906. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford (2nd ed. 1951). CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Driver, G.R. 1962/63. Problems in Judges Newly Discussed. Annual of the Oriental Society of the University of Leeds 4: 6–25. Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 1983. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (3rd ed). Leiden. Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13). Paris. Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 265–317, 556–567. Portugali, J. 1984. ‘Arim, Banot, Migrashim and Ḥaṣerim: The Spatial Organization of EretzIsrael in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE according to the Bible. Eretz Israel 17: 282–290. (Hebrew). Winckler, H. 1896. The Tell-El-Amarna-Letters. London and New York.

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh1 In the course of his excavations at Alalakh, Woolley (1955:33–90) found seventeen super-imposed temples. He (1955:33) commented only that they were “presumably dedicated to the city goddess invoked by king Idri-mi.” He obviously referred to “Ishtar, lady of Alalakh” mentioned in line 2 of idrimi’s inscription, and Klengel (1965:89, n. 23) made the same suggestion in a short note included in his detailed study on the weather-god of Ḫalab. It is the purpose of this article to demonstrate this identification in greater detail, basing the analysis on written documents, mainly from the archives of level VII at Alalakh. We begin with document AT 1, which has now been collated.2 Here follows a transliteration and translation of the text, accompanied by a detailed commentary at the end. l. i-nu-ma aḫ-ḫu-šu m Ab-ba-AN be-el-šu-nu ib-ba-al-ki-tu 2. m Ab -ba-AN LUGAL-r[u i-n]a /tu-ku/-u[l-t]i dIM 3. dHé-bat ù gišIGI.DÙ [ša dIŠTAR] a-na uruIr-ri-deki il-lik-ma 4. uruIr-ri-deki iṣ-/ba-at/ [ù a-i]a-ab-šu ik-šu-u[d] 5. i-na [U]D-mi-šu m[Ab-b]a-A[N] a-na pu-ḫa-at 6. uruIr-ri-deki [š]a a-b[i-š]u /id/-di-na-am 7. i-na na-ra-[am] li-ib-bi-šu uru A-la-la-aḫki 8. /i/-[i]d-di-in4 /ù] [i/-na UD-mi-šu mIa-ri-im-li-im 9. DU[MU mḪa-am-mu]-ra-pí ÌR m Ab-ba-AN [ALAM-šu] 10. [a-na É] dIŠTAR ú-še-li 11. [šumma? warkit? m Ab]-ba-AN ša mIa-ri-im-li-im 12. i[d-di-nu i-le-qé] /a/-[l]a-am pu-ḫa-at a-li-im 13. /id-di-na-aš/-šu ša a-wa-at Ab-ba-AN i-pu-šu 14. ú-na-ak-ka-ru a-na Ia-ri-im-li-im 15. ù pi-ir-ḫi-šu ú-la-am-ma-nu 16. dIM i-na gišTUKUL ša qa-ti-šu li-iḫ-bu-us-su 17. dHé-bat dIŠTAR gišIGI.DÙ-šu li-iš-bi-ru 18. dIŠTAR a-na qa-ti mu-ka-aš-ši-di-šu li-ma-al-li-šu 19. dIŠTAR SAG.UR.SAG pa-ra ú-ra-am 20. i-na bi-ir-ki-šu li-ṭe4-eb-bi 1. Reprinted with permission. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (1980), 209–214. 2. The tablet was published by Wiseman 1953. For the main treatments of the test, see Albright 1957:27–28; Smith 1957:177–178; Klengel 1965:136–137.

285

286


When his brothers rebelled against Abbael, their lord, king Abbael, with the help of the gods Hadad,3 Ḫebat and the spear [of Ishtar4] went to Irride, conquered Irride and captured his enemy. (5) At that time Abbael, in exchange for Irride which his father granted, gave Alalakh of his free will. (8) And at that time, Yarimlim s[on of Ḫammu]rapi and servant of Abbael, brought up [his statue to the temple] of Ishtar. (11) [If? the offspring? of Ab]bael shall take what he (Abbael) gave to Yarimlim — he will give him city for city. (13) Whoever shall change the settlement that Abbael has made and will do evil against Yarimlim and his descendants-may the god Hadad dash him into pieces with the weapon which is in his hand; may Ḫebat-Ishtar shatter his spear; may Ishtar deliver him into the hands of those who pursue him; may Ishtar . . . impress feminine parts into his male parts.

Commentary The text is divided into two equal parts: lines 1–10 include the “historical introduction” and the actual deed, and lines 11–20 include the legal clauses as well as the divine sanction for the transaction. Line 3: The three gods, Hadad, Ḫebat, and Ishtar, are invoked in lines 16– 18 of our text. This trio of gods is mentioned again in the inscription of Idrimi (lines 1–2): “Idrimi, the son of Ilim-ilimma, devotee of the gods Hadad, Ḫebat, and my lady Ishtar, lady of Alalakh.”5 In view of these texts, tablet AT 456, lines 24–27 might be restored as follows: “With the . . . [. . . of Ḫebat] and the mighty weapon [of Ishtar, the la]dy(?); with silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, precious stones and the strong weapon of Hadad.” The weapon of Ishtar appears in our text as šukurru, either “lance” or “spear” (Salonen 1965:90–92). For the various symbols held by the goddess Ishtar, see Barrelet 1955:222–260; Collon 1975:180–185. Line 4 is a précis of the events described in more detail in AT 456:26–28. “His enemy” is Muzun-Addu mentioned in AT 456:21, 28 (see Dietrich and Loretz 1969:214–215). Line 6: Ḫammurapi I, king of Yamḫad, gave the town of Irride to his son Yarimlim and his heir to the throne of Yamḫad, Abbael, gave Yarimlim the city of Alalakh in exchange for Irride. 3. The reading of dIM (either Hadad or Teshub) and dIŠTAR (either Ishtar or Išḫara) is uncertain. However, to faciliate the discussion, I have transcribed dIM as Hadad and dIŠTAR as Ishtar throughout the article. For details, see recent discussion by Haas and Wilhelm 1974:138. 4. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:138. 5. The inscription of Idrimi was published by Smith 1949. For the most recent treatment of the inscription, see Greenstein and Marcus 1976:59–96.

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh

287

Lines 7–8: The restoration is based on AT 63:19–22: šanat Niqmiepuḫ šarru . . . ṣalamšu ana bīt Adad ušelū. (For further parallels see: Dossin 1950:57, nos. 20–21; CAD E 130 c; AHW 209a h). Lines 11–13: The subject of these lines is presumably the future heir of Abbael, king of Yamḫad, which should be restored in the lacuna at the beginning of line 11. For the formula GN1 pūhat GN2 nadānu, see Draffkorn-Kilmer 1959b:94, n.5. Line 17: for Ishtar (Inanna) breaking the lance, see Sjöberg 1975:185, line 82. Line 19: The logogram SAG.UR.SAG appears again in AT 265:4 (see below) and may be read as assinnum (see Römer 1965:157–158). The assinnum was clearly connected with the cult of Ishtar (see CAD A/2 341–342; Renger 1969: 192–193). One of the citations in the CAD article mentions “the dancers and the singers whom Ishtar had changed from men into women.” Sjöberg (1975: 223–226) argued that “when referring to the Inanna-Ishtar cult the passages refer only to the changing of roles of women and men in the cult ceremonies.” However, there are several passages in the Assyrian royal inscriptions where Ishtar is clearly changing males into females (AHW 1047a s.v. sinnišāniš and sinnišānu). Our passage, where the assinnum is mentioned, also contains that same motif. The change of men into women is repeated in the Hittite military oaths (Oettinger 1976:11, lines 42–53, with further references on pp. 38 and 75). All these passages might, therefore, refer to some popular legend or belief where Ishtar played the role of a castrating goddess. For the translation of lines 19–20, see Speiser 1954: 23. For a different suggestion, see AHW 833a s.v. paraurum. The two principal gods mentioned in the Alalakh tablets are IM (Hadad) and IŠTAR (Ishtar) (Wiseman 1953:16–17; Klengel 1965a: 88–89). Hadad appears mainly in the two narrative passages cited above (AT 1:2, 16; 456:27) and in penalty clauses (AT 52:19; 54:20; 58:12; 95: r.3; 455:43). Most, if not all, of these tablets are genuine products of the court of Ḫalab. It is clear that such passages were directly borrowed from the scribal tradition of Yamḫad (Klengel 1965a). The god Hadad is also frequently mentioned in the inscriptions accompanying the seal impressions of both levels VII and IV at Alalakh. Some of the seals actually had belonged to the personnel of the court of Yamḫad (Collon 1975, passim; Na’aman 1979). In addition, Hadad is evoked once in the blessing at the beginning of letter AT 116 (line 5). We might, therefore, conclude, with Klengel, that it is Hadad of Ḫalab who appears in all these references, and not a local deity of Alalakh. The goddess Ishtar, on the other hand, is referred to as “lady of Alalakh” in the inscription of Idrimi. This epithet is probably understood in the other two passages cited above (AT 1:3, 18; 456:25). It seems to me that Ḫebat here

288


was reckoned to be the consort of Hadad of Ḫalab (see AT 15:13–14), and Ishtar was the great goddess of Alalakh. This immediately clarifies the passage AT 1: 8–10, where Yarimlim, while establishing his seat in Alalakh, erected a statue of himself before the goddess Ishtar in her local temple. Woolley (1955:64, 235– 237) intuitively proposed that the magnificent diorite head found in the level VII temple was the statue of Yarimlim, ruler of Alalakh. The restoration of AT I suggested above corroborates his proposal. It would seem that Yarimlim set up the statue during the dedication of the temple that he built in his new capital. The practice of the king setting up his statue before the god is well known from Mesopotamian documents and has been the subject of extensive research (Van Buren 1941:70–75; CAD Ṣ 80–81; Spycket 1968). Besides our passage, there is a second and parallel Old Babylonian reference in the Alalakh VII archives. One year was named “Year of king Niqmiepuḫ . . . (when) he brought up his statue (ṣalmum) to the temple of Hadad” (AT 63:19–22). Thus, a king of Yamḫad erected his statue, which was dedicated to Hadad of Ḫalab, in the central temple of his kingdom. The statue of Idrimi, originally belonging to level IV at Alalakh, is another indication of that same practice (Wooley in Smith 1949:2–3, 7; Wooley 1955:89). The Akkadian term ṣalmum appears several times in the texts of Qatna, but on each occasion in the sense of “figurine” and not as “statue” (Bottéro 1949:16, 21–22). Nevertheless, the inventory lists may shed indirect light on the problem at hand, because they mention rulers and other important persons dedicating numerous objects to the local gods of the temple (Bottéro 1949:29–30). Among those named is Durusha, king of Qadesh, the most powerful in Syria at the time (Bottéro 1949:29–31; Epstein 1963:242–246). The uninscribed statues found in the Syro-Palestinian temples should be considered in light of these documents. Besides gods, there are two additional categories of candidates for the subjects of those statues: (a) the local king or other important persons; and (b) a foreign king, either a suzerain or an ally, expressing his piety towards the local god. It goes without saying that there is no easy way to solve the problem of identification, and every case must be examined individually. The goddess Ishtar is mentioned almost exclusively in the administrative documents from level VII at Alalakh. Besides AT 1:10, the temple of Ishtar is mentioned in AT 127:10,15. After a detailed list of silver cups6 (lines 1–8)

6. For the interpretation of GAL as kāsum, see Dietrich and Loretz 1966:234–235; also CAD K 256a. The reading ti-iš-nu suggested by Anne Draffkorn-Kilmer (1959a:209), and the CAD (K 256a) is preferable, in this context, to the reading di-iš-pè proposed by Dietrich and Loretz. Compare the passage AT 366:1 and AT:163 s.v. tišnu.


289

comes the summary (lines 9–16): “A total of 708 shekels of silver Yarimlim paid to the temple of Ishtar; 1,800 (shekels), the rest of the silver of [the temple] of Ishtar, is charged to Yarimlim.” A second debt of the palace to the temple of Ishtar is to be inferred from document AT 369:1–3: “190 shekels of sliver, the sliver of Ishtar, (delivered) to Nakkušše.” Nakkušše, mentioned several times in the archives of Alalakh (AT 9:18; 10; 30:10; 55:31, 80:6; 98 f.),7 had received silver borrowed by the palace from the temple of Ishtar. A second delivery of two cups of silver to the personnel of the palace (É.GAL)8 is recorded afterwards (lines 4–9). The two transactions were recorded in roughly the same manner, specifying the sum of silver, its origin and the recipient(s), with the total expenditure stated at the end (lines 10–12). A temple of Ishtar is mentioned also in AT 126:38–39, “you shall enter the temple of Ishtar with your hands unwashed.” The subject of this sentence is possibly the ruler (awīlun) of Alalakh. This entrance to Ishtar’s temple is the last of a series of sacrifices and rituals of expiation to be performed by him after he had transgressed his oath of loyalty to his brother, the king of Ḫalab. The above-mentioned temple is, therefore, Ishtar’s temple in Alalakh. Moreover, I believe that Hadad and Ishtar, the two Eidgötter to these sacrifices and rituals (lines 2–3 and 26–29), were regarded as the great gods of Ḫalab and Alalakh. The close economic relationship existing between the palace and the temple at Alalakh is evidenced also in the ration lists, where different commodities delivered to the temple of Ishtar were recorded among the expenditures of the palace. Thus, rations of barley and emmer were offered “before the goddess Ishtar on the (celebration)-day of the month utitḫi” (AT 269:11 and 44). Sheep were sacrificed at a second celebration described as “the (celebration)-day ḫiari of Ishtar” (AT 346:2 and AT 348:2). Two seahs of barley and an equal quantity of emmer were allotted to Ḫaliya “before the goddess Ishtar” (AT 242:14–15).

7. Nakkušše was most probably a brother of Yarimlim, ruler of Alalakh. This is indicated by tablet AT 9 (in conjunction with the still unpublished tablets AT 10 and 98 f.), which relates to a dispute over inheritance between two brothers, Yarimlim and Nakkušše. The deceased king, their father, is clearly, mentioned in line 13 (“Now one hundred sheep and ten cows of the king are debited to Yarimlim.”); and in my opinion he is Ammitaqum I of Alalakh (see Na’aman 1976:129–40). Nakkušše appears several times in the Alalakh tablets, all from the time of Niqmiepuh, king of Yamḫad (AT 30:10; 55:31; 80:6; 369:3), holding a high position in the court of Alalakh. A third royal brother, Dini-Addu, held the office of sukkallu (AT 55:30). Nakkušše the diviner (bārû), serving in the time of Irkabtum of Yamḫad (AT 54:31), might be connected with Nakkušše, the son of Kaššena, serving at the same period in the court of Alalakh (AT 64:16). 8. For the use of ekallû in the meaning of “personnel of the palace” see CAD E 62.

290


A priest of Ishtar is mentioned (always anonymously) in many tablets from level VII (AT 27:11; 61:22; 65:11; 238:21; 270:3; 274:19; 281:6; 378:20). All other personnel functioning in cult performances (šatammu, šangû, bārû) appear without specification of the name of the god whom they served (with the exception of AT 55:35, Eḫli-Ashtar SANGA IM). But the assinnum, mentioned only once in these ration lists (AT 265:4), certainly is to be connected with the cult of Ishtar (see above). Finally, in a list of distributed rations, barley and emmer were allotted to the É.BÀD dIŠTAR (AT 243:9,13). É.BÀD = bīt dūri = “fortress.”9 The meaning of this phrase, “the fortress of Ishtar,” becomes clear once we realize that it refers to the temple of level VII. This temple had walls four meters thick enclosing a single inner room measuring 9.65 x 11.50 meters. Presumably more than one story high (Wooley 1955:59), it indeed had the appearance of a fort. The temple of Alalakh level VII is one of a group of temples, known in modern scholarship as “fortress temples” (Mazar 1968:92–93; Toombs and Wright 1963:18). These temples are all geographically Syro-Palestinian and were discovered at Ebla (Matthiae 1975:49–53, 63–67), Megiddo (Loud 1948: 102–105; Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973:179–184) and Shechem (Wright 1957:20; 1965:123–128; Toombs and Wright 1963:18–20). Closely related temples were excavated at Ugarit (Schaeffer 1931:8–10; 1933:119–120) and Hazor (Yadin 1972:75–83). In the biblical narrative of Judges 9:46–49, the “migdal of Shechem” is mentioned three times. Mazar (1968:92–93; Toombs and Wright 1963:18) and Wright (1965:123–128; 1970:314) independently suggested that this expression referred to the massive temple excavated in the Canaanite city of Shechem and that this kind of temple, accordingly, would be called a “migdal temple.” Thus, the biblical term migdal, indicating the temple of Shechem, is parallel to the Akkadian term bīt dūri, “fortress,” referring to the temple of Alalakh level VII. Either term, “migdal temple” or “fortress temple,” may be used to designate that kind of Syro-Palestinian temple. Summing up the results of this rather short discussion, it is clear that the fortress temple adjacent to the palace of Alalakh level VII was dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. The inscription of Idrimi, mentioning Ishtar as the “lady of Alalakh,” agrees well with this conclusion. Accordingly, the temple of level IV, built above the level VII temple, was also dedicated to the same goddess.

9. For the meaning of bīt dūri, see CAD D 197 and AHV 178a d). Our reference is missing in both dictionaries, whose entries include only material from the first millennium BC. However, the expression āe dūri, “fortified city,” appears in Old Babylonian omen texts (see AHW 178a c).


291

By inference, one might also suggest that the other fifteen temples, situated one over the other, were erected for the cult of Ishtar, the “first lady” of Alalakh.

References AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Albright, W.F. 1957. Further Observations on the Chronology of Alalakh. BASOR 146: 26– 33. Barrelet, M.-T. 1955. Les déesses armée et ailées. Syria 32: 222–260. Bottéro, J. 1949. Les inventaires de Qatna. RA 43: 1–38, 137–215. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Collon, D. 1975. The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. (AOAT 27). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1966. Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu: eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie. WO 3: 206–245. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1969. Siegel des Taḫe-Addu (ca. 1750 v. Chr.) Ugarit-Forschungen 1: 213–215. Dossin, G. 1950. Les noms d’années et d’éponyms dans les ‘Archives de Mari’. In: Parrot, A. ed. Studia Mariana. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 4). Leiden: 51–61. Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959a. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor. Draffkorn-Kilmer, A. 1959b. Was King Abba-AN of Yamḫad a Vizier for the King of Ḫattuša? JCS 13: 94–97. Dunayevsky, I. and Kempinski, A. 1973. The Megiddo Temples. ZDPV 89: 161–187. Epstein, C. 1963. “That Wretched Enemy of Kadesh.” JNES 22: 242–246. Gelb, I.J. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3). Chicago. Gelb, I.J. 1977. Thoughts about Ibla. In: Buccellati, G. ed. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, Monographic Journals of the Near East I/1. Malibu California. Greenstein, E.L. and Marcus, D. 1976. The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8: 59–96. Haas, V. and Wilhelm, G. 1974. Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna. (AOAT Supplement 3). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Klengel, H. 1965a. Der Wettergott von Ḫalab. JCS 19: 87–93. Klengel, H. 1965b. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1 — Nordsyrien. Berlin. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939. (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago. Matthiae, P. 1975. Unité et developpement du temple dans la Syrie du Bronze Moyen. In: Le Temple et le culte. (Compte rendu de la vingtième Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale). Leiden: 43–72. Mazar, B. 1962. Migdal (“Tower”). Enc. Miqr. IV: 633–635. (Hebrew). Mazar, B. 1968. The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. IEJ 18: 65–97. Na’aman, N. 1976. A New Look at the Chronology of Alalakh VII. Anatolian Studies 26: 126–140. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Chronology of Alalakh Level VII Once Again. Anatolian Studies 29: 103–113. Oettinger, N. 1976. Die militärischen Eide der Hethiter. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 22). Wiesbaden.

292


Renger, J. 1969. Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit. Teil 2. ZA 59: 104–203. Römer, W.H.Ph. 1965. Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit. Leiden. Salonen, E. 1965. Die Waffen der alten Mesopotamier. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. (Studia Orientalia 33). Helsinki. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1931. Les Fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Deuxième campagne (printemps 1930): rapport sommaire. Syria 12: 1–14. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1933. Les Fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Quatrième campagne (printemps 1932): rapport sommaire. Syria 14: 93–127. Sjöberg, Å.W. 1975. in-nin šà-gur4-ra: A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the en-Priestess Enḫeduanna. ZA 65: 161–253. Smith, S. 1949. The Statue of Idri-mi. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, No. 1). London. Smith, S. 1957. Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32: 155–184. Speiser, E.A. 1954. The Alalakh Tablets. JAOS 74: 18–25. Spycket, A. 1968. Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la Iere dynastie de Babylone. (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 9). Paris. Toombs, L.E. and Wright, G.E. 1963. The Fourth Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR 169: 1–60. Van Buren, E.D. 1941. The ṣalmê in Mesopotamian Art and Religion. Orientalia 10: 65–92. Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, No. 2). London. Woolley, C.L. 1955. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937– 1949. London. Wright, G.E. 1957. The Second Campaign at Tell Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR 148: 11–28. Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London. Wright, G.E. 1970. Significance of Ai in the Third Millennium B.C. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds., Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Tübingen: 299–319. Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor: The Head of all Those Kingdoms, Joshua 11:10. (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970). London.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court1 The inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, has been the subject of extensive discussion since its publication in 1949 by S. Smith.2 In its style and with its wording, the inscription is without parallel in the existing corpus of Akkadian royal inscriptions (Oppenheim 1955:199 f). Even the paleography is odd, with combinations of archaic and late forms, including many variants of the same sign-forms. A number of these peculiar traits have been ascribed to Sharruwa, the scribe who wrote the inscription (Moran 1975:161 n. 37). Furthermore, in addition to the textual peculiarities, Sharruwa’s own place in the royal inscription written by him is exceptional. To my knowledge, there is no parallel case in the Akkadian and West Semitic corpus of royal inscriptions for the kind of long blessing dedicated to the scribe who composed the text. This becomes even more curious, because the blessing for the ruler in whose name the inscription was written is oddly missing. In an article written by Kempinski and myself (Kempinski and Na’aman 1973:217–218), we tried to explain this phenomenon by suggesting that Sharruwa probably stealthily inserted his name in place of the name of the king, thus, granting for himself the gods’ blessing through the statue presented before them in the temple. Such an act was possible in a society in which only a small minority was literate; and, belonging to a small group, they must have felt a bit of freedom in trusting the silence of the other scribes.

These outstanding features of the scribe Sharruwa make it desirable to investigate his activities in the Alalakh IV archive further. Such an investigation may be of even more general interest, because we know little about the actual activity of royal scribes in the ancient Near East. It can even shed new light on the problem of the composition of the inscription of Idrimi, as I hope to show below.

1. Reprinted with permission. Oriens Antiquus 19 (1980), 107–116. 2. Smith 1949. For the last detailed treatment of the inscription, see Greenstein and Marcus 1976:59–96, with full bibliography on p. 59. The inscription of Idrimi has also recently been the subject of a doctoral dissertation: see Oller 1977a.

293

294


Six legal documents written by Sharruwa were found among the tablets of level IV at Alalakh. These documents are: AT 15:20; 17:23; 47:20; 72:16; 91: 22 (IG[I Šar-r]u-wa); 104: rev. 5 ([IGI Šar-r]u-wa)3 (the lines in which the name Sharruwa is mentioned appear after the colon). Of these tablets, five are dated to the time of Niqmepa, the son of Idrimi (AT 15, 17, 47, 72, 91), and the sixth was written in the days of his son Ilim-ilimma (AT 104).4 Thus, Sharruwa was still in office long after the death of Idrimi. Idrimi reigned in Alalakh for approximately thirty years (we take it for granted that this might be a round number), the period of his flight and wandering taking place beforehand. It is obvious, therefore, that Sharruwa belonged to a later generation than Idrimi and could not have been an eye-witness to most of the adventures described so vividly by him. As to the content of Sharruwa’s documents, AT 15 formulates in legal terms the promotion of a person to the status of maryannu. AT 91 formulates the legal terms of a second marriage of a maryannu, including the future status of his two wives and their children (see below). AT 17 deals with the problem of compensation resulting from a marriage where the father-in-law was executed for committing a crime.5 AT 47 belongs to the class of texts dealing with loans, including a personal pledge to a third party.6 AT 72 is a legal document dealing with the purchase of an ox. The content of AT 104 is unknown, because the tablet is broken. Thus, while the last two cases (AT 47 and 72) are of a common nature, the other three are unique, not only among the Alalakh tablets, but also among the entire corpus of the Akkadian legal documents. One might suggest that the formulation of these exceptional cases was deliberately entrusted to the royal scribe Sharruwa. Moving from the content to the text of these documents, one can find quite a few cases where Sharruwa exhibits his fondness for playing with signs and words. The name Irkabtu, frequent among the witnesses of Alalakh IV,7 is written in AT 15:16 as URUDU.DUGUD (Eri-kabtum) (Draffkorn(-Kilmer) 1959: 3. The name “Sharruwa the scribe” also appears in an economic text (AT 159: 5). 4. The name Ilim-ilimma (written DINGIR.DINGIR-ma) son of Niqmepa appears in line 2 of tablet AT 104 (the line is half broken). In the first line of the reverse the names Ta-ku-ḫul[i] and [T]i-ḫi-i[a] appear. The broken name in line 4 of the reverse may be restored as [Aki]-ia (compare AT 15: 19 and 47: 19 both written by Sharruwa). 5. Tablet AT 17 was translated by Finkelstein 1969:546. 6. Tablet AT 47 was treated by Eichler 1973:75–77, along with other documents from Alalakh dealing with a personal pledge for a loan. An additional text belonging to that same group is AT 50, and herewith is a translation of the text (based on collation of the tablet): “Eḫli-Teshub from the city of Annašše received x+30 (shekels) of refined silver (measured) by the royal weight ([N]A4 LUGAL) (from) [x]-x-ki-ra-ri. There will be no interest and his son shall stay before the king. And in the next year he will return him (the silver).” 7. Wiseman 1953:138 s. v. Irkabtu. Add to the list: AT 74: 15.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court

295

144). The name Ilim-ilimma is written in AT 47 as I-lim-DINGIR-ma (line 3) and as DINGIR.DINGIR-ma (line 7). The name Ashtabishar appears as Aš-ta-bi-šàr (line 4) and as Àš-ta 8-bi-šar (line 5) in that same tablet, using different signs for three out of the four syllables (von Soden and Röllig 1967:45 No. 229). Finally, in tablet AT 91, the name Akab-giashe is written twice as A-kab-gi-a-še (lines 17 and 24) and twice as A-kab-A.AB.BA (lines 5, 14). This play with signs gives us a clue to the Hurrian word kiaše, the meaning of which remained unknown to the present time (Gelb Purves and MacRay 1943:226b; Laroche 1968: 506). We can now posit the equation kiaše = A.AB.BA = tâmtu (“sea”). Even a quick glance at the contexts in which the word kiaše appears clearly shows that the meaning of “sea” fits them nicely. Thus, in KUB XXVII 38 1 4 it occurs with the determinative DINGIR in a parallelism with the mountains and rivers. Also it fits in the list of gods and deified beings in the sacrifice of El published by Laroche (1968:504–507). We are not surprised to find the sea appearing as a theophorous element in personal names once we remember the place of Tiamat and of Yam in the Babylonian and West Semitic mythologies. However, the frequency of the occurrence of the element kiaše in the Hurrian onomasticon apparently reflects a particular tradition of the Hurrian speaking people.8 A second interesting feature of Sharruwa’s documents is the use of Hurrian words, forms and syntax. This is illustrated by the expression dEN.LIL SANGA-še ku-uk-še (“the EN.LIL priesthood k.”) in AT 15:11 (Draffkorn(Kilmer) 1959:180, 197); by the word ḫimudi (AT 47:9), which seems to be the Hurrian equivalent of Akkadian manzazzum “pledge” (Draffkorn(-Kilmer) 1959:221); by the confusion of Akkadian and Hurrian forms in the word maryannu (AT 15:4, 5; 91:5, 9, 16); and by the wrong use of dative and accusative pronominal suffixes in AT 17:4, 14, 16; 47:13, 16. These Hurrian traits are somewhat in contrast to the text of Idrimi, where only a minor Hurrian influence can be shown (Greenstein and Marcus 1976:62). On the other hand, the West Semitic traits, so marked in the story of Idrimi, can hardly be found in those documents. We are confronted with a puzzle: How to explain the fact that the same scribe wrote his legal documents under the influence of a spoken Hurrian, while composing the royal inscription under an influence of a West Semitic literary tradition. It is hardly possible to think of two different scribes with the same rare name, Sharruwa, active during the same period at the court of Alalakh, particularly as the legal documents show that same ten-

8. For the older onomastic material, see Gelb 1943:226b; for the Alalakh texts, see Draffkorn(-Kilmer) 1959:83; for the Mari documents see Sasson 1974:379. For the Chagar Bazar texts, see Kammenhuber 1977:141.

296


dency to a play on signs so typical of the royal inscription. The explanation, therefore, must be sought elsewhere. It seems to me that this apparent contradiction is to be explained in light of the West Semitic narrative tradition underlying the story of Idrimi. This tradition is best illustrated by the late stock of biblical stories, to which might be added some scattered compositions written in the first half of the second millennium BCE outside the Sumerian and Babylonian centers of learning (e.g., the inscriptions of Yakhdunlim, king of Mari, and the fragmentary inscription of the reconquest of Mari by Zimrilim).9 Any discussion of the origins of this literary tradition must be delayed until the publication of the documents from Ebla. Furthermore, it is clear that only a very small sample of these literary compositions, presumably current during the first half of the second millennium BCE, have been found. However, this tradition must have been strong and very deep rooted, because it was considered to be the appropriate literary genre for a “royal biography” even in the mainly Hurrian society of the north Syrian city of Alalakh at the beginning of the 15th century. Thus, although the task of writing the story of Idrimi was entrusted relatively late in the king’s reign to the royal scribe Sharruwa (who seems himself to have been of Hurrian background), he accomplished his task by using phrases and expressions borrowed from the stock of the West Semitic narrative tradition, which, presumably, were learned in some scribal schools of north Syria. This well-established tradition prevented the penetration of the current Hurrian spoken language to the text. Sharruwa’s own “contributions” to the difficulties of the text lies in the odd paleography and orthography that he has used throughout the inscription (doubled with the work of a stone-cutter who had no experience with this kind of work, thus, producing many signs that hardly look like the standard forms). However, the main problem of deciphering the text is to be sought in the West Semitic tradition, of which we possess no other contemporaneous literary works. Of all the legal documents written by Sharruwa in the Alalakh IV archive, tablet AT 91 is by far the most complicated and, apart from its last section, has never been treated since its original publication by Wiseman.10 The tablet has been collated by me, and herewith I offer a transliteration, translation and commentary. 9. For the inscriptions of Yakhdunlim see: Dossin 1955:1–28; Oppenheim 1969:556–557; Thureau-Dangin 1936:49–54; Kupper 1976:299–303. For the inscription of Zimrilim see: Dossin 1971:1–6; Sasson 1972:177–178. 10. Wiseman 1953:54; for the last paragraph of the teat see: Mendelsohn 1959:355. I am grateful to Dr. E. Sollberger for the permission to collate the tablet (AT 91= BM 131486), now in the British Museum.


297

Transliteration (Dynastic seal impression) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

i-na pa-ni m Níq-me-p[a šarru] m A-kab-ta-ḫé DUMU (mār) [Š]e?-ma-/ra/?-[n]a? (erased line) DUMU. < MÍ > (mārat) Ta-ku-ḫu-li a-na DAM (aššati)-šu i-ḫu-u[z] f A?-kab-A.|AB|.BA (giaše) ma-ri-ia-an-ni MÍ.É.GI.A (kallati) ù DUMU.MÍ (mārat)-šu [š]a É (bīti) fUm-mi-du-ra [qa]-du DUMUmeš (mārē)-[š]i-ma DUMU DUMUmeš (mār mārē)-[š]i-ma ma-ri-ia-an-nu [za-ku-ú] x x x [ta] x UD-mi mi-im-ma mi-in-de4 be-el m Um-mi-du-ra [T]UG (irašši) ù f A-kab-A.AB.BA (giaše) qa-du DUMUmeš-ši-ma ma-ri-ia-an-nu za-ku-ú m.f A-kab-gi-a-še ki-ma DUMU.MÍ (mārat) É (bīt) MÍ.É.GI.A (kallati) É (bīt) [A-kab-t]a-[ḫ]é ú-ul i-ni-/ir/-ru-u[b] IGI Zi-ti-dIM (Tešub) IGI Ir-[kab-tù] IGI Zi-ti-dIM (Tešub) IGI T[a]-ku-ḫu-l[i] IGI A-kab-[t]a-ḫe IG[I Ša]r-ru-[w]a IGI Aš-ra-[q]a-ma É.[GAL.LI]M (ekallû) ša f A-kab-[g]i-a-še [ù ša] m.fZi-li-ip-na-nu-u[n šum?-ma?] i-ba-aš-ši-na bi-ri-[ši-na] ša ú-la-dú DAM (aššat)-ta 5 ša-lu-uš-ta la [i-i]ḫ-[ḫa-az] šum-ma ki-la-li-ši-na-ma la [ú-la-du] ù DAM (aššat)-ta 5 ša-lu-uš-ta i-iḫ-ḫa-az di-nu NU (ul) T[UK] (irašši)

Translation Before the king Niqmepa, Akabtaḫe the son of Shemarana(?) took as wife the daughter of Takuḫuli. Akab-giashe (shall be) maryannu kallatu. And his daughter staying in (his) house, Ummidura, with her sons and grandsons (shall be) maryannu zakû. . . . the day . . . anything perhaps the husband of Ummidura acquires, and then Akab-giashe with her sons (shall be) maryannu zakû. Akab-giashe as a daughter of the house of the daughter-in-law shall not leave the house of Akabtaḫe. List of seven witnesses, including the scribe Sharruwa.

298


Concerning Akab-giashe and Zilip-nanun — if one of them shall give birth he (Akabtaḫe) shall not marry a third woman. If neither of them shall give birth then he may marry a third woman and they will have no legal claims.

Notes Line 2: For the name Akabtaḫe, see Speiser 1954:24. Line 5: The second sign in the line (a) has an extra horizontal wedge crossing the two verticals. Lines 9–10: The restoration is based on the parallel expression in lines 15– 16. Line 12: For minde in an Alalakh tablet see AT 2 line 5. Line 19: The verb nērubu generally means “to flee, to run away” (AHW 781a). But the context here rather requires the sense of “to leave.” Line 23: For ekallû in the sense of “personnel of the palace,” see CAD E 62. Line 31: The phrase at the end, dīnu ul irašši, is a shortened formula; the expanded formula appears in a second document written by Sharruwa, AT 17: 17 ina warki ūmi dīnu [ul irašši] “For all future time he will have no legal claim” (see CAD I 291b). The two key terms for the correct understanding of the text are maryannu kallatu and maryannu zakû. The verb zakû in the sense of “to become clean (of obligations)” and the adjective zakû in the sense of “free (of claim)” are well known in the Akkadian documents and are frequent particularly in the legal documents from Ugarit (14th–13th centuries). The expression maryannu zakû (“being maryannu he is clean (of obligations)”) is to be understood as the full status of maryannu-ship, including an exemption from all kind of payments and conscriptions to the king. The second term, maryannu kallatu, is to be interpreted as an inferior status, and the text makes it clear that it was held only temporarily. As for the interpretation of the text: Akabtaḫe married Zilip-nanun (line 25) who gave birth to a daughter, Ummidura. The tablet guarantees the status of maryannu zakû to Ummi-dura and her descendants. But Zilip-nanun has failed to produce a male heir, and Akabtaḫe now marries a second wife, Akab-giashe. She shall temporarily hold the status of maryannu kallatu, and in the future (depending on a condition that is not clear to me) Akab-giashe with her future children shall held the status of maryannu zakû. The last paragraph of the text stipulates that only if both women do not produce a male heir, then Akabtaḫe will be permitted to marry a third wife. At the last section of the present article, I would like to add a few notes to the inscription of Idrimi, the main enterprise of our scribe Sharruwa. The text was re-edited recently by Greenstein and Marcus and was also the sub-


299

ject of a dissertation by Oller (1977a). I will take those two works as my point of departure for further improvements of the reading and understanding of the inscription, but will deal with the unpublished dissertation with the utmost brevity (omitting all new readings of the text that were suggested there). Line 11: The suggestion of Kempinski and myself (Kempinski and Na’aman 1973:211, 216) to read here DUMU.NISAG. GAL was accepted by Greenstein and Marcus. However, one must admit that such combination is attested nowhere else in Akkadian literature and that the equation NISAG = ašarīdu appears only in lexical texts (CAD A/2 41.6b). Furthermore, as pointed out by Greenstein and Marcus (1976:72), mannum is an interrogative word (“who”) and not an indefinite relative particle. I suggest, therefore, reading lines 10– 12 as follows: um-ma a-na-ku-ma ma-an-nu-um É (bīt) a-bi-šu lu-ú i-dàg! -gal ù ma-an-nu-um a-na DUMUḫi.a (mārē) uru E-mar lu-ú ÍR (arad) “Who (among us) will own his patrimony and who will serve the sons of Emar?” The sign dàg, in almost the same form, appears twice in an Amarna letter from Qadesh (EA 189 lines 2, 20; Schroeder, 1915:pl. 108 lines 2, 20) and in an Amarna letter from Amurru (EA 169 line 9; Schroeder 1915:pl. 93 line 9). The two Amarna letters originate from the same geographical region as the inscription of Idrimi and were written only one century later. The sign dàg appears also in line 103 of the inscription of Idrimi (li-d[à]g! -gal-šu-nu); see Oller 1977b:167–168. For a parallel use of the verb dagālu see CAD D 22b c. It should be noted that the combination of lu + verb appears twice more in the inscription. In line 100, Kempinski and I suggested the reading lu-ú SIG5-ú-šu (lu idammiqūšu), and Oller (1977a) suggested a parallel solution for the next verb. Thus, in three out of four cases, where the optative form lu appears in the inscription, it is followed by a verb, written twice as a logogram. It seems to me that nothing was written at the beginning of line 12. It can be seen clearly that there was a break from the very beginning in the stone in line 11 as well, where the first sign was shifted beyond that break. Line 31: ERÍNmeš Nu-ul-la! “The N/Lullaeans.” For exactly the same form of the sign la (as if composed of two parts), compare lines 58 and 78 of our inscription. For the writing ERÍNmeš + designation of an ethnic or social group in the Idrimi text, see ERÍNmeš Sutū (“the Suteans”), ERÍNmeš Ḫapiri (“the ‘Apiru”) and ERÍNmeš Ḫurri (“the Ḫurrians”). For the use of ERÍNmeš in this collective sense, see Albright and Moran 1948:245–246; Landsberger 1954a:201. According to the story, Idrimi was forced to flee from Ḫalab, stayed for seven years among the ‘Apiru and then mobilized the N/Lullaeans and launched his counterattack. The connection between the ‘Apiru and the L/Nullu is well known from the Hittite texts, where the “gods of the Lulaḫḫu” are mentioned besides the “gods of the ‘Apiru.” The country of the Lullu(bu) is situated in the

300


Zagros area, east of the Mesopotamian plains. Klengel, who has collected and summarized all the written material concerning the Lullubu,11 denied any common background between the Lullu(bu) mentioned in the Hittite and the Egyptian documents and the Lullubu of the Zagros area. In his opinion, the name Lullu (and its Hurrianized form Lulaḫḫu) was borrowed in the West through the Ḫurrians and was used as an appellative meaning “barbarische Gebirgsbewohner.”12 Such meaning may fit into our passage well. On the other hand, one must remember that Kassites are already mentioned in tablet(s) belonging to the Alalakh VII archive (AT 412:6–7 and probably 238:20, 33; 248: 9).13 It is not impossible, therefore, to assume that groups of people whose origin was in the mountainous areas to the east of Mesopotamia penetrated into south Anatolia and north Syria during the 17th and 16th centuries BCE at the same time that the Kassites penetrated into Mesopotamia from the same area from the second half of the 18th century onward. The presence of such wandering eastern elements in the West may explain the late appellative meaning of “mountainous barbarian” well, as was suggested by Klengel. Whether ERÍNmeš Nulla in our passage designated an ethnic or an appellative name is difficult to tell and is better left undecided. Lines 55–56: ù gi5-nu a? -ša-ri-du-ú ša SIZKURX (niqê) ú-šar-bi “(So on account of our treaty terms he received my greetings-present;) and I have added selected(?) offerings of sacrificial animals.” The reading ginû makes perfect sense for this line. The next sign looks like a nu (so Smith) and is certainly not an a. However, a descriptive adjective of the object (ginû) is required by the context, and I can only suggest amending the sign into an a (as a mistaken repetition of the former nu sign). For ašaridu as an adjective qualifying an object, see CAD A/2 418b. Another possible translation for the sentence is: “And I have added offerings, the best(?) of the sacrificial animals.” Line 56: ù bīta ḫalqu utêršu “And I restored to him the runaway famil(ies).” The correctness of this translation (in place of the meaningless “and I restored to him the lost estate”) hardly needs an explanation. The problem of runaway fugitives was always central in the political relationships between kingdoms in the ancient Near East. Several documents from the Alalakh IV archive itself show the importance of the extradition of fugitives in the political relationships between Mitanni and her vassal kingdoms. These stipula-

11. Klengel 1965:339–371. For the Hittite material, see recently Siegelová 1971:19–20; see Rowton 1976:16–17. 12. Klengel 1965:358. Goetze (1957:123) has suggested that the Lulaḫḫu were soldiers whose origin was from the mountainous region to the east of Mesopotamia. 13. See Kupper 1954:119; AHW 397a and 906x; CAD K 293b.


301

tions are the core of the two treaties signed between Alalakh and other vassal states under the patronage of Mitanni (AT 2, 3); a third document’ (AT 101) shows the actual procedure of such an extradition.14 For the use of bītu in the sense of “family,” see CAD B 293–295; Dietrich and Loretz 1970:88–89. Summing up the section formulating the relationships between Barattarna and Idrimi (lines 54–58), a clear picture emerges: (a) Idrimi swore an oath of loyalty and signed a vassal treaty; (b) Idrimi presented gifts and sacrificial animals to his overlord; and (c) Idrimi returned the fugitives escaping from the land of Mitanni into his territories to Barattarna. One might suggest that these stipulations were of a permanent nature and, thus, can be taken as a model for the obligations forced by Mitanni on its vassal kingdoms.15

References AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden. Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1948. A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter from Byblos (EA 82). JCS 2: 239–248. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É = bītu – Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88–123. Dossin, G. 1955. L’inscription de fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, roi de Mari. Syria 32: 1–28. Dossin, G. 1971. Documents de Mari. Syria 48: 1–19. Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor. Eichler, B.L. 1973. Indenture at Nuzi. The Personal tidennūtu Contract and Its Mesopotamian Analogues. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 5). New Haven and London. Finkelstein, J.J. 1969. Documents from the Practice of Law. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 542–547. Gelb, I.J., Purves, P.M. and MacRay, A.A, 1943. Nuzi Personal Names. (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago. Goetze, A. 1957. Kleinasien. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients). München. Greenstein, E.L. and Marcus, D. 1976. The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 8: 59–96. Kammenhuber, A. 1977. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient und die historischen Wohnsitze der Hurriter. Orientalia 46: 129–144. Kempinski, A and Na’aman, N. 1973. The Idrimi Inscription Reconsidered. In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Excavations and Studies: Essays in Honour of Professor Shemuel Yeivin. Tel Aviv: 211–220. (Hebrew). 14. Landsberger 1954b:60; Na’aman 1974:268 and n. 18. See further tablet AT 110 and Virolleaud 1936:21–26; Lettinga 1948:112; Klengel 1969:335 and 338 n. 23. 15. I omitted a few textual suggestions at the end of the article.

302


Klengel, H. 1965. Lullubum: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altvorderasiatischen Gebirgsvölker. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 11: 339–371. Klengel, H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 Mittel- und Südsyrien. Berlin. Kupper, J.R. 1954. Review: D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets. The British Institute of Archaeology 1953. BiOr 11: 117–121. Kupper, J.R. 1976. L’inscription du “disque” de Yaḫdun-Lim. In: Eichler, B.L. ed. Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. (AOAT 25). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: 299–303. Landsberger, B. 1954. Note. In: Bottéro, J. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Paris: 159–161. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106– 133. Laroche, E. 1968. Documents en langue hourrite de Ras Shamra. In: Nougayrol, J. et al. eds. Ugaritica V. (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris: 447–544. Lettinga, J.P. 1948. Review: Robert de Langhe, Les textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de l’Ancien Testament. Paris 1945. BiOr 5: 107–113. Mendelsohn, I. 1959. On Marriage in Alalakh. In: Blau, J.L. et al. eds. Essays on Jewish Life and Thought Presented in Honor of Salo Wittmayer Baron. New York: 351–357. Moran, W.L. 1975a. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Na’aman, N. 1974. Syria in Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle Babylonian Period. Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 265–274. Oller, G.H. 1977a. The Autobiography of Idrimi: A New Text Edition with Philological and Historical Commentary. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor. Oller, G.H. 1977b. A Note on Lines 102–104 of the Idrimi Inscription. JCS 29: 167–168. Oppenheim, A. L. 1955. Review: S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi, London 1949. JNES 14: 199– 200. Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 265–317, 556–567. Rowton, M.B. 1976b. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apirû-‘Ibrîm. JNES 35: 13–20. Sasson, J.M. 1972. Zimri-Lim’s March to Victory. RA 66: 177–178. Sasson, J.M. 1974. Ḫurrians and Ḫurrian Names in the Mari Texts. Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 353–400. Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig. Siegelová, J. 1971. Appu-Märchen und Ḫadammu-Mythus. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 14). Wiesbaden. Smith, S. 1949. The Statue of Idri-mi. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, No. 1). London. von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das akkadische Syllabar. 2. revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia 42). Rome. Speiser, E. A. 1954. The Alalakh Tablets. JAOS 74: 18–25. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1936. Iaḫdunlim, roi de Ḫana. RA 33: 49–54. Virolleaud, C. 1936. La légende phénicienne de Danel. (Mission de Ras Shamra 1). Paris. Wiseman, D. J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5)1 1. Sarid in Judges 5:13 ’āz yerad śārîd le’addîrîm ‘ām yhwh yerad-lî baggibbôrîm Verse 13a of the Song of Deborah is an old crux interpretum. The meaning of śryd and its relation to l’dyrym is not clear, and the derivation of yrd is debatable. LXXB translates “Then those who remained came down with the mighty men,” a rendering that was adopted, with slight variants, by some scholars.2 Others explained yrd as an imperfect D of rdh, “to have dominion,” “to rule.”3 However, the similarity of v. 13a to v. 11b (“Then the people of YHWH came down to the gates”) and the sequence within the passage describing the advance into battle of the Israelite troops (vv. 11b–13) strongly support its interpretation as an imperfect G of yrd (“went down”) (Burney 1918:130–131; Weiser 1959:83; Globe 1975:170, n. 2). śryd was often explained as a kind of designation for Israel, although the meaning of “remnant,” a term usually applied to a survivor (or survivors) after a defeat, hardly suits the image of the Israelite troops as they are portrayed in the song. It is for this reason that scholars sometimes emended the text to read “Israel,”4 “gates” (š‘rym) (Burney 1918:130–131) or “officers” (śrym) (Kaufmann 1962: 137–138). These emendations have no textual support, and they are all lectio facilior. Another problem is the meaning of l’dyrym. The noun ’dyr (“mighty one,” “noble”) was explained by modern commentators as referring to the Israelites. The preposition l was translated in various manners, i.e., “as,”

1. Reprinted with permission. Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990), 423–436. 2. Burney 1918:130–131, with earlier literature; Weiser 1959:83; Globe 1975:170, n. 2; Soggin 1981:82, 88. 3. Coogan 1978:148, with earlier literature in n. 35. 4. Moore 1895:150–152; Richter 1963:77, 401; Halpern 1983b:385, n. 26; see Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ad loc.

303

304


“like,” “with,” and “the.” It goes without saying that such meanings are uncommon for l in Biblical Hebrew. An important clue for the understanding of v. 13 is the word ’z (“then”). It opens the verse and appears four more times in the song (vv. 8, 11, 19, 22) (Albright 1936:29–30; Rabin 1955:125; Hillers 1965:125; Ikeda 1979:66): (a) “New gods were chosen, then he fought (lḥm) at the gates” (v. 8a). (b) “Then down to the gates marched the people of YHWH” (v. 11b). (c) “Then down marched . . . “ (v. 13a; see below). (d) “The kings come, they fought; then fought the kings of Canaan” (v. 19). (e) “Then the hooves of the horses hammered; the galloping, the galloping of his steeds” (v. 22). It seems that the word ’z was deliberately selected to open the five major stages of the struggle between Israel and the Canaanites: (a) It is first mentioned to introduce the Canaanite military pressure on the Israelite city gates (v. 8); (b) it introduces the emergence from the gates to fight the oppressors (v. 11b); (d) it opens the actual fighting with the Canaanite kings (v. 19); and (e) it introduces the defeat of the Canaanites (v. 22). Taking this consistent structure into account, one would hardly expect that stage (c) refers back to stage (b); rather, it describes a new stage in the Israelite advance to battle, between the emergence from the gates and the actual fighting. With this background in mind, I suggest translating v. 13 “Then down to Sarid he marched towards the mighty ones; the people of YHWH marched down for him (lw) with warriors.” V. 13b is an elaboration of “he marched,” identifying the marching force with “the people of YHWH” who came down to fight “for him,” i.e., the God of Israel. Sarid is a well-known Israelite town on the southern border of Zebulun (Josh. 19:10, 12).5 For the combination yrd śryd (without a preposition of locative termination) see the border descriptions in Josh. 15:10–11, 16:2, 7, 19:13. The noun ’dyrym (“mighty ones”) refers to the Canaanites, the powerful enemies of Israel. The spl ’dyrym, in which yogurt was served to Sisera (v. 25), is a special kind of a bowl (“lordly bowl”) that befits the noble guest.

5. In Josh. 19:10 and 12, the MT reads śryd. In light of several versions (LXXL, Pesh., Latin), the reading šdwd was preferred by modern scholars. See Cooke 1918:175; Noth 1953: 110, 115; Kallai 1986:179, n. 165. However, in light of the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 13), it is better to regard śryd as original; the reading šdwd is a scribal error due to the common interchange of r/d in the Hebrew letters.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5)

305

The town of Sarid is located less than 10 km. south of “Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo,” the military assembling ground of the Canaanite forces.6 Sarid is Megiddo’s closest northern Israelite town; the assembling of the Canaanite troops near the latter is the logical site for attacking warriors who have assembled near the former place. Whereas Mount Tabor, where the Israelite troops assembled according to Judg. 4:6, 10–14, is located east of Naḥal Kishon and its offshoots, the muddy wadi is situated halfway between Megiddo and Sarid, blocking the way for both attack and retreat for the Canaanites. The deployment of the Israelite army at Sarid, on the southern border of Zebulun, thus, fits well the place of Naḥal Kishon in the song (v. 21). Meroz (v. 23) was probably a town in the vicinity of Sarid that refused to join the battle and was cursed for its disloyalty.7 The town may have been destroyed at that time as a punishment for disloyalty, as Migdal Penuel was destroyed by Gideon in the time of the war against the Midianites (Judg. 8:17), thus, disappearing from the scene; its location was not remembered by later generations (Weiser 1959:91–92, n. 91; see Mayes 1974:86). A. Caquot recently suggested that vv. 14–17 has been interpolated into the Song of Deborah and that v. 18 originally came after v. 13.8 My interpretation of v. 13 fits this attractive suggestion well: The march of the Israelite troops to the place of battle near the southern border of Zebulun, thus, is followed by praise of the two tribes that participated in the fighting against the Canaanites. In light of this interpretation I suggest the following translation for the original sequence of the song in vv. 11b–13, 18: 11b Then down to the gates marched the people of YHWH. 12 Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song. Arise Barak, and capture your captives, son of Abinoam. 13 Then down to Sarid he marched towards the mighty ones. The people of YHWH marched down for him with warriors, 18 Zebulun is a people that scorned his life to the death. Naphtali too, on the heights of the field.

6. Rainey 1981:61*–66*. For the earlier literature, see the extensive discussion of Täubler 1958:153–164. 7. Alt suggested that Meroz was a Canaanite city that joined the tribe of Manasseh and was governed by aristocracy, i.e., the lords of the city. See Alt 1941:244–247. Alt was followed by Täubler 1958:193–197; Gottwald 1979:512–513, 529, 573, 581. However, both the assumption that Meroz must have been a former Canaanite city and that “its inhabitants” (yšbyh) refers to the lords of the city, lacks any concrete foundation. 8. Caquot 1986:47–70 (esp. pp. 54–55); see Noth 1930:5, 36; 1960:150, n. 3.

306


2. The “Galilean Oriented” Redaction of the Story of Judges 4 It is generally assumed by scholars that biblical stories reflect a good topographical knowledge of their authors, regardless of whether the stories are historically accurate or not. This is a reasonable assumption, because even an author who is describing a legendary episode will try to attach to it certain environmental features to add authenticity to his composition. By analysis of these stories, scholars were able to demonstrate the accuracy of the descriptions within their geographical and topographical settings. Biblical stories, thus, contributed much to the field of historical geography of the land of Israel, with the identification of many sites becoming possible because of the accuracy of these descriptions. It must be emphasized, however, that the accuracy of the environmental features should not be taken for granted. After all, stories may have been written by authors who lived in exile, far away from their homeland. Editorial activity may also contribute to distortion of the original picture. As reasonable as the assumption may look, topographical reliability and coherence of the descriptions must first be established before we are entitled to estimate the author’s familiarity with the environment that surrounded the story. The description of the battle near Naḥal Kishon in Judges 4 is a good example for such discussion. It is the only geographically detailed story that we have from the north of Israel. For a long time, the story resisted reasonable geographical understanding, and many solutions have been offered to overcome the difficulties.9 The many inner contradictions within the plot may be illustrated by the following five points: (A) The site of Harosheth-ha-goiim, the seat of Sisera (v. 2) and the assembling place of the Canaanite troops (vv. 13, 16), is disputed. It has been suggested recently that it was located on the western Jezreel plain, in the area between Taanach and Megiddo, where, according to the song, the kings of Canaan assembled for battle (Judg. 5:19).10 The proposal was intended to set-

9. In addition to the commentaries, see Garstang 1931:294–303; Albright 1936:26–9; Alt 1937:52–65 (= 1953b:363–374); 1944:67–85 (= 1953a:256–273); Mazar 1952–53:80–84; Täubler 1958:142–169; Simons 1959:288–290; Richter 1963:32–65; Aharoni 1967:200–205; de Vaux 1978:790–796, with earlier literature. Rainey 1981:61*–66*; 1983: 46–48; Kallai 1986:228– 235. 10. Rainey 1983 connected Harosheth with the root ḥrṯ (“to cultivate”) and interpreted Harosheth-ha-goiim as “the plantation of the Gentiles.” Like the majority of scholars, Rainey assumed that the prose and the song refer to the same area, i.e., the western Jezreel plain; however, whereas other scholars regarded Harosheth as the name of a town located in the extreme west of the Jezreel plain (see n. 16 below), he identified it with a large territory, namely, the Megiddo-Taanach area.


307

tle the problem of the relation of the prose to the song, but it involves other difficulties. According to the prose, the Canaanite troops were summoned to Harosheth-ha-goiim (v. 13), crossed the Kishon river and fought the Israelites. After their defeat they fled back to their gathering place (v. 16). How, then, should we account for the fact that Sisera fled in an entirely different direction, namely, to the oak of Zaanannim (v. 17), a place located on Naphtali’s southern border (Josh. 19:33)? And how did it happen that Barak reached this northern place at the end of his pursuit, after he had followed the fleeing Canaanite troops westward, to Harosheth-ha-goiim (vv. 16, 22)? Another difficulty in this hypothesis is in v. 2, where Sisera is described as dwelling (ywšb) in Harosheth-ha-goiim. In spite of 1 Kgs. 11:16 and the Mesha Stela (line 8) (Aharoni 1967:203), the wording ywšb b strongly conveys the impression of referring to a definite place (e.g., v. 5), and not to a region (the western Jezreel plain, according to this interpretation) (see Simons 1959:288–289). (B) From the description of Sisera’s escape, it may be inferred that he fled northward and that the oak of Zaanannim (Josh. 19:33) was located on his route. The city of Hazor, described as the seat of Jabin “king of Canaan” (vv. 2, 17; see 1 Sam. 12:9), is situated in the upper Jordan Valley, south of Lake Ḥuleh. For these reasons, some scholars have identified Harosheth-ha-goiim with the hill country of Galilee, east of Hazor, the seat of the northern Israelite tribes (Mazar 1952–53:80–84; Aharoni 1967:201–203). The description of Sisera’s dwelling in a vast area (v. 2) is not explained by this theory. Moreover, such a northern location for the assembling place of the Canaanites involves great difficulties. How can the seat of the northern Israelite tribes be identical with the gathering place of the Canaanite troops? Also, did the Canaanite army march from the north to Naḥal Kishon to fight their next-door neighbors, the Israelite troops, here? And did Sisera advance southward from the area of Hazor to the Kishon river to fight Barak, who likewise went southwards from Kedesh of Naphtali to Mount Tabor? Finally, what is the relationship of the prose to the Song of Deborah, according to which the Canaanites assembled in the Megiddo-Taanach area? (C) The oak of Zaanannim is situated near Kedesh, according to the story (v. 11). However, Kedesh of Naphtali is located in the northern part of the tribal inheritance, and the oak of Zaanannim was a toponym on Naphtali’s southern border, near Adami-nekeb and Jabneel (Josh. 19:33) (Kallai 1986: 228–231; Na’aman 1986:138.–141). The attempts of scholars to escape this difficulty by locating Kedesh either near Taanach,11 at Khirbet el-Kidish north-

11. Moore 1895:117; Budde 1897:36; Garstang 1931:301; Abel 1938:415; Mazar 1950:328; Stern and Beit Arieh 1976:22; see Burney 1918:81–82; Simons 1959:289.

308


east of the Jabneel Valley,12 or in the vicinity of Mount Tabor (Kallai 1986:232– 235) are not convincing. Kedesh of Naphtali is identical to Kedesh of Galilee, mentioned several times in the Bible (Josh. 12:22; 19:37; 20:7; 21:32; 2 Kgs. 15:29; 1 Chr. 6:61); all other identifications may be regarded as unnecessary attempts to avoid the difficulties inherent within the story in its final form. (D) According to v. 10, Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh, his city. This is odd: Zebulun is situated in the area north of Naḥal Kishon; Barak’s wandering northward to Kedesh in order to return southwards to Mount Tabor, on the border of his inheritance, does not make geographical or military sense. (E) Deborah’s seat in the area of Bethel (v. 5) also involves geographical problems. According to the prose, only Zebulun and Naphtali participated in the battle against Sisera. Thus, to bridge the territorial gap between Deborah’s and Barak’s seats and to ensure her integration within the plot, the author (or redactor) made her walk all the way from the area of Bethel to Kedesh of Galilee, and then join Barak and his troops on their way southward to Mount Tabor. The inhabitants of Mount Ephraim do not play any role in the prose account; Deborah’s wandering north and south is another odd trait in the story of Judges 4. The conclusion is inevitable: The author of the story, or a late redactor, was not acquainted with the geography of northern Israel and mixed up the narrative elements in a way that excludes any geographical sense from the description. It seems to me that the confusion is the result of the work of a late Judean redactor who did not understand certain details in the old story, and, although he had no real knowledge of the topography in the north, he tried to fill in various details that were left unspecified in the plot. In what follows, I shall try to isolate his interpolations and then delineate the original story and its relationship with the song. My point of departure is Harosheth-ha-goiim, the gathering place of the Canaanites according to the old story (vv. 13, 16). Its location (the western Jezreel plain) and its original meaning (“the plantation of the gentiles”) apparently were not clear to the redactor who identified it with Gelil-ha-goiim (literally, “the district of the gentiles”; Isa. 8:23), which, in his time, was a name for the district of Galilee. He, therefore, assumed that the “king of Canaan” ruled a vast territory whose scope was not dissimilar to the league of Canaanite kings that fought Joshua according to Josh. 11:1–5. The origin of Jabin, “king of Canaan,” and of his commander Sisera was left unnoticed in the old story of

12. Press 1950:327–328; Aharoni 1957:79, 99–101; 1967:204; Kochavi 1963:165–172.


309

Judges 4. The redactor identified Jabin with the homonymous king of Hazor (Josh. 11), thus, locating his seat (mlk b) in the area of eastern Galilee (v. 2a). He further located Sisera’s seat at Harosheth-ha-goiim, where, according to the old story, he assembled the Canaanite troops (vv. 13, 16). Thus, the abovementioned exceptional description of Sisera’s dwelling (ywšb b) in a region (v. 2b) was created.13 According to the old story, the defeated Canaanites were pursued to Harosheth-ha-goiim, where they had assembled previously (vv. 13, 16). The redactor regarded it as a name for a vast northern territory; thus, he likewise placed Sisera’s route of escape and Jael’s tent in the north. Jael’s seat was identified with the oak of Zaanannim of which the redactor learned from the border description of Naphtali (Josh. 19:33). He further described it as situated next to Kedesh of Naphtali (v. 11), which was the best known town within the inheritance of the tribe in later times and which he identified as the seat of Barak (v. 6). In reality, the oak of Zaanannim was located far south of Kedesh. The redactor’s ignorance of the topography of northern Israel likewise led to the interpolation of Kedesh as the assembling place of the Israelites before they marched to Mount Tabor (v. 10). It is clear that he assumed that Kedesh was situated somewhere north of Mount Tabor, thus, describing it as the gathering place of the northern tribes and as a town near the oak of Zaanannim, on the way northward to Galilee. In line with his work of filling in gaps within the original plot, the redactor inserted v. 17b, which describes a treaty between the Kenites and the king of Hazor, thereby explaining Sisera’s escape to the tent of Jael and his trust in her hospitality.14 Deborah’s seat was likewise missing in the original story of Judges 4. As in the case of Jabin, the redactor identified her with a homonymous name, that of Deborah who was buried near Bethel (Gen. 35:8), and located her place in southern Mount Ephraim (vv. 4b–5). The mention of Elon Tabor (1 Sam. 10:3) may have supported this identification (see Richter 1963:37–42). The redactor, thus, gained an expansion of the circle of participants in the battle. However, by assigning Deborah the role of a judge of Israel, he violated one of the principal ideas of the “framework” of the book, namely, that Israel had been subjugated to foreign power only after the death of the judge. Furthermore, Deborah’s seat in Mount Ephraim obliged him to describe a union of the two Israelite leaders, Deborah and Barak. Therefore, he inserted the move of

13. For the selection of the verbal form ywšb as the result of the preceding verbal form mlk, see Simons 1959:288–289. 14. For the secondary character of vv. 11 and 17b, see Richter 1963: 43, 57–58.

310


Deborah from her southern place northwards to Kedesh of Naphtali, where the Israelite troops would have assembled (v. 9b). The following words and sentences must have been interpolated into the original story of Judg. 4: vv. 4b–5, 9b, 11, 17b; also ’šr mlk bḥṣwr (v. 2a); whw’ ywšb bḥršt hgwym (v. 2b); mqdš nptly (v. 6a); qdšh (v. 9b). The redactor was motivated by what might be called “the fright of anonymity,”15 and, to fill in the “missing” details, he located the five participants of the plot (Jabin, Sisera, Deborah, Barak and Jael) and supplied a motive for Sisera’s escape to Jael’s tent. Unfortunately, the redactor was not acquainted with the geographical reality of northern Israel, and by identifying Hazor and the district of Galilee as the seats of Jabin, Sisera and the Canaanites, the geographical background of the story became extremely odd. Moreover, the outlines of the battle as they were portrayed in the song can no longer be reconciled with the description of the prose. It is clear that the redactor’s topographical ignorance and his borrowing of the “missing” details from the corpus of biblical literature confused the integrity of the original story of the battle near Naḥal Kishon. Only by eliminating these insertions can we understand the original prose description of the event. The original plot of Judges 4 may be delineated as follows: Jabin, “king of Canaan,” and his commander Sisera had subjugated the Israelite tribes. Deborah, the north Israelite prophetess, urged Barak to start a rebellion. He summoned the troops of Zebulun and Naphtali, and they marched to Mount Tabor to fight the Canaanites. The Canaanites’ commander, Sisera, immediately called his army with its mighty iron chariots (compare Josh. 17:16, 18; Judg. 1:19) to Harosheth-ha-goiim, i.e., the western Jezreel plain, on the other side of the Kishon river.16 The fighting broke out near Naḥal Kishon, and after

15. For the “fright of anonymity,” see Na’aman 1988:43–44, with earlier literature in n. 3. 16. Harosheth-ha-goiim was located by many scholars in the vicinity of el-Ḥarithiyeh. See Albright 1922:284–285; 1923:21–22; Alt 1937:372, with earlier literature in n. 3; Garstang 1931:380–381; Abel 1938:343–344; see de Vaux 1978:792. Noteworthy also is the name Silat el-Ḥarithiyeh (map reference 172212), a village located 2 km. south of Taanach. It seems, therefore, that Harosheth(-ha-goiim) was the name of the western Jezreel plain and that the old name has survived on the margins of the plain. There are several parallel cases of the preservation of an old name of a region in its margins. Thus, the name of the land of Gina, which was the pre-Israelite name for the western Jezreel plain, has survived in the name of the Second Temple Village Ginae. The village of Zer‘în (map reference 181218) preserved the name of the town of Jezreel and of the nearby Valley of the same name. The name of the land of Kabul (1 Kgs. 9:13) has survived in the village of Kābûl (map reference 170252). The name of the vast area of Gilead has survived in Khirbet Jel‘ad. For a further discussion, see Na’aman 1988:184–185.


311

his victory, Barak chased the Canaanites up to their towns. Sisera fled alone on foot17 and arrived at Jael’s tent, which must have been located in the western Jezreel plain. There he was betrayed and killed, just before the arrival of the Israelite commander at the place. The surrender of Jabin (v. 23), who subjugated the Israelites at the beginning of the story, closes the circle and brings the plot to its natural end. B. Halpern (1983b:379–401 ; 1983a:41–73; 1988:76–103) suggested recently that the story of Judges 4 was derived either from the Song of Deborah or from questions and assumptions that arise from the song. In the discussion above, it was pointed out that the story in its final form cannot be reconciled with the song and that the description of the kings of Canaan who assembled “at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo” to fight the Israelites across Naḥal Kishon is in marked contrast to the geographical background of the prose. The mention of the ten tribes in the song (Judg. 5:14–17) is another serious obstacle for the comparison of the two sources. By eliminating both the interpolated ten tribes from the song (see n. 8 above) and the “Galilean oriented” redaction from the prose, the way is open for a fresh equation of the two sources. It seems to me that Halpern’s thesis is essentially correct and that the song was the source from which the author of the prose drew the main details for his story. The reader is referred to Halpern’s works for a meticulous description of the narrator’s reconstruction of history. It must be emphasized, however, that this author was not as imaginative and speculative as Halpern assumed in his reconstruction of the process of borrowing. By composing the “framework” (vv. 1, 2*, 3, 23) and by eliminating the episodes of Meroz and the mother of Sisera, the narrator succeeded in crystallizing the plot.18 Two combating warriors and two women of contrasting characters are represented at the center of the stage. The “king of Canaan” was added to the plot as the subjugating enemy, in accord with the “framework” of the stories of the judges. It is clear that the author has in mind the kingdoms of his time, in which the king was the central figure and the chief commander sometimes led the army to battle (compare, for example, 2 Sam. 10:6–18; Isa. 20:1). In place of the kings of Canaan and their leader (Sisera) he, therefore, described a king and his commander of staff. The author further replaced certain geographical names by others, which presumably were

17. For the literary motif of the commander of an army escaping alone from the battlefield, see Tadmor 1985:70–75, with earlier literature. 18. For the narrative structure and the contents of Judges 4, see recently Murray 1979: 155–187; Amit 1987:89–111; Neef 1989:28–49.

312


better known to his readers. Thus, Mount Tabor took the place of Sarid, and Harosheth-ha-goiim replaced the poetic “Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo.” Other details are not dissimilar in the two sources. It is only the late redaction of both the prose and the song that has blurred the similarity and changed the course of events in the two descriptions of the battle.

3. A Reference to the Battle of Kishon in Isaiah 8: 23b The textual analysis and historical background of Isa. 8:23b are disputed among scholars, and various attempts have been made over the years to explain its meaning and determine its historical background. V. 23b (or v. 23) was generally regarded as an introduction to the prophecy of Isa. 9:6, the latter being attributed either to Isaiah himself or to a pre-exilic or post-exilic author.19 The linguistic background of v. 23b was examined in great detail by J.A. Emerton (1969:151–175). One would concur with the suggestion that both hql and hkbd are perfects, though whether both refer to either past or future (prophetic future) events is disputed. One may further ask whether hr’šwn and h’ḥrwn are indeed the subjects of the verbs. After all, the prophecy may well refer to two different times (compare Jer. 50:17), the first of which (hr’šwn) would build the hopes for the second (h’ḥrwn) (Barth 1977:141–144). A. Alt (1950:29–49 = 1953b 206–225) was the first scholar to suggest that Tiglath-pileser III’s conquests and annexations of 734–32 BCE are the historical background to the mention of “the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” These three entities represent the three provinces of Dor, Gilead and Megiddo established by the Assyrians after the conquest of the three districts. However, the relationship of this triad with the duo of Zebulun and Naphtali involves difficulties. The territories (“lands”) of the two tribes cover only part of the province of Megiddo, and it is not clear how this duo may refer to the same territory as that of the triad of Dor, Gilead and Megiddo. A reasonable solution to the problem is to assign the duo and the triad to two different periods, hr’šwn and h’ḥrwn. This was suggested by W. Harrelson (1962:152) in his discussion of the prophecy: Thus, despite the probable connection of the oracle with the conquest of the territory of the tribes by Tiglath-pileser III, the prophet may also be alluding to the “former” days of darkness and oppression under the king of Hazor (Judg. 4:1–3) and to these tribes’ turn of fortune as a result of the great victory won by Barak of Naphtali. These

19. Barth 1977:141–177 with earlier literature; Thompson 1982:79–88, with earlier literature; Kilian 1983:5–10, with earlier literature.


313

motifs which appear in the old blessings and hymns of early Israel might be considered stock materials employed by Isaiah in the shaping of his oracle. Their occurrence would not be significant, perhaps, were it not for the fact that one particular motif in the oracle is drawn unquestionably from the period of the judges: the “day of Midian” (9:3).

Harrelson further explained terms and images that appear in the prophecy of Isa. 9:1–6 against the background of “early poems, narratives and traditions of the period prior to the monarchy” (pp. 152–153). In particular, he tried to demonstrate the influence of the Gideon tradition on one or another form of vv. 3 and 5 of the prophecy. His suggestions remained mainly unnoticed in subsequent discussions of the prophecy.20 It seems to me, however, that Harrelson was on the right track in suggesting that there is a connection between the mention of Zebulun and Naphtali in Isa. 8:23b and the battle against Sisera of Judg. 4–5. The event in which the Lord (who is the subject of the two verbs in v. 23b) had delivered the “lands” of Zebulun and Naphtali is presented by the prophet as a basis for future hopes — the “making glorious” of the districts of Dor, Gilead and Megiddo. The mention of the “day of Midian” (Isa. 9:3) is likewise presented as an example for the power of the Lord, who will break the Assyrian yoke. The mention of gelîl haggôyîm in v. 23b may well represent another hint of the episode of the battle of Kishon. It was suggested above that ḥărōšet haggôyîm was misinterpreted as another name for gelîl haggôyîm. Provided that the prophecy reflects the same misunderstanding of the archaic designation, the latter appellation may well be a veiled allusion to the battle against the Canaanites in the period of the judges. The battles against Sisera and against Midian are combined together for a second time in Ps. 83:9–10: “Do to them as thou didst to Midian, as to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground (’dmh).21 It is hardly accidental that Ashur is the last mentioned in the list of Israel’s traditional enemies (vv. 6–8). Just as in Isa. 8:23b–9:6, so in Ps. 83 the episodes of the period of the judges build the hopes for future breaking of the Assyrian yoke.22 One may further ask why these particular past events were selected as examples for the breaking of the Assyrian yoke. After all, there are other epi-

131.

20. Harrelson’s article is not mentioned in the works cites in n. 19; but see Carlson 1974:

21. For a historical-topographical analysis of Ps. 83:9–10, see Na’aman 1986:139–140, with earlier literature. 22. The attachment of the deliverances from the Canaanites and the Midianites in both Isa. 8:23b–9:6 and Ps. 83:9–10 is an additional argument against Werner’s recent claim that Isa. 8:23b is a redactional bridge between 8:21–23a and 9:1–6; see Werner 1982:21–25, 42–4.

314


sodes in which the Lord delivered his people from foreign subjection. The answer may be found in the reality in which the prophecy of Isa. 8:23b–9:6 was spoken. There were only few events in the early history of Israel that have been memorized over the years in connection with those north-Israelite territories that were conquered by the Assyrians in the years 734–732 BCE. It is for this reason that the battle against the Canaanites in the north and the battle against the Midianites conducted on both sides of the Jordan have been selected. One, therefore, may date the prophecy of Isa. 8:236–9:6 to the time between the Assyrian conquest of 734–732 and the Assyrian collapse in the west in the twenties of the 7th century BCE. Finally, I suggest the following translation for Isa. 8:23b: “As in the past he (the Lord) made lighter the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, so in later (time) he made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, the district of the nations.”

References Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris. Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Albright, W. F. 1922. Some Additional Notes on the Song of Deborah. JPOS 2: 284–285. Albright, W.F. 1923. Contribution to the Historical Geography of Palestine. AASOR 2–3: 21– 22. Albright, W.F. 1936. The Song of Deborah in the Light of Archaeology. BASOR 62: 29–30. Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33:52–88. (Reprint: Alt 1953b: 363–395). Alt, A. 1941. Meroz. ZAW 58: 244–247 (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 274–277). Alt, A. 1944. Megiddo im Übergang von kanaanäischen zum israelitischen Zeitalter. ZAW 60: 67–85 (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 256–273). Alt, A. 1950. Jesaia 8, 23–9, 6. Befreiungsnacht und krönungstag. In: Baumgartner, W. et al. eds. Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag: gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden. Tübingen: 29–49 (Reprint: Alt 1953b: 206–225). Alt, A. 1953a. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München. Alt, A. 1953b. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München. Amit, Y. 1987. Judges 4: Its Contents and Form. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39: 89–111. Barth, H. 1977. Die Jesaia-Worle in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 48). Neukirchen-Vluyn.

V 23b is the logical opening to the prophecy of 9:1–6, as was pointed out by scholars who have analyzed its structure and contents. See Barth 1977:141–177 with earlier literature; Thompson 1982:79–88, with earlier literature; Kilian 1983:5–10, with earlier literature; Emerton 1969:151–175; Kaiser 1972:123–130; Wildberger 1972:362–389.


315

Budde, K. 1897. Das Buch der Richter. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alte Testament). Freiburg. Burney, C.F. 1918. The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. London. (Reprint: New York 1970). Caquot, A. 1986. Les tribus d’Israël dans le cantique de Débora (Juges 5, 13–17). Semitica 36: 47–70. Carlson, R.A. 1974. The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. ix 1–6. VT 24: 130–135. Coogan, M.D. 1978. A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40: 143–166. Cooke, G.A. 1918. The Book of Joshua. (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). Cambridge. Emerton, J.A. 1969. Some Linguistic and Historical Problems in Isaiah viii. 23. Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 151–175. Garstang, J. 1931. The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua Judges. London. Globe, A. 1975. The Muster of the Tribes in judges 5, 11e–18. ZAW 87: 169–183. Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250– 1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York. Halpern, B. 1983a. Doctrine by Misadventure: Between the Israelite Source and the Biblical Historian. In: Friedman, R.E. ed. The Poet and the Historian. Chico: 41–73. Halpern, B. 1983b. The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography. Harvard Theological Review 76: 379–401. Halpern, B. 1988. The First Historians. The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco. Harrelson, W. 1962. Nonroyal Motifs in the Royal Eschatology. In: Anderson, B.W. and Harrelson, W. eds. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. London: 147–165. Hillers, D.R. 1965. A Note on Judges 5,8a. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27: 124–126. Ikeda, Y. 1979. The Song of Deborah and the Tribes of Israel. In: Rabin, C. et al. eds. Studies in the Bible and the Hebrew Language Offered to Meir Wallenstein. Jerusalem: 65–79. (Hebrew). Kaiser, O. 1972. Isaiah I–12: A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). London. Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel Jerusalem and Leiden. Kaufmann, Y. 1962. The Book of Judges. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kilian, R. 1983. Jesaia 1–39. (Erträge der Forschung 200). Darmstadt. Kochavi, M. 1963. Khirbet Kedesh — Kadesh Naftali. BIES 27: 165–172. (Hebrew). Mayes, A.D.H. 1974. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London. Mazar, B. 1950. Elon-bezaanannim. Enc. Miqr. I: 328. (Hebrew). Mazar, B. 1952–53. Beth She‘arim Gaba and Harosheth of the Peoples. Hebrew Union College Annual 24: 75–84. Moore, G.F. 1895. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Murray, D.F. 1979. Narrative structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story (Judges IV 4–22). Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 30: 155–187. Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1988. Canaanites and Perizzites. Bibliche Notizen 45: 42–47. Na’aman, N. 1988b. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500– 1000 B. C.). Leuven: 177–185.

316


Neef, H.-D. 1989. Der Sieg Deboras und Baraks über Sisera. Exegetische Beobachtungen zum Aufbau und Werden von Jdc. 4,1–24*. ZAW 101: 28–49. Noth, M. 1930. Das System der zwöIf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. (2nd revised ed.). (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel. London. Press, I. 1950. Elon-bezaanannim. Enc. Miqr. I: 327–328. (Hebrew). Rabin, C. 1955. Judges V, 2 and the ‘Ideology’ of Deborah’s War. Journal of Jewish Studies 6: 125–134. Rainey, A F. 1983. Toponymic Problems (cont.): Harosheth-Hagoiim. Tel Aviv 10: 46–48. Rainey, A.F. 1981. The Military Camp Ground at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo. Eretz Israel 15: 61*–66*. Richter, W. 1963. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. (Bonner Biblischer Beiträge 18). Bonn. Simons, J. 1959. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden. Soggin, J.A. 1981. Judges: A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Stern, E. and Beit Arieh, I. 1976. Excavations at Tel Kedesh (Tell Abu Qudeis). Tel Aviv 6: 1– 25. Tadmor, H. 1985. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Considerations. Zion 50: 65–80 (Hebrew). Täubler, E. 1958. Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter. Tübingen. Thompson, M.E.W. 1982. Isaiah’s Ideal King. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24: 79– 88. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Weiser, A. 1959. Das Deboralied. Eine gattungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie. ZAW 71: 67–97. Werner, W. 1982. Eschatologische Texte in Jesaia 1–39: Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker. (Forschung zur Bibel 46). Würzburg. Wildberger, H. 1972. Jesaja. 1. Jesaja 1–12 (Biblischer Kommentar X/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History1 Introduction: The Development of Historical Writing in Israel From the early days of modern research, scholars have discussed the date of the rise of historical writing in Israel. The original documents that served biblical authors in their work have perished, and the original scrolls, upon which the authors composed their histories of Israel and which would have helped us to fix the date of composition, are no longer available. The dating of the emergence of historical writing and reconstruction of the early sources available to the scribes are entirely dependent on the analysis of the Old Testament. 1. Systematic writing for administrative purposes was introduced in the tenth century BCE, following the institution of monarchy in Israel. This is evident from the installation of the office of scribe in the courts of David and Solomon (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3). Noteworthy also is the census conducted by David throughout his kingdom, which, according to the story, lasted for nine months and twenty days (2 Sam. 24:8). A census was usually conducted for many purposes, i.e., a register for military service, for labor conscription and for levying and collecting taxes. David’s census necessarily entailed an extensive registration for the establishment of the young kingdom on firm foundations. Furthermore, even a superficial glimpse at the recorded histories of David and Solomon indicates that their authors had before them original documents dating to the time of the two kings. These sources described wars and conquests, building and fortifying operations, administrative apparatus, cultic regulation, etc. Thus, it is clear that writing in the court for administrative purposes was introduced in Israel by the tenth century BCE and that documents composed at that time were available to the authors who portrayed the history of the United Monarchy. However, recording for administrative purposes is one thing and writing history is another. In all ancient cultures, there is a considerable gap between 1. Reprinted with permission. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 218–281.

317

318


daily registration and the emergence of historiography. Was Israel such an exception that historiography started there contemporaneously with the adoption of alphabetic writing for practical purposes? Indeed, this is the assumption of those scholars who advocate a tenth century date for the beginning of historical writing in Israel.2 2. Alphabetic writing developed slowly and gradually in Canaan over a period of several hundred years, and its scope in the Late Bronze Age was very limited: Only about thirty inscriptions (most of them short) have been discovered so far, most of them in southern Canaan.3 It matured and crystallized in Phoenicia in the late eleventh-tenth centuries BCE and from this region spread widely in Syro-Palestine during the ninth century (e.g., the Kmšyt, Mesha, Melqart, Hazael and Hdys‘y inscriptions).4 Apart from the Gezer calendar, which apparently belongs to the ninth century BCE (for the Gezer inscription, see Donner and Röllig 1968:181–182; Young 1992:362–375, with earlier literature), no pre-eighth century BCE alphabetic inscription has been discovered in the territories of Israel and Judah. The earliest North Israelite inscriptions (i.e., the Samaria ostraca, the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions and the Balaam plaster inscription) are dated to the first half of the eighth century BCE,5 and it is hardly coincidental that the earliest recording of prophecies, i.e., the “words” of Amos and Hosea, is dated to about the same time. The spread of alphabetic writing in the kingdom of Judah took place even later and hardly antedates the mid-eighth century BCE.6 Most of the early Judahite

2. For a tenth century date for the beginning of the Israelite historiography, see, e.g., Rost 1926; von Rad 1944:1–42; 1953:120–127; 1962:48–56; Herrmann 1953–54:51– 62; Mowinckel 1963:4–26; Liver 1967:75–101; Gray 19702:14–22; Weippert 1973:415–442; Mettinger 1976; Langlamet 1976:518–528; McCarter 1980a:489–504; 1980b:23–30; 1984:9–16; Schmidt 1982:55–73; Ishida 1982:175–187; Lemche 1984:106–109 (but see 1991:161–169). 3. For the Proto-Canaanite inscriptions, see recently Puech 1986:161–213; Sass 1988. 4. For the Syrian and Moabite inscriptions, see Donner and Röllig 1968:168–179, 203–204, with earlier literature; Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982; Kyrieleis and Röllig 1988:37– 75; Pitard 1988:3–21, with earlier literature; Dearman 1989 with earlier literature; Eph‘al and Naveh 1989:192–200; Bron and Lemaire 1989:35–44; Puech 1992:311–334; Smelik 1992a:59–92. 5. For the recently discovered inscriptions, see the detailed literature cited by Lemaire 1988:225–226, notes 1, 14. For the Samaria ostraca, see Lemaire 1982:23–81, with earlier literature on pp. 23–24; Kaufman 1982:229–239. 6. Noteworthy are the three identical labels written on three jugs unearthed at Eshtemoa, in the southernmost Judean hill country. See Yeivin 1972:45–46; 1990:43–57. The jugs contained a large hoard of silver and the word ḥmš (“five”) probably defined their contents. Paleographically, the three letters look similar to the script of Arad IX-VIII (note the paleographic observations of Cross, in Yeivin 1972:48, n. 20). Ceramic parallels also indicate a date in the eighth century (Lachish III, Tell Beit Mirsim A, Tel Beer-sheba II). Thus, the inscriptions should best be dated to the eighth century BCE (contra Yeivin).

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History

319

inscriptions are dated to the late eighth century (e.g., the Arad, Khirbet Beit Lei, Khirbet el-Qom, the Siloam inscriptions, and the lmlk stamps).7 In light of the large-scale excavations and surveys conducted in all areas of the two kingdoms, this finding hardly can be regarded as accidental. To illustrate this point, let us take Jerusalem as an example. Scores of large- and small-scale excavations conducted in all parts of ancient Jerusalem during the last 150 years have yielded not a single inscription that antedates the late eighth century BCE. How can we match these data to the assumption that full-scale writing, including historiography, developed in Jerusalem from the time of Solomon (whose reign was sometimes regarded as a period of “enlightenment”; see von Rad 1944:41)? It is no coincidence that so many seventh century inscriptions have been discovered in all parts of the kingdom of Judah, including Jerusalem. At that time, alphabetic writing spread throughout the country, and the amount and scope of written material revealed in archaeological excavations and surveys accurately reflect the extent of literacy. The date and distribution of written material, as evident from archaeological research, is, in my opinion, our most important evidence for dating the rise of historiography in the two neighboring kingdoms. 3. The reasons for the slow development of alphabetic writing in the ancient Near East is not my concern here, but one may note that other important inventions (e.g., the war chariot, cavalry, iron smelting, the domestication of the camel) likewise spread slowly and gradually during a protracted period until their sudden diffusion throughout the ancient Near East. It is clear that until the eighth century BCE, writing was practiced only in the courts of Jerusalem and Samaria and was restricted to a few professional scribes. It is for this reason that scribes were ranked so highly in the administrative apparatus of David and Solomon, as is evident from the three lists of officials of their time (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26; 1 Kgs. 4:2–19). On the other hand, the development of historiography necessarily is connected with the emergence of a wide circle of readers who can appreciate the literary quality of the composition and understand its meaning and objectives. To illustrate this point, I will take a well-known and extensively discussed example — the history of David’s rise to power (henceforth HDR). Many scholars dated its composition to the time of the United Monarchy, regarding it as the “defense” of David written by one of his supporters to throw fa7. For the recently discovered inscriptions, see the literature cited by Lemaire 1988:226, nn. 12–13; for the lmlk stamps, see Lemaire 1988:227, n. 31; for the Arad inscriptions, see Aharoni 1981; for the Siloam inscription, see Donner and Röllig 1968:186–88; Puech 1974: 196–214, with earlier literature.

320


vorable light on his rise to power and to clear him of accusations regarding the deaths of his major opponents (Nabal, Saul, Abner and Ish-Baal). The composition was compared with several inscriptions written in the courts of ancient Near Eastern rulers as a kind of “apology” for what they had done in their tenure of kingship.8 However, all these compositions are royal inscriptions, whose addressee is first and foremost the god before whom the king reported of his deeds. In their form and genre, they are identical to all other ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions and, thus, are entirely different from the HDR. Moreover, an apologetical text written to persuade a contemporary audience calls for a circle of readers acquainted with the events and able to appreciate both the literary qualities of the composition and the arguments raised by its author. One hardly could expect to find such an audience in Jerusalem during the tenth-ninth centuries BCE. It is evident that the HDR was written long after the time of David, during a period when literacy spread in Judah and there emerged an audience that was able to appreciate its subtle literary and religious messages. Once we define the HDR as a literary composition written long after the termination of the events described therein, we must treat it with caution and may question the historical reliability of many of its details. It was noted above that in all ancient cultures, a long period separated the development of a system of writing from the emergence of historiography; and it is clear now that Israel was no exception. The spread of literacy in the course of the eighth century BCE, about two centuries after the introduction of the alphabetical system to the court of Jerusalem, marked the earliest possible date for the onset of historical writing in Israel. 4. These conclusions fit the widely accepted analysis of the date of composition of the Deuteronomistic (henceforth Dtr) history. It is clear that the comprehensive history of the nation from Moses to the reform of Josiah or the Babylonian exile was composed either in the late seventh century BCE or immediately after the destruction and exile of 587/586. More complicated is the problem of the sources on which the author based his composition. Noth (1943) assumed that significant parts of the Books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel had been written at a very early date and, thus, served as reliable ancient sources for the historian. Other scholars followed this line of thought, and there is a great variety of opinion regarding the scope and date of the

8. For the genre of autobiographical apology, see Tadmor 1983:36–57. For comparison of the HDR with the ancient Near Eastern apologetic compositions, see Tadmor 1983:56; McCarter 1980a:493–499; Whitelam 1984:71–76.


321

early literary sources underlying the present text of Joshua-Samuel.9 In any event, in light of the discussion above, these early hypothetical compositions hardly can antedate the eighth century BCE and are, thus, hundreds of years remote from the time when the events described therein took place. Van Seters, on the other hand, suggested that no comprehensive account of the history of Israel was available to the Dtr historian and that he wrote his composition solely on the basis of source material and popular traditions that he collected and integrated into his work. The author developed a distinctive narrative style and by means of a chronological framework created blocks of material, such as the stories of Saul, David’s rise to power, and the Ark Narrative. These literary blocks had no independent existence of their own and were all integral parts of the larger Dtr work (Van Seters 1983). Be that as it may, it is clear that a gap of several centuries separates the date of composition of the conquest narratives from the time to which they are assigned (the early Iron Age). 5. This enormous hiatus explains the many discrepancies between the conquest stories and the archaeological evidence. These discrepancies may be illustrated by the following examples: (a) Many sites either ostensibly conquered by the Israelites (Heshbon, Arad, Ai, Hebron) or mentioned in the conquest stories (Gibeon, Jarmuth) were not occupied in the Late Bronze Age; some were deserted throughout the second millennium BCE (Heshbon, Arad, Ai, Jarmuth). (b) The Late Bronze urban culture was gradually destroyed in a process that lasted for more than a century. For example, the city of Hazor was destroyed in about the mid-thirteenth century, whereas the city of Lachish was razed in the second half of the twelfth century BCE. These data contradict the biblical description, according to which Canaan was conquered in a single campaign conducted by the Israelite tribes under the leadership of Joshua. (c) During the thirteenth and most of the twelfth century BCE (until the reign of Ramesses VI — 1143–1136 BCE), Egypt was deeply involved in Canaan, and cities in the southern and central parts of the lowlands continued to develop under the Egyptian military and administrative umbrella.

9. For the assumed pre-Deuteronomistic material in the Book of Joshua, see, e.g., Alt 1927:13–24; 1936:18–29; 1958:85–109; von Rad 1951; Bright 1960:142–151; Otto 1979:95–103; Mayes 1983:40–57, 133–134, with earlier literature; Sanmartín Ascaso 1986:261–282. For the Books of Judges and Samuel, see the literature cited above, n. 2; Mayes 1983:58–105, with earlier literature.

322


Many archaeological findings indicate the strong Egyptian influence on the material culture of Canaan at this time. However, Egypt is mentioned nowhere in the conquest tradition in the Bible. (d) Many Canaanite cities had been destroyed immediately after the Egyptian withdrawal from the country in the late twelfth century BCE (Beth-shean, Megiddo, Ashdod, Tel Sera‘, Tell el-Far‘ah), and this destruction marks the last stage of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. However, this “conquest” is entirely different from the biblical conquest tradition: The ruined towns are all located in the lowlands (the coast, the Shephelah and the northern plains), outside the territory where the Israelite monarchy was established in the tenth century, and their fall had no direct effect on the “Israelite” settlement in the highlands on both sides of the Jordan. (e) The establishment of the Transjordanian kingdoms of Ammon and Moab, which, according to the conquest tradition, antedated the penetration of the Israelite tribes into the Mishor (“the Plain”) and Gilead, was contemporaneous with the rise of the Israelite monarchy. The kingdom of Edom emerged even later, in the mid-ninth century BCE (2 Kgs. 8:20–22). The conquest tradition of Transjordan was doubtless written at a much later time, when the historical date of the rise of the Transjordanian states was entirely forgotten. 6. Discrepancies between historical reality and biblical narratives are not restricted to the stories of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. Some examples of anachronisms that appear in stories referring to the early monarchic period are presented here to illustrate the enormous time-span that separates the assumed “events” from the date of composition. (a) The city of Mizpah was built and fortified under King Asa (1 Kgs. 15:22) and played an important role as a border fortress of the kingdom of Judah until its destruction in 587/586. Subsequently, Mizpah became the seat of the governor of Judah (Jer. 40–41), playing a central role in the Judean cummunity of the sixth-fifth centuries BCE (Neh 3:7, 15, 19).10 Mizpah’s prominent role

10. For the excavation of Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), see Broshi 1977:912–918, with earlier literature; McClellan 1984:53–69; Finkelstein 1988b:61–63. The site was almost completely excavated, but the excavators were able to distinguish only two periods, each covering a very long time. The entire Iron Age city was uncovered; its fortifications and dwellings were well preserved. However, the date of the buildings and fortifications remains unknown. I very much doubt the assumption that the Iron Age I village of the eleventh century, with its buildings and granaries, survived with minor changes for about 600


323

in the stories of the pre-monarchic (Judg. 20:1, 3; 21:1, 5, 8) and early monarchic periods (1 Sam. 7:5–12, 16; 10:17–25) is an anachronistic reflection of the city’s important position at the time when the stories were composed. (b) The material culture of Beth-shemesh in Iron Age I was distinctively Philistine; the town was certainly included at that time within the territory of the nearby center of Ekron.11 However, according to the Ark Narrative, Beth-shemesh was an Israelite town in the late eleventh century BCE (1 Sam. 6:9, 12–21). It is evident that this narrative anachronistically reflects the situation of the ninth-seventh centuries, when Beth-shemesh was a Judahite town on the border with Philistia (2 Kgs. 14:11).12 (c) Archaeological excavations conducted in major Philistine sites made it clear that a goddess played a major role in the cult of Iron Age I Philistia, whereas, at that time, male god(s) were of minor importance (Dothan 1982:21, 229–251; Gitin and Dothan 1987:202–204; Singer 1989: 26–29, with earlier literature). This deity, having the remarkable traits of a Mother Goddess, was brought by the Philistines from their homeland in Anatolia,13 and subsequently was identified with the Canaanite fertility

years, and that only the fortification and four-room buildings were added later. On the contrary, in all other Judahite and Israelite Iron Age II sites excavated to date, there is a significant development in scope, plan, density of settlement and quality of building relative to the Iron Age I level. The assumption of a very long stagnation in the development of the town is not convincing. It is preferable to assume that (a) the casemate defensive system served during the ninth-eighth centuries BCE (see McClellan 1984:68–69); (b) that the Great Wall was built by the Babylonians in the early sixth century BCE and served until the fifth century; and (c) that only few buildings of Iron Age I were uncovered in the excavations (see McClellan 1984:54). 11. For the Philistine character of Stratum III at Beth-shemesh, see Wright 1975:252 with earlier literature; Ahlström 1984:144. For the city of Ekron in Iron Age I, see Gitin and Dothan 1987:200–205; Dothan 1989:1–22. In light of the new excavations at Ekron and the material culture of Stratum III at Beth-shemesh, it is clear that the latter was included in the eleventh century BCE within the territory of Ekron. Beth-shemesh Stratum III was conquered and destroyed in the course of the Philistine-Israelite struggle at the beginning of the tenth century BCE. The city was then rebuilt and included within the Solomonic administrative system (1 Kgs. 4:9). 12. For the place of Beth-shemesh in the boundary system of the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel, see Na’aman 1988:74. For the post-Exilic date of the Ark Narrative, see Van Seters 1983:346–353; Smelik 1989:128–144; 1992b:35–58. 13. Singer (1989:36–42) has suggested that the Philistine deity should be identified with Kubaba/Kybele, the Magna Mater of Asia Minor in the second and first millennia BCE, and that various attributes of the Anatolian goddess can be detected in Iron Age I strata throughout the coast of Philistia. See also Mendenhall 1986:539–541. For the cult of Astarte/Atargatis at Ashkelon, see Macalister 1911:93–99; Hörig 1979:172, n. 4, 249–254; Delcor 1980:83–92.

324


goddess Astarte (Atargatis of the classical sources). Indeed, the temple of Astarte in Philistia is mentioned as the place where the armor of Saul, the Philistines’ archenemy, was deposited after he was slain in the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:10).14 In the Ark Narrative, on the other hand, the god Dagon appears as the supreme god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:1–7; cf. Judg. 16:23; 1 Chr. 10:10). The central place of Dagon in the Philistine pantheon most probably reflects the Iron Age II period, when Dagon was acknowledged as head of the Philistine pantheon, possibly under the influence of the neighboring West-Semitic kingdoms, which had a male god at the head of their pantheons. It is clear that at the time when the Ark Narrative was written, the supreme role of Astarte in the cult of Iron Age I was no longer remembered, and the author naturally assumed that the divine hierarchy in the early history of the Philistines was the same as that in his own days. (d) Camels are not mentioned at all in ancient Near Eastern sources of the second millennium. They were domesticated in a long and gradual process that took several hundred years and reached an advanced stage in the last third of the second millennium BCE.15 On the basis of the biblical narratives of Gideon and the Midianite pillage of central Palestine (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; 8: 21, 26) and of David and the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:17), it was assumed that large-scale use of camels for trade and military purpose was current at the end of Iron Age I.16 However, excavations of Iron Age I sites throughout the

14. The “house of Astarte” of 1 Sam. 30:10 doubtless refers to a major Philistine temple in Philistia, where the armor of the enemy was consecrated. Indeed, consecration of an unusual or precious booty is well known from ancient Near Eastern documents. According to 1 Samuel 21:10, Goliath’s sword was deposited in the temple of Nob (see also 2 Sam. 8:10–12); see Delcor 1980:84–86, with earlier literature. The suggestion that the “house of Astarte” was located in Beth-shean is, in my opinion, untenable. The temple of the Canaanite city of Beth-shean was hardly a suitable place for depositing the armor of the defeated archenemy of the Philistines. For this opinion, see Stoebe 1973:530; McCarter 1980a:443, with earlier literature; Singer 1989:19–20. 15. For the domestication of the camel, see Bulliet 1975:28–86; de Vaux 1978:221–225; Knauf 1983:147–162, with earlier literature; 1988:9–15; Finkelstein 1988a:246–247. 16. The assumption of a large-scale utilization of camels in the Arabian trade and in combat already in the second millennium BCE is widely accepted. See, e.g., Albright 1970: 198–205; Eissfeldt 1973:94–105; Knauf 1983; Nielsen 1986:22–23; Finkelstein 1988a. Note the cautious and well balanced conclusions of de Vaux (1978:223): “There is sufficient reliable evidence for us to conclude that the camel was known and that it was domesticated in the Near East at least from the end of the second millennium B.C. onwards. On the other hand, there is no evidence before the end of the second millennium of the breeding and keeping of cattle or small livestock and of the use of the camel for caravans and war.”


325

country revealed only a small number of camel bones. The main exception is cIzbet Ṣarṭah, where 102 bone fragments of a minimum number of five individual animals have been discovered. However, because the camel skeletons blocked silos of Stratum II, it is possible that they were a later intrusion (Hellwing and Adjeman 1986:147). Remarkable is the absence of camel bones from Iron Age I strata in major Negebite sites, such as Tel Masos, Tel Beer-sheba and Tell Jemmeh (Wapnish 1981:101–120, and n. 93; Tchernow and Drori 1983:215–221; Hellwing 1984:105–115 [esp. p. 114]). In Tell Jemmeh, a substantial increase in the number of camel bones was detected only in the seventh century BCE (Wapnish 1981:115–120). Thus, one may question the commonly held assumption that the large-scale use of camels by nomadic groups living on the eastern and southern borders of Palestine had already come about in the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE. It seems to me that the wide employment of camels in caravans and for war was contemporaneous with the appearance of the Arabs in the ninth century BCE. The Akkadian word gammalu (“camel”) appears in Assyrian texts from the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) onward; the oldest inscription mentioning Arabs is the inscription listing Gindibu’ the Arab and his 1,000 camels among the participants in the Syro-Palestinian coalition that opposed Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853 BCE (CAD G 35b–36; Lambert 1960: 42–43; Eph‘al 1982:21, 75–77, with earlier literature; Na’aman 1992:86, 88). The camels were brought to the battlefield as a fighting force, though it is not clear what their role might have been in a battle that was mainly fought by chariots and infantry. Another recently published inscription was written by the governor of Suḫu and is dated to about the mid-eighth century BCE (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990:339, 346, 351, 357). It mentions a south Arabian caravan of 200 camels and 100 people that was robbed by the governor in the land of Ḫindanu, on the Middle Euphrates. The list of booty does not include typical Arabian artifacts and it is clear that the caravan brought the merchandise from a non-Arabian region, possibly Syro-Palestine. We may conclude that the domestication of the camel and the development of the cushionsaddle, which allowed the camel-drivers to ride camels in long-distance caravans and in battle, should be dated to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. These developments opened the desert areas of northern and southern Arabia to “proto-Beduin” nomadic groups. It seems to me that the mention of large groups of camel-drivers in the narratives of Gideon and David is an anachronism, reflecting the reality of the time in which these stories had been composed. 7. The problems involved with oral history and the constant change and reinterpretation of oral traditions in the course of transmission, along with

326


the great difference in the concept of history between Israel and western civilizations and the obstacles involved in the use of biblical stories for historical research, have been discussed in great detail in recent research and are not my concern here. They will be taken into account in the course of my analysis of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua. Hundreds of years separate the “conquest events” from the period in which the conquest stories were composed in writing, and written transcription of presumed oral tales may be more informative with regard to the period in which these tales were transcribed than to the time in which they were presumed to have been composed (Kirkpatrick 1988:117). Thus, it is clear that our “sources” (i.e., oral traditions) for the “conquest period” are extremely problematic and should be treated with utmost caution. However, the problems involved with the source material and the literary and theological character of many parts of the Dtr composition should neither lead us to deny its definition as history nor to reject the title “historian” for its author. The Dtr historian tried to reconstruct the remote past of Israel by narrating it according to his belief in the divine course of history and by either using whatever sources he had, or is assumed to have had, for his work. Reconstructing history (i.e., a continuous and contingent chain of past events) by narrating it is a great historiographical achievement, and this exactly is what the Dtr historian has accomplished. The genre selected for the description is a poor criterion for deciding whether an author was interested in “historical” reality (contra Lemche 1988a:53–54, 68; 1988b:62– 65; 1991:158–160). Nor is reliability of the chain of events the sole criterion, becuase, to a great extent, it depends on the source material available to the author. Crucial are the questions of whether he used whatever sources he had for his description and whether he integrated them more or less faithfully within his work. There are various indications that the Dtr historian tried to collect all available sources for his historical reconstruction and that he integrated them within his history. A good indication is the parallel accounts of the same event. Thus, there are several parallel stories of the occupation of the cities of Hebron (Josh. 10:36–37; 14:6–14; 15:13–14; Judg. 1:10; see Josh. 11:21) and Debir (Josh. 10:38–39; 15:15–19; Judg. 1:11–15; see Josh. 11:21) in the conquest narratives. Even if we assume that Judges 1 is a post-Deuteronomistic composition (see below), there still remain enough parallel accounts of the same event, describing the occupation of the Judean hill country by either Joshua or certain Judahite clans. The history of the tribe of Dan in the Shephelah and its migration northward appears in three different accounts (Josh. 19:47 [note the LXX]; Judg. 1:34–35; Judg. 18). Admittedly, the last two may have been written by post-Deuteronomistic authors.


327

In the book of Samuel we find three different accounts of how Saul was made king (1 Sam. 9:1–10:16; 10:17–26; 11). Two narratives explain the proverb “Is Saul, too, among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:10–12; 19:18–24). There are also parallel accounts of David’s arrival at the court of Saul (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 17),17 how he spared Saul’s life (1 Sam. 24; 26), and how he was able to find refuge in the court of Saul’s bitter enemy, the king of Gath (1 Sam. 21:11–16; 27). The Dtr historian placed all these parallel narratives one after the other, in spite of the fact that there are many contradictions and disagreements between them, and did not try to impose a single reconstruction of the chain of events. We should also note certain short accounts of the same event that the Dtr historian placed one after the other. For example: the circumstances of the death of Ish-Baal (2 Sam. 4:6, 7); the court of David (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26); the prophecy of Jehu son of Hanani on the fall of the house of Baasha (1 Kgs. 16:1–4, 7); the death of Athaliah (2 Kgs. 11:16, 20); the murder of Joash king of Judah (2 Kgs. 12:21, 22a); and the scope of Jeroboam II’s conquests (2 Kgs. 14: 25, 28a). There are also parallel prophetic stories relating to major events in the history of Israel and Judah, which were incorporated within the Book of Kings. Such are the accounts of the deliverance of Samaria from Ben-Hadad king of Aram (1 Kgs. 20:1–21; 2 Kgs. 6:24–7:20)18 and the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian siege (2 Kgs. 18:17–19:9a, 36; 19:9b– 35).19 Finally, I wish to mention the attachment of two descriptions, one in prose and one in poetry, of the same event. Such are the accounts of both the battle of Kishon (Judg. 4 and 5) and the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31 and 2 Sam. 1:17–27). It seems to me that, in both cases, the song was the source for the prose account (Halpern 1983a:379–401; 1983b:41–73; 1988:76–103) and that it was the Dtr historian who decided to present them side by side, assigning the poetry to the hero of the narrative. As is well known, Greek historians since Herodotus frequently quote several accounts of a single event, remarking that “others tell the following story” (Licht 1983:107–108). It seems to me that the Dtr historian used this historiographical device to present before his audience his divergent sources 17. For a more accurate demarcation of the parallel narratives in 1 Samuel, see McCarter 1980a; 1980b; 1984:passim. 18. For the parallel prophetic legends of the siege of Samaria in 1 Kgs. 20:1–21 and 2 Kgs. 6:24–7:20, see Lipiński 1979:85, 90; Na’aman 1991:86–87. 19. For the parallel prophetic stories of the siege and miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem, see Honor 1926:35–61; Childs 1967:69–103; Clements 1980:52–63; Gonçalves 1986:331–487.

328


on whose authenticity he either did not wish to decide or was unable to do so. He used part of his sources more or less as he found them, and his narrative presents his own harmonistic solution to the diversity of the sources. Admittedly, some of the examples presented above may have come from the pen of post-Dtr authors. There are, however, enough undisputed examples to demonstrate that the “double account” was the result of the historian’s authentic interest in describing the event “as it really was.” In this respect, the Dtr historian had an entirely different historical attitude toward his source material than the Chronicler, who always gave only one description of a given event. On the other hand, the authors of the Pentateuch used the same narrative technique as the Dtr historian and, thus, are much closer to him than to the Chronicler.20 Another indication of the genuine antiquarian interest in past events is the formula “until this day.”21 The use of similar formulae is known from the writings of Greek historians when they sought to affirm that they were personal eyewitnesses to what they describe. In the Bible, the formula functions in a similar manner — as a personal testimony — added to, and confirming, a received tradition (Childs 1963:292). Admittedly, parts of these formulae were secondarily added to the stories by late redactors. However, there are enough original citations in the Dtr history to support the claim that the formula “until this day” marks a special effort of the author to affirm the authenticity of episodes portrayed in his composition. A third indication is the author’s respect for his written sources and the way in which he drew heavily on their words. The number of original documents at his disposal that were dated to the time of the monarchy was quite small, and the information included therein was limited — both in scope and theme. The way in which he cited these sources is remarkable: He inserted them in between narratives, even when they interrupted the chain of events, citing them in full, even though on many occasions they were dull, lengthy registrations that did not add anything substantial either to the narratives or to their religious message. Moreover, in many cases, he made far-fetched inferences from his sources to other vague or unknown situations. All these indicate a genuine antiquarian interest in the past and an effort to reconstruct history “as it really was.”

20. On the double accounts of the same event in the Pentateuch, see recently Whybray 1987:74–80, with earlier literature. 21. For the etiological narratives in the Old Testament, see Seeligmann 1961:141–169; Childs 1963:279–292; 1974:387–397; Long l968, with earlier literature; Golka 1976:410–428; 1977:36–47; van Dyk 1990.


329

8. Malamat (1983:303–306) suggested that the historical period of Israel began about the mid-twelfth century BCE, when the Israelite tribes were established in Palestine and Israel first became an integral ethnic and territorial entity. However, in the mid–12th century the settlement process was in its initial stage, and it is inconceiveable that at this time Israel was already a vast, ethnically unified entity. The assumed emergence of tribal territories and the consolidation of the Israelite tribes may possibly be dated to the late eleventh century, shortly before the foundation of the monarchy. Second, and even more important, the line between prehistory and history is demarcated by the availability of written sources, not by the actual settlement process. There are many peoples who settled in their countries for hundreds of years and established states and institutions, but left no records, so that their history is entirely obscure. The history of other peoples, on the other hand, began even before they settled and became territorial nations. It is evident that the pre-monarchial period is marked by a lack of literary activity and must be regarded as a prehistorical stage. Israel entered the proto-historical stage in the time of David and Solomon, when professional scribes entered the court of Jerusalem and began writing documents for administrative purpose. It was only in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE that Israel entered into the realm of history, when literacy spread in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the earliest works of the history of Israel were composed. The “Conquest Period” should be included in the prehistory of Israel; the immense problems involved with the historical investigation of the conquest narratives are the direct result of this literary situation.

The Settlement in the Hill Country: A Local Development or Infiltration from Without? Nomads in the Late Bronze Age One of the basic concepts in biblical historical consciousness is that the Israelites entered Canaan from outside (Weippert 1973:418–421; Soggin 1984: 139, 156–157. For a recent discussion of the problem, see Whitelam 1989:19– 42). The claim that the land was conquered by force due to divine guidance and help is the outcome of this basic concept. The Heilsgeschichte of Israel from its early beginnings down to its settlement in Canaan depends on this belief. The claim of a migration and penetration from outside is remarkable; one would rather expect a nation to emphasize its antiquity in the land, which better supports its right to this land. One may, of course, suggest that the concept developed in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods, to emphasize the

330


rights of the Returnees of Zion to the land: Like their ancestors, who conquered and settled Canaan, they also entered the land from outside and were entitled to hold it. The biblical tradition of the origins of Israel and the entrance to Canaan from without is the opposite of the new interpretations of the settlement and conquest processes, according to which the Israelite nation emerged from autochthonous elements of the Late Bronze Age. Details of this process are disputed among scholars. Some suggested that the highlands population of Iron Age I originated either from the disintegrating urban-rural population of Canaan who found shelter in the hill country22 or from the rural-nomadic population of the hill country (de Geus 1976:164–181; Halpern 1983c:47–106; Coote and Whitelam 1987:117–138; cf. Stager 1985:3–4). Others hold the view that the new settlers were semi-nomads who either lived in symbiotic relations with the Canaanite city-states (Fritz 1981:61–73; 1987:84–100) or wandered in the hill country and its eastern periphery during the Late Bronze Age and settled in Iron Age I following the destruction of the Canaanite urban system (Finkelstein 1988b:336–351; 1990:682–685).23 It goes without saying that local elements — in particular the urban, rural and pastoral groups who lived in the hill country — participated in the settlement process and formed part of the new rural-pastoral society of the early Iron Age. The mixture of old and new elements is particularly prominent in the hill country of Manasseh, as scholars suggested long ago (Alt 1939:8–13; de Vaux 1978:635–640; Finkelstein 1988b:80–91, 348–351). However, the remarkable biblical historical memory of migration from remote areas to the Land of Canaan should be investigated in detail to determine whether all the groups that settled in the hill country and its periphery were indeed of local Canaanite origin. The destruction of the Middle Bronze Age urban culture in the sixteenthearly fifteenth centuries BCE brought about large-scale nomadization of population groups throughout Canaan. Northern groups (mainly Hurrians) migrated at that time and entered Canaan via the Syro-African Rift Valley (de Vaux 1967:481–497; 1978:83–89; Na’aman 1982:180–182; Finkelstein 1988:339– 345). The size of the urban population in Late Bronze Age I Canaan had been drastically reduced, in comparison to the Middle Bronze Age III population,

22. Mendenhall 1962:66–87; Gottwald 1979, passim; Lemaire 1982:20–24; Chaney 1983: 39–90; Callaway 1985:31–49; Lemche 1985:416–437. For a more flexible reconstruction, which takes into account a movement of Canaanite and non-Canaanite groups into the hill country, see Ahlström 1986:11–36 (esp. pp. 35–36). 23. It goes without saying that this model is closely related to Alt’s classical model of peaceful infiltration and gradual sedentarization and occupation of the land. See Alt 1953: 89–125; 1939:8–63.


331

and the number of nomadic elements considerably increased in these years. It would be a serious mistake, however, to assume that the number of nomads remained unchanged for a long time, until the beginning of Iron Age I, and that the transition from Middle Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age II is marked only by a shift in the balance between urban-rural and nomadic populations (Finkelstein 1988b:341–345. For a detailed discussion of the problem, see Bunimovitz 1989:162–178.). This assumption ignores the problem of the subsistence of the pastoral groups, who are economically dependent on the settled population. The disruption of the balance between these two sectors brings about a lack of grain and other food products for the nomadic sector. Thus, it is clear that the drastic reduction in the scope of the urban sector in the Late Bronze Age exerted enormous economic pressure on the pastoral groups, and they were forced either to migrate or to produce grain for their living. Indeed, ancient Near Eastern documents indicate that following serious crises in the urban culture and temporary growth of the pastoral element in the population, the pastoral groups tend to settle down, and the balance between the urban-rural and nomadic groups is gradually restored. It goes without saying that the pastoral sector never disappears completely; the economy of the urban and nomadic populations is symbiotically interconnected and the two elements coexist side by side at all times (Rowton 1973a: 201–215; 1973b:247–258; 1974:1–30). One may further point out that, according to nineteenth-early twentieth century CE censuses, the nomadic sector numbered about 10–15% of the population and its size increased steadily in proportion to the growth of the entire population (Bachi 1977:378–381, 392–395; Shmueli 1980:26–56, 73–74; Avneri 1980:13–31; Ben-Arieh 1988:1–14, with earlier literature in n. 1). It is true that, in other periods, the ratio between the sedentary and the nomadic populations could have been different. There are, however, indications that the transition from Middle Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age II was marked by a drastic decline in the population. Bunimovitz suggested that a shortage of manpower was a major problem for the city-state rulers in the Late Bronze Age, and he regarded attempts at territorial expansion as having been motivated by the desire to control larger human resources (Bunimovitz 1989:153–160).24 This is confirmed by the remarkable difference in large-scale public works between the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze Age. During the Middle Bronze, enormous ramparts and stone and earth revetments had been built in all cities of Canaan. These earth, brick and stone constructions required the lengthy conscription of

24. For the relation of the control of human resources and political power, see Marfoe 1979:16–17.

332


thousands of workers, and it is clear that the human resources were abundant. In the Late Bronze, on the other hand, cities either were totally fortified or had no more than a renovation of the Middle Bronze defense system. The almost total lack of new fortification projects in Late Bronze Canaan was the direct result of the shortage of human resources. We may recall that nomads were liable for public works, at least in return for food and salary. Thus, the lack of fortification works supports the claim of a drastic reduction in the overall population of Canaan — including the nomadic sector — during the Late Bronze Age. The gradual growth in the number of settlements during Late Bronze Age II-III may have been due partly to the integration of some nomadic elements into the Canaanite city-state system (Gonen 1984:61–73; Bunimovitz 1989:75– 100, 167–175). It seems also that the “northern” elements that entered Canaan in the sixteenth-early fifteenth centuries BCE adopted the local urban culture and were gradually absorbed by the local population. For this reason, it is difficult to find distinct Hurrian names in the large corpus of biblical names (de Vaux 1967:481–503; 1978:83–89, 136–137; Zadok 1985:397; Na’aman 1988:44). We may conclude that the balance between the urban-rural and nomadic elements was gradually restored; the latter may well have constituted no more than 10–15% of the overall population of Late Bronze Age II Canaan. Archaeological indications for nomads in the Late Bronze Age are scanty: several cemeteries (Gonen 1992:148–149) and a few cultic sites (Finkelstein 1988b:343–344). Some of the shrines, located near urban centers, may have functioned as part of the urban cult and should not be taken as evidence of the presence of independent nomadic groups. This is indicated by comparison to the Akitu temples in Mesopotamia (Falkenstein 1959:147–182; van Driel 1969: 162–165), or the many out-of-town cultic sites in Anatolia (Gurney 1977:35– 43, with earlier literature). The fact that all Late Bronze Age I outdoor temples on both sides of the Jordan disappered in Late Bronze Age II (Tell Kittan, Tell el-Ḥayyat, Shiloh and possibly Tel Mevorakh) is remarkable. It is evident that the cultic sites were gradually abandoned when the nomadic groups either migrated or settled down. It was only in the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE that new outdoor temples were built on both sides of the Jordan (Amman, Tell Deir cAlla, Mount Ebal, the “Bull Site”) indicating the growth of the nomadic population in the peripheral areas of Canaan at that time. The overall archaeological evidence for pastoral groups in Late BronzeAge II Canaan is poor and supports my suggestion that the ratio between the sedentary and nomadic elements in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries was somewhat similar to (or, at least, not very different from) that in the Middle Bronze. Documents of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries mention various bands and clans that appear in all areas of Canaan and are called by various names: Shasu (in Egyptian sources), Sutu (in cuneiform sources) and ‘Apiru


333

(Bottéro 1954; Greenberg 1955; Giveon 1971; Weippert 1974:265–280, 427– 433; Na’aman 1986:271–288, with earlier literature in n. 1; Knauf 1988:97– 124). These elements operated on many occasions as independent groups and sometimes attacked and sacked their neighbors; at other times, they cooperated with local rulers against their neighbors. Sometimes they became a real threat to city-state rulers and, therefore, were regarded as enemies of the Pharaoh and the Egyptian authorities in Canaan. Soldiers recruited from among them served in the armies of the local kingdoms and played an important role in internal relations. It must be emphasized that almost all the groups mentioned in the documents operated in the fertile lowlands, within the framework of Canaanite kingdoms, and should be regarded as part of the society of the Late Bronze Age. Bands and displaced individual were gradually reintegrated into the Canaanite urban society, whereas other people were uprooted and sometimes formed new groups of outlaws (Bottéro 1981: 93–106; Na’aman, 1986:272–273). To sum up, the overall number of Late Bronze nomads on the periphery of Palestine is unknown. A rough approximation of about 7,000–10,000 (10–15% of the overall estimated population) may give some general idea of their size. The number of nomads increased in the thirteenth century, following the destruction of Canaanite urban centers, and rose to new heights in the twelfth century with the destruction of the Late Bronze urban civilization in vast Near Eastern areas (see below). Thus, there is no way to establish the role of the Late Bronze II nomads in the settlement process of the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE.

Nomadization and Migration in the Twelfth Century BCE The settlement in the peripheral areas of Canaan was contemporaneous with the destruction of the urban culture in the entire Aegean-AnatolianSyro-Palestinian region and the migration of large population groups to remote areas. The relationship between these historical processes should be discussed in detail to clarify their possible effect on the growth of settlement in Canaan in Iron Age I. Documentary evidence indicates the appearance of large groups of nomads on the boundaries of Mesopotamia in the late twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE. An indication of the situation in Syria and southern Anatolia after the severe destructions of the twelfth century and the massive migration that followed appears in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I, king of Assyria (1114–1076 BCE). Shortly after his ascendance to the throne, he fought large groups (20,000 people according to his annals) of the “Mushki,” i.e., the Phrygians, who wandered from the Balkans to the east (Herodotus, VII 73; see Barnett 1975a:417–442), destroying and despoiling on their way many settlements all over Anatolia and reaching the borders of Assyria in the

334


upper Tigris region. Tiglath-pileser described how he defeated them, captured 6,000 of their forces and settled them in his kingdom (Grayson 1976:6– 7). In the next year, he fought and defeated groups of the Kashka, a tribal confederation that migrated eastward from northern Anatolia, near the Black Sea, where they had lived for hundreds of years in the time of the Hittite empire (Grayson 1976:9. For the Kashka, see von Schuler 1965.). In the fourth year of his reign, Tiglath-pileser fought the aḫlamu Arameans (“the Aramean pastoralists”), who spread along the Euphrates from the Babylonian northern border up to Carchemish (for the Aḫlamu, see Brinkman 1968:277, n. 1799, with earlier literature; Zadok 1985:59, 65–67; 1991:104–110). According to his annals, he defeated them and pursued them up to Mount Bishri in northeast Syria (Grayson 1976:13–14). In his later inscriptions, he described his campaign against these nomadic groups (possibly in his seventeenth year), as follows (Grayson 1976:27): I have crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the aḫlamu Arameans. I brought about their defeat from the city of Tadmor of the land of Amurru, Anat of the land Suḫu, as far as Rapiqu of Karduniash (i.e., Babylon). I brought their booty (and) possessions to my city Ashur.

The aḫlamu Arameans are never mentioned before the time of Tiglathpileser I (although the Aḫlameans appear in fourteenth-thirteenth century Mesopotamian sources); they suddenly appear at the end of the twelfth century in vast Syro-Mesopotamian areas, as far as the coast of Lebanon. The Arameans are mentioned for the first time in an Assyrian chronicle that describes the events of years 33–34 of Tiglath-pileser I and also in the inscriptions of his son Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BCE). They are referred to in a Babylonian chronicle, in a passage describing events of the days of Adadapla-iddina, king of Babylon (1069–1048 BCE).25 From that time, the Arameans played an important role in the history of Mesopotamia and Syria. The campaigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings conducted against the Arameans in the course of the eleventh-tenth centuries BCE did not meet significant success, and the two kingdoms gradually ceded vast regions in northern and southern Mesopotamia. The Arameans settled in the evacuated areas and started establishing independent kingdoms in Upper Mesopotamia and along the Middle Euphrates.26 Other Aramean kingdoms were established

25. See the references cited by Neumann and Parpola 1987:178–179. For a historical discussion, see Brinkman 1968:135–144. 26. See the following discussions: Kupper 1957:115–131; Brinkman 1968:124–155, 267– 268, 387–389; Postgate 1974:233–237; 1985:96–101; Garelli and Nikiprowetzky 1974:54–61, 217–229; Zadok 1985:81–85; 1991:113–117.


335

in southern Syria and northern Transjordan (Aram Zobah, Aram Damascus, Tob, Geshur and Maacah). Aramaic toponyms and personal names do not antedate the eleventh century, and it is clear that we are dealing with newly established groups that started playing an important role in the history of Syria and Mesopotamia only from the late second millennium BCE (Zadok 1985:59– 70; 1991:104–117). The Mesopotamian documents indicate that an enormous population displacement was taking place as a result of the destruction of the urban culture in vast areas of Hither Asia, and that many thousands of people joined the nomadic sector in the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE. Other well-documented migrations of large population groups are known from Mesopotamian and Egyptian documents (and to a certain extent from Anatolian and Syrian documents) of the third and second millennia BCE. The best known of these migrating peoples are the Mardu of the UR III Dynasty (Gelb 1961:29–35; Buccellati 1966), the West-Semites of the Old Babylonian period (Kupper 1957:261–263; Gelb 1961:34–36; Anbar 1985:177), the Kassites (Landsberger 1954:61–72; Rowton 1976:24–30; Brinkman 1976–80:464–473; Zadok 1987: 16–20), the Hyksos (Albright 1954:222–233; Bietak 1980:93–103; 1984:474– 475, with earlier literature in n. 27; 1991:53–62, with earlier literature), and the Hurrians in the seventeenth-fifteenth centuries BCE (Draffkorn 1959; Kupper 1978:117–128; Astour 1978:1–9, with earlier literature; Wilhelm 1982: 9–3; Zadok 1987:21–24). The entry of new ethnic groups into a certain region is usually indicated by the appearance of personal names of foreign origin, but sometimes also by distinctive archaeological evidence (e.g., the Khirbet Kerak people,27 the Hyksos [in Egypt], and the Philistines). The above-mentioned historical episodes point to a clear shortcoming in the current theory, which argues that the major processes of downfall of urban cultures, nomadization of large population groups, and the gradual emergence of new urban cultures had taken place in Canaan in isolation from other areas of the ancient Near East. The main flaw in this assumption is the exaggerated reduction in the size of the region affected by these largescale events. Within the entire region delimited in the south by the SyroArabian Desert and the Sinai Peninsula, in the west by the Mediterranean, in the north by the Amanus and Taurus ranges and in the east by the Kurdistan and Zagros ranges, there are hardly any natural barriers that interrupt close contacts among its inhabitants (Rowton 1973b:248–249). In normal peaceful situations, contacts between nomads and urban-rural dwellers were made in

27. For the Khirbet Kerak ware, see Mellaart 1966:73–89; Todd 1973:181–206; Burney 1989:331–339; Yakar 1990:94*–100*.

336


relatively limited areas (the so-called “dimorphic zones”) (Rowton 1973a).28 However, in periods of widespread decline of the urban systems — like the downfall of the Early Bronze urban system in the late third millennium, the demolition of many Syro-Anatolian kingdoms in the seventeenth-sixteenth centuries, and the total destruction of the urban system in Anatolia and SyroPalestine in the twelfth century BCE — the processes of uprooting and nomadization were greatly accelerated, and population groups might have migrated to distant areas. Moreover, in no other period in the history of the ancient Near East was the disruption of urban culture in Anatolia and Syro-Palestine so all-inclusive and complete as in the twelfth century BCE. The kingdom of Ebla survived the destructions of the late third millennium BCE and formed a sort of barrier to large-scale migration of northern elements into Canaan in the the late third millennium BCE. The kingdom of Yamḫad (Ḫalab) and its satellite kingdoms survived the destructions of the seventeenth/sixteenth centuries BCE, though on a much reduced scale, and many Canaanite kingdoms suffering devastations in the sixteenth-early fifteenth centuries gradually recovered and are known to have existed throughout the Late Bronze Age. In the twelfth century, on the other hand, all Anatolian and Syrian kingdoms (save for Carchemish and Melid) were utterly sacked with no recovery. The wave of destruction reached as far as the Aegean and the Balkan regions. No wonder that groups of Sea Peoples reached both the coast of Canaan and the western Mediterranean.29 The settlement process in Palestine in the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE was synchronous with an enormous wave of migration, whose results were felt in all areas of Western Asia and in large parts of the Mediterranean. The claim that there was a limited reservoir of manpower in the peripheral areas of Canaan and that the settlement was necessarily an inter-Palestinian process (Gottwald 1979:441–473; Chaney 1983:39–46; Lemche 1985:386–406, 411–413) ignores the historical moment in which the settlement was taking place. Documentary evidence indicates that large-scale migration in the Syro-Mesopotamian areas was taking place during Iron Age I, and it seems that various groups (i.e., Sea Peoples and other Syro-Anatolian bands, as well as West-Semitic Syro-Mesopotamian pastoral groups) reached the Land of Canaan in this period. We may conclude that the penetration and settlement

28. Lemche 1985:84–201 criticized the concept of dimorphism, suggesting the term “polymorphous society” (1985:198). 29. For a comprehensive study of the Sea Peoples, see Barnett 1975b:359–378; Strobel 1976; Sandars 1978; Helck 1979:132–144; Schachermeyr 1982; Brug 1985; Singer 1988:239– 250.


337

of “northern” groups played an important role in the settlement process in Canaan the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE.

Migration from the Former Hittite Empire to Canaan in Iron Age I Five ethnic groups of “northern” origin are mentioned in the biblical tradition of the seven nations dispossessed by the Israelites: Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Girgashites and Perizzites (Mazar [Maisler] 1930:80–82; Mendenhall 1974:142–163; Mazar 1981:75–85). The Hittites are mentioned in conjunction with the city of Hebron (Gen. 23), in a late, fictive story that is usually assigned to the P source. The three benê/yelîdê hā‘ănāq — Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai — whose names are non-Semitic, may have been members of a northern migrating group that settled at Hebron (Num. 13:22; Josh. 15:14; Judg. 1: 10). Ahimelech the Hittite (1 Sam. 26:6) and Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11; 23: 39) served in the army of David. Uriah lived in Jerusalem, and, if he were born there, he might have been a Jebusite. However, both Ahimelech and Uriah may as well have been members of David’s band, which moved with his “mighty men” from Hebron to Jerusalem after its conquest. The marriage of Esau to Hittite women (Gen. 26:34; 27:46; 36:2) is mentioned in texts that are assigned to the P source and possibly reflects the close contacts between the inhabitants of southern Judah and Edom in the Persian period. Thus, it is possible that some Anatolian groups migrated and settled in the hills of Judah and that post-Exilic scribes, who were aware of their early settlement in the area, called the autochthonous population of the Judean hill country by the name “Hittites” (see below).30 The Hivites most probably arrived from Que (Cilicia), which was known in ancient times by the name Ḫuwe (Albright 1950:22–25; Görg 1976:53– 55). They settled near the Liṭani River, between the mountainous ranges of Hermon and Lebanon (Josh. 11:3; Judg. 3:3; 2 Sam. 24:7), in western Benjamin (Josh. 9:7), and possibly also in the area of Shechem (if we may trust the late fictive story of Gen. 34:2). The Jebusites destroyed the Canaanite city of Jerusalem and settled there in Iron Age I. Their exact place of origin remains unknown, but they apparently came from the Hittite empire, as may be inferred from the words of Ezekiel on the Hittite origin of Jerusalem (Ezek. 16:3, 45) and the Hurrian/ Hittite name (or title) Araunah/Auarnah (2 Sam. 24:16–25) (Mazar [Maisler] 1930:80–82; 1936:189–191; Rosen 1955:318–320; McCarter 1980a:512, with ear-

30. For the Hittites in the Bible, see Maisler 1930:76–82; 1936:189–191; Forrer 1936:190– 203; 1937:100–115; Hoffner 1969:27–55; 1973:213–221; Kempinski 1979:21–45.

338


lier literature; Abramski 1985:55–56; Wyatt 1985).31 The Girgashites came from Karkisha in western Anatolia (Mendenhall 1974:145; del Monte and Tischler 1978:182–183). The location of their domain in Canaan remains unknown. The origin of the Perizzites is unknown, but, like the other four groups, they possibly migrated from the area of the former Hittite empire and settled at some unknown place(s) in Canaan (for the Perizzites in the Bible, see Na’aman 1988:42–44, with earlier literature). Only two of the seven pre-Israelite nations represent the autochthonous population of the country: Canaanites and Amorites (though the latter is an archaic non-historical name). The rest bear names of splinter groups that migrated to Canaan in the twelfth century and settled there side by side with the settlements of local and migrating West-Semitic groups (the so-called “Israelites”). The lack of mention of the prominent Egyptian presence in Canaan in the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE; the omission of the Hurrians (one of the most distinctive population groups of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age) from the list of pre-Israelite nations (Finkelstein 1988b: 339–345; de Vaux 1967:481–497; 1978:83–89; Na’aman 1982:180–182; Anbar and Na’aman 1986–1987:3–12, with earlier literature); and the inclusion in the list of pre-Israelite nations of groups which entered Canaan at the same time as the “Israelites” — all these clearly indicate how vague and mistaken the memory of the early history of Israel was when the early traditions of Israel were composed in writing. We may conclude that the quake caused by the wave of the Sea Peoples and the destruction of the urban culture in the Syro-Anatolian zone brought about the migration of groups of uprooted fugitives southward, groups who gradually destroyed the rest of the urban centers in Syria and Canaan. Some of the migrants gradually settled in northern and central Syria, establishing in the eleventh-tenth centuries the kingdoms termed “Hittite” in the Assyrian sources and in the Bible (Gen. 10:15; Josh. 1:4; 1 Kgs. 10:29; 11:1; 2 Kgs. 7:6), and Neo-Hittite (or Syro-Hittite) by modern scholars (Landsberger 1948:12– 40; Hawkins 1974:67–83; 1982:372–441). Others migrated southward along the Syro-African Rift Valley and reached Canaan. This wave of uprooted people may well have caused the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan (as a sort of “last straw that broke the camel’s back”). At first, the Egyptians were able to

31. According to Fuss (1962:162–163), Araunah was the name of the threshing floor on which a local Jebusite cult etiology was told, and the author derived the proper name from the toponym’s name. Whether the Jebusites have anything to do with either the Amorite clan Yabasa of the Mari tablets or the Amorite proper name Yabusum is not clear. See Forrer 1936:199–200; Huffmon 1965:177; Mendenhall 1974:145.


339

withstand the pressure of the Sea Peoples, who arrived by sea and along the Mediterranean coast in the time of Ramesses III (1184–1153 BCE), and, for a while, consolidated their rule in Canaan. The penetration of new groups of fugitives, whose entry must have been attended by plunder and destruction, decided the issue. In the time of Ramesses VI (1143–1136 BCE), the Egyptians were obliged to retreat and to abandon the Canaanite cities that, until then, were entirely dependent on their military strength. The latter soon fell victim to the various groups that were active at that time in Canaan (Sea Peoples, migrants from the Hittite empire, West-Semitic pastoral groups and local bands of cApiru) and were sacked and utterly destroyed. The northern migrants settled down along their line of march: Hivites resided near the Liṭani Valley, northwest of Jerusalem, and possibly near Shechem (if we may trust the fictive story of Gen. 34:2). The Jebusites destroyed Jerusalem and established themselves there, and “Hittites” possibly dwelt in the hill country of Judah. Other northern groups settled in various hill country sites, as indicated by the Khirbet Raddana “Hittite” krater (Callaway and Cooley 1971:15–19). Mendenhall even suggested that the Transjordanian kingdoms of Sihon and Og were founded by similar northern groups (Mendenhall 1974:151, 160), but his view lacks concrete foundations. It must be emphasized that the sources for the location of these northern groups are usually late and legendary and, therefore, should be treated with great caution. Thus, it is possible that some of this “evidence” is no more than literary constructions that do not reflect the ancient reality. Such are the narratives of the settlement of Hivites at Shechem (Gen. 34) and at Gibeon (Josh. 9), along with that of Hittites at Hebron (Gen. 23). Even more problematic are the names and titles assigned in these late narratives to their institutions and leaders: “people of the land” and “Hittites” at Hebron (Gen. 23), “elders” at Gibeon (Josh. 9), and “nāśi’ of the land”and “men of their city” at Shechem (Gen. 34:2). Elders may well have been the central institution in their villages (but see 2 Sam. 24:16) (Mazar 1981:78; Abramski 1985:55–56), but one must be extremely cautious about the exact nature of the institutions that are mentioned in such late legendary texts. The paucity of artifacts of “northern” origin in Iron Age I sites ostensibly raises doubts as to the northern origin of their inhabitants. However, there are no exact rules about the relationship between material culture and ethnicity. Sometimes migrants retain their original cultural traditions; in other cases they adopt the local culture and leave no sign of their origin in the material culture. The Khirbet Kerak-people, the Hyksos (in Egypt) and the Philistines illustrate the former case. On the other hand, there is hardly any sign in the material culture of the northern origin of the Hurrians and other northern groups that reached Canaan in the sixteenth-early fifteenth centu-

340


ries BCE (for a detailed discussion of this problem, see Na’aman 1994). For example, one-third of the names mentioned in the Taanach letters of the late fifteenth century are “northern” (Glock 1971:17–30), but the Canaanite material culture of Late Bronze Taanach does not disclose any northern element. It is worth noting that the migration of these mid-second millennium northern groups is particularly instructive, because their origin, their route of migration (via the Syro-African Rift Valley), and their distribution in Canaan are quite similar to those of the northern groups of the twelfth century BCE. Another example is that of the deportees brought to Palestine by the Assyrians in the late eighth-seventh centuries BCE. According to biblical and Assyrian sources, thousands of deportees of various origins (Arameans, Babylonians, Iranians, Arabs, Elamites) were exiled to the country at that time,32 but these ethnic groups, which settled in various parts of the country, are not reflected in the material culture of the period. However, the best example is that of the Assyrian merchants who lived in Cappadocia in the nineteenth-early eighteenth centuries BCE. They dwelt in Anatolian houses, used local pottery and adopted other elements of the local material culture. It is only from the information provided in tablets and seals that their long presence in Anatolia can be clearly detected (Mellaart in Adams 1974:252–253).33 We may conclude that only written sources reliably disclose the migrating peoples of the late second millennium BCE and their origin. Material culture may also indicate their presence in the country, but no negative conclusions can be drawn from the lack of positive evidence (see Kramer 1977: 91–112; London 1989:37–55, with earlier literature).34

Famine and Migration in the late Thirteenth-Eleventh Centuries BCE Famine played an important role in the large-scale migrations of the late thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE. Documents from Hattusha, Ugarit and Egypt indicate severe food shortage in the closing decades of the Hittite empire, culminating in a disastrous famine (Wainwright 1959:197–203; 1960:24– 28; Klengel 1974:165–174; Singer 1983:4–5). The efforts of the Hittite rulers to overcome the food shortage by organizing and expediting consignments of grains from Egypt and northern Syria to the areas stricken by famine did

32. For the Assyrian deportations, see Oded 1979. For the Assyrian deportation to Palestine, see Na’aman and Zadok 1988:36–46; Na’aman 1989:43–62, with earlier literature. 33. For further examples of a later date, see Isserlin 1982:9–24; 1983:89. 34. For further evidence of “northern” influence on the Iron Age I material culture of Palestine, see Beck 1990.


341

not meet with lasting success. The severe famine played an important role in the Sea Peoples’ movements; the exhausted Hittite empire was unable to halt them and, in a relatively short time, fell prey to their assaults (Wainwright 1959; Singer 1985:122–123; 1988:243–244). Herodotus (I 94) reported that the Tyrsenoi (most probably identical with the Tursha, one of the groups of the Sea Peoples) migrated from Lydia to Italy after they had suffered severe famine for eighteen years, and there they became known as Etruscans (Wainwright 1959:197–213; Strobel 1976:182–190, with earlier literature). Further evidence of drought and severe famine in the eleventh century appears in the Assyrian and Babylonian sources (Brinkman 1968:124–130, 387–389; Neumann and Parpola 1987:171–182). Remarkable in these documents is the concentration of natural catastrophes that caused severe food shortages, obliging the pastoral groups to obtain food supplies by raids on the settled areas. The nomadic razzias brought about the destruction and abandonment of many cities and villages in the two kingdoms. Neumann and Parpola suggested that there is evidence of a long-term climatic change in vast areas of Europe, Asia, and Africa ca. 1200–900 BCE and that its cumulative effects make it a factor of the utmost historical significance. In their opinion, the climatic change affected the economies and stability of the organized states and brought about massive, devastating incursions of nomads into Mesopotamia, forays that are evident from the Assyrian and Babylonian sources of the twelfth-eleventh centuries (Neumann and Parpola 1987:161– 182).35 Against this background, we may better understand the sources referring to Canaan of the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE. In a letter found at Aphek, the Ugaritic commissioner asks the Egyptian prefect of Canaan to restore to him a consignment of fifteen metric tons of wheat. International commerce in the Late Bronze Age was usually confined to luxury goods; a transaction involving grain must have been the result of unusual circumstances, i.e., of the drought and famine in that period (Singer 1983:4–5).36 Later, Merneptah (1212–1202 BCE) sent ships with grain to Hatti (Wainwright 1983:24–28). The ostraca of the time of Ramesses III unearthed at Lachish and Tel Serac, in which large quantities of grain are mentioned, may well reflect an Egyptian effort to store grain in face of the long drought and famine (Goldwasser 1984: 77–93).

35. For a general historical survey, see Wiseman 1975:443–481. 36. Lemche (1985:423) was unaware of the large scope of the droughts and famine and noted that “we have no sources which relate that there was famine because of drought in Palestine during the period between 1500 and 1000.”

342


Papyrus Anastasi VI presents the form in which an official on the eastern border of Egypt might have reported to his overseer (Wilson 1969a:259). The passage merits being cited in full: We have finished letting the Shasu of Edom pass the Fortress of Mer-ne-Ptah — life, prosperity, health! — which is in Tjeko, to the pools of Per-Atum of Mer-ne-Ptah Hotephir-Maat, which are in Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive, through the great ka of Pharaoh . . .

The Egyptians allowed nomadic groups to enter their country, carefully supervising their comings and goings (Wilson 1969a:258; Alt 1936:26–33). It is against this background that we may gain a better understanding of the biblical traditions of the Patriachs’ migrations to Egypt. It is said of Abram (Gen. 12:10), “Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land.” The motif of a famine is mentioned again in the narrative cycle of Isaac (Gen. 26:1) and is emphasized particularly in the cycle stories of Joseph. It seems to me that in the background of these narratives was the vague historical memory of the long period of drought and famine throughout Western Asia in the last quarter of the second millennium BCE. The shortage of grain supply in Canaan became particularly acute following the destruction of the Canaanite urban system, because the economy of the pastoral groups was dependent on the supply of cereals from towns and villages in their vicinity. The food shortage obliged various groups to migrate to Egypt to obtain sustenance for themselves and their herds. The prolonged famine, so markedly affecting the lifestyle of the nomads, and the ensuing migrations have been engraved deeply in the collective historical memory of the Israelites; the two elements have been both telescoped into a continuous narrative cycle focused on the history of the Patriarchs’ family and given a literary-novelistic form. These migrations, taking place at various times and involving various groups, find their literary expression in the Joseph cycle. For example, Jacob says to his sons: “Behold, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down and buy grain for us there that we may live, and not die” (Gen. 42:2); and Jacob’s sons say to the Pharaoh: “We have come to sojourn in the land; for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan; and now, we pray you, let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen.” (Gen. 47: 4). These verses reflect well economic strategies of pastoral groups in face of shortage of food and pasture in their homeland. These twelfth century migrations, telescoped and shaped in an outstanding literary-theological dress, may well have formed the vaguely memorized background of the story of pastoral groups coming out of Egypt (i.e., the Exodus). It seems to me that the narratives of the entry into and the exit from Egypt vaguely reflect the exceptional reality of a certain historical pe-


343

riod (late thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE), rather than the routine migrations of West-Semitic pastoral groups (as scholars sometimes interpret it). We may conclude that migrations from Canaan to Egypt and backwards must also be taken into account in the discussion of the origin of the groups settling in Palestine in Iron Age I. These movements fit nicely the overall picture of large-scale migrations in all parts of Western Asia and again show the unstable and fluid demographic situation in this period.

Summary and Conclusions The overall picture emerging from the various sources does not corroborate the assumption that the Iron Age I settlement process was an internal Palestinian one and that the inhabitants of the new settlements originated only from among the local Canaanite urban-rural-pastoral elements. I have described at length the enormous intensity of the historical events occurring in Western Asia and the eastern Mediterranean in the late thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE, which brought in their wake an unprecedented wave of migrations and profound demographic change in the entire region. The scope and intensity of these events and the ensuing population movements do not fit reconstructions that separate a certain region from the entire Western Asiatic arena and isolate its micro-history from the overall historical developments of that time. In my opinion, neither the “internal immigration and conquest model” nor the “sociological hypothesis” offers adequate explanations for the settlement process, because both discuss it in isolation from the overall historical, demographic, economic and social developments of the late thirteenth-eleventh centuries BCE. A complicated picture emerges from the combination of the documentary and archaeological evidence. Various groups (whose overall number cannot be estimated) originating from different Western Asiatic regions entered Canaan in Iron Age I, joining the autochthonous pastoral groups of the Late Bronze Age. Some of them migrated from the former areas of the Hittite empire as a result of the severe famine and the influx of Sea Peoples. Other groups — like the “sons of Jacob,” who, according to biblical tradition came from northern Mesopotamia, and whose eponymous father is described as “a wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26: 5) — might well have migrated from West-Semitic-speaking regions. Still others possibly migrated to Egypt, some returning to Canaan after a while. The sixth century description of Jerusalem (Ezek. 16:3 — “Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite”) reflects nicely the kind of telescoped history that remained in the collective memory hundreds of years after the close of the events. The entry of these groups into Canaan led to an increase in the number of pastoral and bandit splinter groups in the peripheral areas, overstraining

344


their economic capacity. Years of drought and the destruction of the urban system severely interrupted the supply of grain to the pastoral groups. The increase in the number of nomads, the interruption of the delicate balance between the urban-rural and pastoral sectors and the lack of grain — these combined factors obliged nomads to engage in part-time work in agriculture and gradually drove them to settle down. Settlement, thus, started on both sides of the Jordan in the late thirteenth or early twelfth century BCE and continued throughout Iron Age I. The model that emerges from my analysis is of small and larger groups of variegated ethnic and cultural background who settled during a long period and slowly and gradually started cooperating in the new environment. It goes without saying that the title “Israelites” is inappropriate for the early stages of settlement of these groups and can be applied only to the time of unification and consolidation of the new settlements and the emergence of a unified new leadership at the end of the eleventh century BCE.

The Name Israel in the Merneptah Stela The mention of Israel in Merneptah’s stela (of his fifth year — 1209 BCE) plays an important role in discussions of the early history of Israel. In the closing lines of the stela, following the detailed description of the Pharaoh’s victory over the Lybians, the following passage appears:37 The princes, prostrated, say “Shalom”; None raises his head among the Nine Bows. Now that Tehenu has come to ruin Hatti is pacified; Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe. Ashkelon has been overcome, Gezer has been captured, Yeno‘am was made non-existent; Israel is laid waste (and) his seed is not. Hurru has become a widow because of Egypt. All lands have united themselves in peace, Anyone who was restless, he has been subdued.

The names and titles of the Pharaoh are mentioned before and after this passage, thus, enclosing a ten-“line” unit. This literary unit is divided into three parts: two introductory lines, a middle section and two closing lines (Fecht 1983:120–121). This structure is the key to the correct analysis of the inscription. The opening and closing lines express the idea that the world was united and pacified as the result of the Pharaoh’s great achievements. The central section specifies these achievements: the destruction of Tehenu 37. For the translation of the passage, see Yurco 1986:189. For other translations, see Wilson 1969c:378; Fecht 1983:113, 120; Hornung 1983:232–233.


345

(Lybia), the pacification of Hatti and the plundering of Canaan. The sentence relating to Lybia summarizes a long poetic eulogy of the Pharaoh’s victory over the Lybians, and the mention of Canaan introduces the following portion in which the author gives more details of the Egyptian Asiatic campaign. At the end of the middle section a summary sentence appears (“Hurru has become a widow because of Egypt”), which echoes the introductory sentence (“Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe”). Three of the four Canaanite toponyms (Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno‘am) are well known from other Egyptian inscriptions, but the name Israel is an exception and does not appear in any other Egyptian source. According to the defining determinative, it is clear that Israel is a people, and the other three toponyms are cities (Engel 1979:383–387; Stager 1985:61*; Yurco 1986:190, n. 3). It has been suggested recently that the literary difference between the three cities and the people matches the four battle scenes from Karnak, depicting the Pharaoh fighting, on the one hand, three fortified towns and, on the other hand, a mass of enemies in the open country.38 Israel is, thus, a collective name and is not linked to a well-defined territory. The location of Merneptah’s “Israel” is disputed among scholars.39 It is mentioned after Yeno‘am, a Transjordanian city (Na’aman 1977:168–177, with earlier literature; 1988:183–184), and, if we follow the order of toponyms in the passage, it should be sought in the same area. It is equally possible, however, that the author mentioned the cities first and the people next and that there is no sequential order of listing. This may be supported by the assumption that, in the course of the campaign, the main force was led by the king and that various task forces were sent to different parts of Canaan (Kitchen 1973:442–447). Such an assumption opens the way for identifying Israel according to each scholars’ historical reconstruction, but makes the conjectured location highly speculative. Usually scholars have identified Merneptah’s Israel in the area of Shechem, the important Israelite center of the early monarchic period, where numerous early Iron Age I settlements have been detected. Nothing, however, is known of a group called “Israel” in this period, 200 years before the foundation of the monarchy and the beginning of the protohistory of Israel. It is worth noting that the Egyptians called the hill country around Shechem, and possibly even larger parts of the high-

38. For the relation of the text and the reliefs, see Stager 1985:56*–64*; Yurco 1986:189– 201. For a criticism, see Redford 1986:188–200. 39. For recent discussions of the problem, see Engel 1979:387–399, with earlier literature; Otto 1979:200–205; Stager 1985:56*–64*; Ahlström and Edelman 1985:59–61; Yurco 1986:207–212; Ahlström 1986:37–43.

346


lands, either “the land of Shechem” or “mountain of Shechem” (in Papyrus Anastasi I, a literary composition of the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty) (Wilson 1969a:230; 1969b:477; Ahituv 1984:173–174). The absence of this name may possibly indicate that the Egyptians fought “Israel” in another area. It seems to me that there is no way to settle this issue and that locating the group called “Israel” in the hill country of Manasseh is no more than guesswork that cannot either be supported or dismissed unless new evidence comes to light in future research.40 Not only the location, but also the character of the group called “Israel” in this early period remains unknown. There are a few ancient Near Eastern parallels to similar early isolated occurrences of names of people/kingdoms that became well defined only at a much later time. Thus, the name Aram appears in various late third and second millennium sources. Most of these names are homonyms that have nothing to do with the Arameans, but the references from Ugarit and Egyptian sources may represent an early allusion to Aram/Arameans.41 However, the history of the Arameans begins with the earliest ascertained reference to them in a concrete historical context, namely, the annals of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076). The character and distribution of the proto-Arameans hardly are applicable to the study of the history of the Arameans in historical periods. The name Uruatri/Uratri, later changed to Urartu, is mentioned for the first time in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser I (1273–1244). The Assyrian king conquered the eight lands of Uruatri and brought them under submission. However, the history of Urartu starts with the earliest references to the kingdom in the time of Ashurnaṣirpal II (883–859), about 350 years later. The early reference to Urartu sheds little light on the history of the late kingdom (for the early reference to Uruatri, see Munn-Rankin 1975:279–280). In conclusion, it can be said that, in spite of the great importance of the mention of a group named “Israel” in a late thirteenth century Egyptian document, it is best to refrain from building on this isolated reference any hypothesis concerning the location and formation of Israel at that time. After 40. According to Ahlström and Edelman (1985; see Ahlström 1986:37–43), Israel was primarily a geographical name for the central Palestinian hill country. However, in the Merneptah’s inscription, the name “Israel” clearly refers to people and has a different determinative than the other three cities (see Engel 1979:383–387; Stager 1985:61*; Yurco 1986:190, n. 3). Furthermore, Israel and Canaan have different determinatives and have no parallel place in the inscription. Finally, there is no biblical reference that lends support to the assumption that Israel was initially a geographical name. The entire supposition is guesswork and is not supported by concrete evidence. 41. For the early references to Aram, see Kupper 1957:112–114; Zadok 1991:106, with earlier literature.


347

all, the maintenance of a name of a social organization does not necessarily imply any other sort of cultural continuity. Hundreds of years separate this from all other references to Israel, and the Egyptian text is open to various interpretations, none of which can be verified with any degree of certainty.

Literary-Historical Study of the Conquest Stories in the Book of Joshua and in Judges 1 Introduction It is commonly accepted today that the majority of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality.42 Malamat tried to avoid this conclusion by suggesting that Israel’s traditions regarding the conquest should be reduced to five basic “underlying phenomena” (Malamat 1979: 37–39):43 (1) the Israelites took possession of Canaan by force; (2) the road from Egypt to Canaan along the coast was blocked to the Israelites; (3) the Canaanite populace west of the Jordan had no unified, overall military organization with which to confront the invaders; (4) no attempt was made to stop the Israelites from fording the Jordan; and (5) the Israelites succeeded against the Canaanites only in the hill country and on its western slopes. None of these five points, however, is acceptable, and the methodological approach underlying the suggestion is unacceptable as well. First, the selection of the five “underlying phenomena” is arbitrary. For example, the second point is marginal within the conquest tradition; the third point does not accord with the vast Canaanite coalitions that fought Israel, according to Joshua 10–11; and the fifth point again does not fit the conquest tradition, according to which Joshua and the Israelites conquered the entire land (Josh. 10:40–41; 11:16–17, 23). Fundamental features, on the other hand, such as the conquest of the Land of Israel by the twelve tribes under Joshua, the long wandering in the Sinai Desert that preceded the entry into the land, and the exclusive conduction of the invasion from the east are arbitrarily omit-

42. For critical discussions of the biblical description of the conquest, see Mendenhall 1962:66–87; Gottwald 1979, passim; Lemaire 1982:20–24; Chaney 1983:39–90; Callaway 1985: 31–49; Lemche 1985:416–437. For a more flexible reconstruction, which takes into account a movement of Canaanite and non-Canaanite groups into the hill country, see Ahlström 1986:11–36 (esp. pp. 35–36). See also Fritz 1981:61–73; 1987:84–100; 1987:84-100; Miller 1977:87–93; Schoors 1985:77–92. 43. For the term Grundzüge, used similarly by Malamat for the prehistory of Israel, see Malamat 1983:309–311. For a criticism of Malamat’s suggestions, see Thompson 1987:32– 40.

348


ted. The random isolation of certain features from their literary and historical setting is methodologically incorrect. Second, the list of “underlying phenomena” ignores the new archaeological surveys and excavations, which indicate that the hill country was sparsely inhabited in the Late Bronze Age and that no military power prevented pastoral groups from penetrating it and settling in its large uninhabited areas. The entire concept of an invasion and conquest of the highlands in the thirteenth-twelfth century is alien to historical reality. The Iron Age I settlement process in the hill country is hardly illuminated by the biblical conquest tradition. We may conclude that the above-mentioned five “phenomena” are no more “historical” than the rest of the material in the conquest stories. Thompson (1987:33) has noted correctly that “[t]he prominence or dominance of a tradition has no necessary relationship whatever to the issue of historicity.” It remains to be seen whether any authentic memory of the early Iron Age survived in the narratives of the Book of Joshua and of Judges 1.

The Date and Historical Background of the Conquest Narratives in the Book of Joshua In light of the non-historical character of the conquest tradition in the Book of Joshua, one should raise a fundamental question: Where did the author derive the material for his narratives? We have yet to establish whether a vague memory of past events was retained in some stories. It is clear, however, that most of the conquest stories are devoid of historical foundation. One may assume that the author designed the past descriptions in light of the reality of his time; because he was well acquainted with the sites and the environment portrayed by him, he composed narratives that outwardly appear authentic (save for the conquest by miracle of Jericho). This assumption may be supplemented by another: To add a sense of authenticity to his narratives, the author borrowed the military outlines from concrete events that had taken place in the history of Israel. The evidence for this will be presented in the following five examples. 1. Scholars have suggested that the conquest by stratagem of Ai is a literary reflection of the historical episode of the battle at Gibeah (Judg. 20) (Roth 1963:296–303; Rösel 1976a:33–35; de Vaux 1978:618–619). Unfortunately, the literary relationship between the two narratives was not examined in detail, and it is not clear whether the author of Joshua 8 worked the narrative of Judges 20, or vice versa. The author of the story of Ai was certainly impressed by the prominent ruins of the site (Khirbet et-Tell), assuming that it was conquered by the Israelites when they occupied the country. To give his story


349

of the capture of Ai an aura of authenticity, he used military elements of the tradition of either the capture by stratagem of Gibeah or the conquest of another unknown site, transplanting them within a new environment that he knew very well from personal acquaintanceship (Zevit 1983:28–33). The conquest story of Ai did not emerge from an authentic historical memory of the event, but is rather the outcome of a reworking and adaptation of a conquest story relating to another site.44 2. The battle of Joshua against the five Amorite kings opens the episode of the conquest of southern Canaan. Scholars have suggested that the conquest story is composed of three literary units: the battle of Gibeon (vv. 1– 15), the five kings at the cave of Makkedah (vv.16–27), and the conquest of the five Amorite cities (vv. 29–39) (Elliger 1934:47–71; Weippert 1971:29–33; Soggin 1972:121–132; Weimar 1976:51–62; de Vaux 1978:627–635). The combination of chapters nine and ten is the result of the work of a late redactor and is, thus, secondary (for Josh. 9, see below, part four) (Möhlenbrink 1938:264– 265; Noth 1960:147 n. 4). The battle of Gibeon usually was regarded as an authentic episode of the conquest era, and some scholars even assumed that Joshua was the Israelite commander in the battle (Alt 1936:23–24; Schunck 1963:28–39; Halpern 1975: 303–316; de Vaux 1978:631–635). According to the narrative in Joshua 10, the league of “Amorite” kings was formed as a reaction to the treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites, and, following their defeat in battle, they fled westward. However, the treaty of “Israel” with the Gibeonites can hardly antedate the eleventh century BCE, when the settlement process reached the stage of regional unification (see below, part four). At that time, there were no “Amorite” kingdoms able to attack the Benjaminite-Gibeonite league. Historically, the conclusion of a treaty with the Gibeonites did not constitute the casus belli between the Canaanite cities and the “Israelites.” Noth assumed that the old narrative depicted the battle between Israel and “all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the hill country” (v. 6). At a second stage, the “collector” (Sammler) combined the episode of the battle of Gibeon with that of the cave of Makkedah. The personal names and the cities of the five Amorite kings (vv. 1, 3, 5, 23) were integrated into the story only at a third stage (Noth 1937:26–31; 1953:60–63).45 However, not only is the literary analysis highly uncertain, but there is also a major historical difficulty in Noth’s reconstruction: The Amorite kings’ line of escape along the Beth-

44. For further suggestions, see Lipschitz 1983:100–110, with earlier literature (Hebrew). 45. For a more daring reconstruction, see Fritz 1969:139–140.

350


horon route “as far as Azekah and Makkedah” indicates that they came to the battle from the Shephelah and returned there following their defeat. Noth’s assumption (1953:61) that the old story depicted the battle of Benjaminites or Ephraimites against “all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the hill country” does not fit this line of march and escape. Other scholars assumed that only “all the kings of the Amorites” were mentioned in the original story, that their origin was in the AzekahMakkedah region, and that they marched to the battle from this area and fled there following their defeat (Rösel 1976b:505–508; de Vaux 1978:631–632). However, all these solutions are involved with many unnecessary textual assumptions and with alterations in all parts of the narrative.46 The close similarity between the story of the battle at Gibeon and that of the battle at the Waters of Merom (see the fifth section, below) suggests that the appearance of the king of Jerusalem at the head of a coalition that fought near his city is an original narrative element. We may conclude that all efforts to integrate the story of Joshua 10 within the reality of the early settlement period by suggesting various textual hypotheses meet with enormous difficulties. The story of the battle of Gibeon may be defined technically as a “battle report” devoid of concrete details (Möhlenbrink 1938:264; Noth 1953:13; Gunn 1974:286–317). More important, however, is the emphasis on the theological motif of a “Yahweh war” (for the terminology, see Jones 1975), according to which it is the Lord who fights for His people and defeats its enemies, and all human activity is subjected to His will (Blenkinsopp 1972:44, 50–52). Möhlenbrink was correct when he dismissed the definition “Heldensage” for the narrative (Möhlenbrink 1938: 264).47 It is not a local “ätiologische Sage” (Alt 1936:19–20; Noth 1937:22–36; 1953:60–67; Weippert 1971:20–24, 29–33),48 but a narrative that from the very outset was composed as an integral part of the history of Israel. It seems to me that the battle of Gibeon was modeled after the historical episode of David’s second campaign against the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:22–25; 1 Chr. 14:13–16). By way of a frontal attack, David won his first battle against the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim, north of Bethlehem (2 Sam. 5:17– 21; 1 Chr. 14:8–12; see 2 Sam. 23:13–17). The Philistines attacked for a second time; according to 2 Samuel 5:22 the battle took place in the valley of Rephaim, whereas 1 Chronicles 14:13 merely mentions “the valley.” This time, David launched a surprise night attack, defeated the Philistines and smote 46. For a more daring reconstruction, see Weimar 1976:56–62. 47. For a comprehensive discussion of the problem, see recently Coats 1987:15–32. 48. For an entirely different interpretation of the etiology in these narratives, see Sanmartín Ascaso 1986:260–261.


351

them either “from Geba to Gezer” (2 Sam. 5:25) or “from Gibeon to Gezer” (1 Chr. 14:16). The second reference to the valley of Rephaim as the site of battle is problematic, because one would expect some territorial gains as a result of the first victory. Moreover, according to the closing lines, the Philistines were smitten near Geba/Gibeon, north of the valley of Rephaim. We may assume that the second battle was conducted in “the valley” (1 Chr. 14:16), north or northwest of Jerusalem (Jebus), and that “Rephaim” was interpolated in 2 Samuel 5:22 by a late redactor in an effort to identify the missing site of the second battle (Driver 1913:265; Tidwell 1979:207–208). This assumption may be supported by the words of Isaiah 28:21: “For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon.” The prophet alludes to the two victories of David (assigned by the prophet to the Lord): one on Mount Perazim (i.e., Baal Perazim of 2 Sam. 5:20, with replacement of the forbidden theophoric element Baal by the common noun “mount”), and the second in the valley near Gibeon. David made a surprise attack at night on the Philistines (this is the stratagem to which 2 Sam. 5:23– 24 alludes), defeated them and pursued the fleeing enemy along the Bethhoron route down to Gezer in the northern Shephelah. The description of Joshua’s campaigns against the five Amorite kings is, in my opinion, a literary reflection of the historical episode of David’s second battle against the Philistines near Gibeon. The five Amorite kings are reflections of the five Philistine lords (śrnym) whom David defeated by night attack and pursued along the Beth-horon route. The continuation of the pursuit “as far as Azekah and Makkedah” is a literary device to combine the story of the battle of Gibeon with the episode of the cave of Makkedah. One may further suggest that the citation from the “Book of Jashar” (Josh. 10:12–13) originally referred to David’s war against the Philistines (compare 2 Sam. 1:18) and that the two toponyms mentioned in the poem — Gibeon and the valley of Aijalon — fit David’s pursuit much better than Joshua’s pursuit (for the Book of Jashar, see Holladay 1968:166–178; de Vaux 1978:632–635). There is no literary similarity between the narratives of Joshua 10 and 2 Sam. 5:22–25; only certain details are common to the two episodes. One cannot rule out the possibility that a certain “Israelite” group fought autochthonous Canaanite elements near Gibeon at some remote prehistorical time and that a vague memory of the episode is reflected in the story of Joshua 10:1–15. However, at present there is no way to reconstruct either its background or its course and results. 3. The story of the battle of Gibeon was combined with that of the capture of the five kings in the cave of Makkedah (Josh. 10:16–27) by extending the line of escape. The background of the latter episode is unknown (Noth 1937:

352


22–36; 1953:60–66; Weimar 1976: 54–56; de Vaux 1978:630–631). One may assume that this was an old local story transmitted by oral tradition, relating the tale of five kings who hid themselves in a cave and were caught and executed. It is more reasonable, however, to link the story with Sennacherib’s campaign against the kingdom of Judah in 701 BCE and his wars in the Shephelah. The key to the episode is the hanging of the five kings on ‘ēṣîm (vv. 26–27). It is preferable to translate ‘ēṣ, in this context, as “post” rather than “tree,” as one should bear in mind that impalement on posts was the common Assyrian method of executing leaders of conquered cities (see Josh. 8:29) (see Weippert 1971:28, n. 69).49 With all due caution, it is suggested that the episode at the cave of Makkedah reflects a somewhat similar event of the time of Sennacherib’s campaign in the area of Makkedah. The narrator incorporated the motif of impalement in his story, because he assumed that the reality of ancient times was the same as that of his own days. 4. The episode of Joshua 10:29–39 is the third literary unit in the chapter, appearing as the last stage in Joshua’s conquest of southern Canaan. It has a uniform schematic style and was linked with the episode of Makkedah by v. 28, in which the conquest of Makkedah was described in the same manner as that of the other five cities. Some scholars attributed historical authenticity to the story of the capture of the five cities (Elliger 1934:49–55, 68–70; Schunck 1963:31–36; Soggin 1972:129–130), but their hypothetical reconstructions rest on weak foundations. Others assumed that the entire episode is fictive (Noth 1937:29–31; de Vaux 1978:629–630; see also Weippert 1971:32–33). A close study of the campaign in vv. 29–39 brings to light similarities with Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah.50 The Assyrian campaign was directed against the Shephelah, and many important cities, including Lacish and Libnah (2 Kgs. 18:14, 17; 19:8), were captured and destroyed.51 Eglon should probably be identified with Tel cEton (Noth 1937:33–34; Rainey 1983:9–10); soundings conducted at the site indicated that it was destroyed and abandoned at the end of the eighth century (Ayalon 1985:54–62; Zimhoni 1985: 63–90). All three Shephelah cities mentioned in Josh. 10:29–39 were important Judahite cities before the campaign and were totally destroyed by the

49. For an illustration of an execution by impalement of the Judahite leaders of Lachish, see Ussishkin 1982:102, 104. 50. For Sennacherib’s campaign to Palestine, see, e.g., Honor 1926; Childs 1967; Na’aman 1974:25–39; Millard 1985:61–77; Tadmor 1985:65–80; van der Kooij 1986:93–109; Gonçalves 1986; Vogt 1986. 51. For the results of the recent excavations, see Ussishkin 1980:174–195; 1982; 1990:53– 86, with earlier literature.


353

Assyrians. The sudden interruption of the king of Gezer in the course of Joshua’s campaign to the Shephelah is the most outstanding element of the story. It may reflect Egyptian intervention in the course of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah (cf. 2 Kgs. 19:9), which ended with the battle of Eltekeh and an Assyrian victory over the Egyptian task force. Excavations at Khirbet Rabûd (biblical Debir) indicated that the city was destroyed at the end of the eighth century (Kochavi 1974:16–18). Further archaeological data concerning sites located in the hill country of Judah, in particular the central city of Hebron, are missing. Assuming that Sennacherib’s task forces attacked the hill country region of Hebron and Debir, destroying cities therein,52 we may conclude that Joshua’s campaign to the Shephelah and the hill country of Judah in vv. 29–39 is a general reflection of Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE. First the fortified cities of the Shephelah were conquered and destroyed; second, in the course of the campaign, a task force attacked from the west and was defeated; and third, some fortified cities were conquered and destroyed in the hill country. We may now clarify the details of the episode of Joshua 10:29–39. The author selected five major Judahite cities, parallel to the number of cities that, according to his description, took part in the battle of Gibeon. All of the five cities were located on ancient tells, which was interpreted as a sign of antiquity, and all (or most) of the cities were conquered in the course of the Assyrian campaign to Judah.By way of a stereotype battle report, he linked the five cities to a continuous line of march that follows the general course of a historical campaign conducted along this line. It goes without saying that the episode is fictive and has nothing to do with Iron Age I. On the other hand, the mention of all six Shephelah towns to which Joshua 10 alludes in the town list of Joshua 15 (vv. 39, 41, 42, 49, 54 — a document apparently dated to the time of Josiah [Alt 1925:100–116; Na’aman 1991:5–32, with earlier literature]) supports my conclusion about the late date of the episode in Joshua 10. 5. The northern campaign described in Joshua 11 is divided into two literary units: the battle at the Waters of Merom (vv. 1–9) and the conquest of Hazor and the other northern towns (vv. 10–14). In its main outlines, the presentation of the northern campaign (11:1–14) is similar to that of the southern one (10:1–39): (a) a detailed description of the coalition formed to fight Israel (vv. 1–5); (b) a divine assurance to Joshua (v. 6); (c) a surprise attack and a decisive victory in battle (vv. 7–9); and (d) the taking of the northern towns (vv. 10–14) (for the textual comparison, see de Vaux 1978:655). The battle at

52. In earlier works I have suggested that Sennacherib did not conquer and destroy the hill country of Judah. See Na’aman 1979:73–74, 83–86; 1986:17.

354


the Waters of Merom (vv. 1–9) and the battle of Gibeon (10:1–15) are closely related both in structure and phraseology (Noth 1953:67; Fritz 1973:132) and in the concept of “Yahweh war.” The schematic character, the omission of many details and the motif of a total conquest brought about by one decisive victory are also common to both descriptions. One can hardly doubt that the two narratives were composed according to the same literary and theological pattern, apparently by the same author. The introduction to the campaign (vv. 1–5) is deliberately detailed to form the background for the conquest of the northern parts of the Land of Israel in a single decisive victory. The leader of the coalition (Jabin king of Hazor) is mentioned first, followed by the names of the three most important Canaanite cities in the north (Madon/Maron, Shimron/Shimcon and Achshaph), all situated along the border of the Galilee (Na’aman 1986:122–127). The narrator marked the extent of the Canaanite coalition by using the names of the natural districts of Judah (hill country, Arabah, Shephelah), describing it as follows (v. 2): “and to the kings who were in the northern hill country, and in the Arabah opposite (neged)53 Chinneroth, and in the Shephelah in front of? the district? (penê nāpat) of Dor on the west.”54 Verse 3 lists the six pre-Israelite nations and is possibly a late expansion of the original story (Noth 1953:62, 68). By the combination of all these elements, the narrator portrayed a picture of “a great host, in number like the sand that is upon the seashore.” After the defeat, this great host fled, according to v. 8: “as far as Great Sidon and Misrephoth-maim and eastward as far as the valley of Mizpeh.” The three toponyms are located on the northern border of the tribal boundary system and are the counterparts of Qadesh-Barnea, which is located on its southern border and is mentioned in the summary of Joshua’s campaign to the south (Josh. 10:41) (Na’aman 1986:40–67, with earlier literature). The portrayal of an enemy fleeing northward, outside of the Land of Israel (rather than to its fortified cities within the Land), is in accord with the imaginary account of the makeup and numerical strength of the Canaanite coalition assembled for battle. The episode in its present form is a fictive literary creation devoid of historical foundation. When these elements (i.e., the literary structure, the concept of a “Yahweh war” and the enormous range of participants) are removed from the narrative, only few distinctive elements remain. In spite of the schematic charac53. See Noth 1953:62. For a detailed discussion, see Barthélemy 1982:20. 54. The LXX for Joshua 11:2 helps to reconstruct the original version. See Holmes 1914: 53. It seems to me that the plural form npwt is the result of a conflated reading of the original pny npt. For the various interpretations of the term nph, see Ben-Dov 1976:70–73, with earlier literature; Na’aman 1986:184–185.


355

ter of the source material and the lack of concrete details, scholars usually have suggested that the story of Joshua 11:1–14 reflects a historical episode of the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE.55 The reconstruction of the assumed historical event is controversial, because the narrative hardly supplies the necessary details. Each scholar integrated the episode within the historical development according to his/her overall view on this period. The place of the king of Hazor at the head of the coalition and the emphasis on the destruction of his city can be attributed to the historical memory of the primacy of the kingdom of Hazor among the Canaanite kingdoms (see Josh. 11:10; Judg. 4:2, 23, 24).56 The mention of Jobab, the king of Madon/ Maron (v. 1), is due to the proximity of his city to the battlefield. The most outstanding element in the entire episode is the divine command to hamstring the horses and set fire to the chariots (v. 6) and its fulfilment (v. 9). Such a command does not appear in the biblical laws or in other conquest narratives. However, it is mentioned in the account of David’s campaign against Hadadezer of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3–4). The outlines of David’s Aramaic campaign are reported in a brief and dry account, and it is difficult to reconstruct it in detail. It seems that David conducted a surprise attack on the kingdom of Zobah when its king (Hadaezer) operated in the far north, erecting his stela (yād) near the Euphrates (2 Sam. 8:3). Zobah was defeated and many soldiers and chariot horses were captured. “And David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots” (v. 4). The hamstringing of the horses (cf. Gen. 49:6) was carried out either for military reasons or as a kind of punishment (for David’s campaign against Zobah, see McCarter 1984: 242–252, with earlier literature). There are several elements that are common to the campaigns of Joshua and David: victory by a surprise attack of the Israelite infantry against an enormous foreign army whose backbone was the chariotry, and the elimination of the chariot horses by hamstringing. It seems to me that the author again used a well-known historical episode as a model for his narrative, adapting it to its new topographical arena. The Waters of Merom is apparently the spring of Wādi el-Ḥamam, northeast of Tel Qarnei Ḥiṭṭin, the site of the Canaanite city of Marom/Maron (Na’aman 1986:126). It is located on the main route leading to Hazor. The location of the battlefield is in good accord with the main object of the author: to demonstrate that it only required a single victory over the Canaanite coalition to conquer the whole region. 55. Alt 1939:18–19; Noth 1938:10–11; 1953:67; Aharoni 1957:89–98; Maass 1958:109–117; Yadin 1972:108–109, 129–132; 1979:60–63, 66–67; Malamat 1979:52; de Vaux 1978:656–657. 56. The problems involved with the destruction of the city of Hazor will be discussed below.

356


It is not entirely impossible that a battle between Canaanite forces and a certain “Israelite” group was waged at the Waters of Merom in early Iron Age I. However, we are unable to reconstruct its background, course and results due to the nature of the sources that have come down to us. The discussion of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua (the conquest of Jericho by miracle is not my concern here) indicates that the author used later events of a military nature as models for his compositions. The military episodes were “borrowed” both from David’s wars against the Philistines and Arameans and from Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah. Whether the stratagem of the battle at Ai reflects a historical battle conducted near Gibeah is not clear. The author possibly assumed that the wars of the conquest era, for which he had neither sources nor detailed traditions, were quite similar to those portrayed in his composition. By using the course and stratagems of later wars, he gave a sense of authenticity to his narratives. The author possibly may have heard some vague traditions of wars at Gibeon and the Waters of Merom and, therefore, linked his narratives to these places. However, the course and details of the conquest narratives were borrowed from a different reality and, hence, do not reflect the events of the Early Iron Age. Alt and Noth have suggested that most of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua emerged as local etiological sagas and were only later incorporated in the national, all-Israelite history.57 It seems to me that the opposite is true: The stories were composed from the very outset as part of the history of Israel. The leading historiographical idea of the author was that the Land of Israel had been conquered as a national operation, initiated and guided by the Lord and carried out by the twelve tribes under the leadership of Joshua. The cycle of conquest stories is connected, inseparably, with Joshua, the twelve tribes and the concept of a “Yahweh war.” If indeed there was once a pre-Deuteronomistic account, it cannot be extracted from the present composition. Of the hero of this cycle of stories, Joshua, hardly anything is known.58 He was an Ephraimite and was buried at Timnath-heres, in the southern part

57. Alt 1936:19–20; Noth 1937:22–36; 1953:60–67; see Weippert 1971:20–24, 29–33. For an entirely different interpretation of the etiology in these narratives, see Sanmartín Ascaso 1986:261–282. For an earlier criticism of the views of Alt and Noth, see Kaufmann 1955:76– 80; 1959:24–31; Seeligmann 1961:154–155. For further criticism, see Seeligmann 1961:141– 169; Childs 1963:279–292; 1974:387–397; Long 1968, with earlier literature; Golka 1976:410– 428; 1977:36–47; Van Seters 1983, passim. 58. For the efforts of scholars to reconstruct the achievements of the “historical Joshua,” see, e.g., Alt 1936:13–29; Weippert 1971:37–41, with earlier literature; de Vaux 1978, passim; Seebass 1985:53–65; Donner 1984:127–128.


357

of Mount Ephraim (Josh. 24:30; Judg. 2:9). Legends of his heroic deeds were probably related by the local inhabitants near his grave; some of them may well have been collected by the Dtr historian. The placing of Joshua at the head of the conquest campaign possibly was influenced by the traditions of the hegemony of the tribe of Ephraim in the early history of Israel, as is indicated by the stories of the Book of Judges and the blessings of the tribes. Certain of his traits may well have been “borrowed” from the portrayal of David, the historical conqueror of the Land of Israel. However, there is no certainty in all these assumptions, and there never will be, due to the great antiquity of the period to which the events are assigned and the late date when the stories were composed in writing.

Historical Analysis of Judges 1:1–26 and the Parallel Episodes in the Book of Joshua Judges 1:1–2:5 is a literary unit that was inserted between Joshua 24:31 and Judges 2:10ff. Judges 2:6–9 is a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of Joshua 24:28–31, written when this unit was interpolated (Moore 1895:4; Burney 1918:1; Smend 1971:506–509; Auld 1975:263–265; Soggin 1981:40–41). The first part of the passage (Judg. 1:1–18) relates how the tribal territory of Judah — as delineated in Joshua 15:1–12 — was conquered: “First” (batteḥilāh, v. 1), the tribe of Judah went up to fight the Canaanites, won the battle and conquered Jerusalem (vv. 1–2, 4–8). “And afterward” (we ’aḥar), the tribe of Judah extended its campaign and fought the Canaanites “who dwelt in the hill country, in the Negeb and in the lowland” (v. 9). Hebron and Debir in the hill country, Hormah in the Negeb, and Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron in the “lowland” had been conquered during the course of the campaign (vv. 10–15, 17– 18). The conquest of Bethel by the Josephites opens the second part (vv. 22– 26) and is followed by a list of the unconquered Canaanite cities in the areas alloted to the northern tribes (vv. 27–35; see v. 21). In the last part of this literary unit, the angel of the Lord denounces Israel for making a treaty with the inhabitants of the land and adopting their gods (Judg. 2:1–5) (Weinfeld 1967: 95; Smend 1971:507–508). Verses 4–5 present a name-etiology of the toponym Bochim/Bachuth, located “below Bethel” (Gen. 35:8) (Na’aman 1987:18, with earlier literature). The message of Judges 1 is clear: the tribe of Judah took possession of its allotment, but the northern tribes (including the tribe of Benjamin) failed to gain control over theirs; later, when these tribes grew stronger, they did not expel the Canaanites, but rather put them to forced labor (vv. 21, 27–33, 35). The coexistence with the Canaanites in the land drove the people to idolatry. The chapter, thus, introduces (though secondarily) the period of the Judges,

358


the main feature of which is the subjection of Israel to its neighbors as a punishment for the sin of idolatry (Judg. 2:2–4, 11–13, 17–19). The entire chapter is written with transparent pro-Judahite tendentiousness and can be considered as a complete conquest story, alternative and supplementary to the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua (Wellhausen 18892:213; Blenkinsopp 1972: 43; Auld 1975:284–285). A closer look at Judges 1 indicates that the chapter is built up of originally independent episodes that the author combined together in an effort to provide them with an overall meaning. His source material included the episode of the war with Adoni-bezek, the conquests of Hebron, Debir, Hormah and Bethel, the peaceful settlement at Arad and the list of “conquest lacunae.” Part of the early material has remarkable parallels in the Book of Joshua,59 but the rest has no clear parallels in the Old Testament. The author prefixed his composition with an introduction (vv. 1–3); focused the description on the tribe of Judah, acting in cooperation with Simeon its southern neighbor; and added a connecting sentence (v. 9), an etiological comment (v. 26) and short notes that refer to conquests (vv. 8, 18). In two episodes (v. 8 as against v. 21; v. 18 as against v. 19) the list of “conquest lacunae” contrasts brief descriptions composed by the author (Wright 1964:108–109; Auld 1975:266). It is evident that the author of Judges 1 collected some (oral or written) anecdotes that were not included in the Book of Joshua, supplemented them with material that he had found in the latter source, and composed a kind of an “appendix” that in a way supplemented the Book of Joshua and also served as an introduction to the Book of Judges. In the early days of modern research, scholars regarded Judges 1 as a better source for the early history of Israel than the Book of Joshua (see for example, Meyer 1881:117–146; Moore 1895:7–8; Burney 1918:xxxix, 1–2, 47–52). This was the result of the episodic character of the description and the emphasis of the author on the failure to dispossess the autochthonous Canaanite population. The general impression gained from the chapter is that of a partial conquest by independent clans and tribes, without national leader and all-inclusive tribal unity. Such a picture matched both the narratives of the Book of Judges and the scholarly consensus that the conquest and settlement process was more fragmented and complicated than the scene emerging from the Book of Joshua. However, scholarly evaluation of the material included in this chapter has changed drastically, recently. It is clear now that Judges 1 depends on the Book of Joshua at all points at which it offers simi-

59. For a close comparison of the texts of Joshua and Judges 1, see de Geus 1966:32–53; Auld 1975:267–284. For recent discussion, see Rösel 1988:127–129.


359

lar or identical material (Moore 1895:4; Burney 1918:1; Smend 1971:506–509; Auld 1975:263–265; Soggin 1981:40–41; de Geus 1966:32–53; Auld 1975:267– 284; Rösel 1988:127–129). In what follows, I will deal separately with the individual episodes to determine whether they may shed some light on the period to which they are assigned by the author. 1. In a recent article, I treated at length the episode of Adoni-bezek (Na’aman 1988:42–47, with earlier literature), and it is not necessary to enter into a detailed discussion here. It seems to me that only vv. 5a, 6–7a were retained from the original story and that the rest of the narrative in vv. 1–8 was composed by the author of Judges 1. The message of the old story is the retribution of Adoni-bezek, expressed in his own words (v. 7a): “as I have done, so God has requited me.” The city of Bezek (today Khirbet Ibziq) is located northeast of Shechem (1 Sam. 11:8), and the old story probably emerged in the area of the tribe of Manasseh. The name of the enemy’s ruler was apparently forgotten, and, in the old story, he was called by the name of the battlefield: “the Lord of Bezek.” He must have been an important king in the north Manassite area, who treated his subjects in a cruel and humiliating manner. After his defeat in battle, he received similar treatment. It is, thus, reasonable to assume that the ruler before whom “seventy kings used to pick up scraps” under his table (v. 7) was the ruler of Shechem (Welten 1965:145; for other suggestions, see Weippert 1971:54, 146, n. 5). During the Late Bronze Age, Shechem was the major Canaanite kingdom of the central hill country and controlled vast areas in which large and small towns were located. No other ruler in the entire hill country fits the image of a conqueror and overlord of many subjected kings. The old narrative may well have belonged (like the story of Judg. 1:22–26) to the stock of conquest stories of the sons of Joseph. This, of course, is merely a hypothesis and cannot be verified. The linkage of this episode with Jerusalem and the conquest of Judah was due to the similarity of names, Adoni-bezek and Adoni-zedek. The latter was the king of Jerusalem, who, according to Joshua 10, headed the coalition that fought Joshua. His fate following the battle of Gibeon is not mentioned in the text. By the coalescence of personal names and identification of Jerusalem as Adoni-bezek’s capital city, the author of Judges 1 was able to fill the gap in the story of Joshua. He, thus, described the death of Adonibezek (v. 7b) and the capture of his ostensible city (v. 8) and attached these new elements to the end of the story (Welten 1965:145–146; de Vaux 1978: 541–542). The process of gap-filling delineated here illustrates well the subtle manner by which the author of Judges 1 supplemented the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua.

360


It is clear that the story, in its final form, is fairly late (its author was familiar with the story of Joshua 10 and jointly mentions the Canaanites and Perizzites, an association that belongs to a late stratum in the biblical tradition) and that most of it is devoid of historical authenticity (for the late date of the pair Canaanites and Perizzites, see Na’aman 1988:42–44). One should entirely dismiss the claim that the tribe of Judah wandered from the area of Manasseh across the land of Ephraim and entered its allotted area from the north (Hertzberg 1926:216–221; Aharoni 1967:197; Mazar 1971:88–89; Yeivin 1971:75–76, 95–96). The assumed Judahite conquest of Canaanite Jerusalem at an early stage of Iron Age I is likewise non-historical (Aharoni 1967; Mazar 1971:89; 1981:78; Yeivin 1971:76 and n. 47, 96). The city was probably conquered and destroyed by a migrating group of Jebusites, who subsequently settled at the site and lived there until it was captured by David. 2. The portrayal of the occupation of the cities of Kiriath-arba (Hebron) and Kiriath-sepher (Debir) in the books of Joshua differs slightly from that in Judges 1. The episode of Joshua 15:13–19 is the source from which the author of Judges 1:10–15 drew his material. In Judges 1 the tribe of Judah initiates the conquest of the hill country, whereas Caleb is “Judahized” by implication (see Num. 13:6; 34:19; 1 Chr. 4:13–15). In Joshua 15:13–14 Caleb is not explicitely treated as a Judahite, and he receives Hebron (and by implication the Judean hill country) as a personal allocation due to his faithfulness to Yahweh (Beltz 1974:30–37; Miller 1977:222–224, 236–238; de Vaux 1978:523–526, 534–536, with earlier literature; Auld 1980, passim). The subject matter of Joshua 15:13–19 is also treated in Joshua 14:6–15. This Deuteronomistic tradition is a later development of Joshua 15:13–19 and is dependent on it (Auld 1980:29, 82). Noth (1943:44–47; see Mowinckel 1964: 44) suggested that originally it was connected with Joshua 11:21–23, another passage dealing with the occupation of the hill country of Judah. We may conclude that Joshua 15:13–19 is the oldest source relating to the occupation of Hebron and Debir by Caleb and Othniel. Joshua 15 emphasizes that Caleb received Hebron as a special grant, held his allocation within Judah’s overall territory (v. 13), and drove out the three benê hā‘ănāq, Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai (v. 14). Remarkably, the tradition does not refer to the conquest of a city, but rather to the driving out of three persons bearing non-Semitic names (for the analysis of the three names, see Lipiński 1974:45–46, with earlier literature), who are defined by the descriptive term benê/yelîdê hā‘ănāq (Num. 13:22, 28; Josh. 15:14). Indeed, Hebron was not occupied in the Late Bronze Age (Hammond 1965:267–270; 1966:566–569; 1968:253–259; Ofer 1989:90–91; 1990:193, 196–198), whereas Debir, which according to Joshua 15:15–19 was captured by Othniel, was then the major urban center of the Judean hill country. The difference in the traditions may


361

well reflect a vague memory of the settlement process in the two main centers of the Judean hill country. What might have been the historical roots of the tradition regarding the dispossession of the three benê/yelîdê hā‘ănāq from Hebron? The construct form yelîdê hā‘ănāq was compared with yelîdê hārāpā’ , which was the name of a professional group of warriors in the Philistine army who fought the best warriors of Israel (2 Sam. 21:15–22; 1 Chr. 20:4–8) (Willesen 1958:193– 194, 209–210; L’Heureux 1976:83–85). We have already noted that migrating groups from the Hittite empire may have entered the hill country of Judah in early Iron I. Thus, it is suggested that the construct forms yelîdê hārāpā’ and benê/yelîdê hā‘ănāq designated, in biblical terminology, groups of elite professional troops that the northern migrants (Philistines, Hittites) formed in Canaan in imitation of the custom in their homelands. According to this analysis, the traditions of the occupation of Hebron memorized the victory of the West-Semitic clan of Caleb, migrating from the Negeb south of Canaan (Num. 13–14), over the professional troops of a Hittite migrant group. Just as the wars against and victory over the elite troop of yelîdê hārāpā’ are the most prominent memory from David’s conquest of eastern Philistia (2 Sam. 21:15– 22), so the decisive victory over the elite troops of the Hittites at Hebron was memorized by the Calebites. The close relationship of yelîdê hārāpā’ and benê/yelîdê hā‘ănāq was already noted by a late Deuteronomistic author, who created a direct link between the ousting of the “Anakim” from the hill country of Judah and their survival in the coast of Philistia. He, thus, artificially counted three towns cleared of “Anakim” in the hill country of Judah (Hebron, Debir and Anab) as against three towns inhabited by “Anakim” on the coast of Philistia (Gaza, Gath and Ashdod) (Josh. 11:21–22). 3. The episode of the capture of Kiriath-sepher (Debir) by Othniel, the son of Kenaz, follows that of Caleb’s occupation of Hebron (Josh. 15:15–19; Judg. 1:11–15). Othniel appears in this tradition as the brother of Caleb, who is described in certain traditions as a Kenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6, 14). The well-known literary motif of offering the leader’s daughter to the victorious hero (1 Sam. 18:17–27) dominates the narrative. The Kenizzites had strong ties with Edom (Gen. 36:11, 15, 42) and it is evident that a Kenizzite group captured Debir and settled there and that the conquest, thus, was attributed to its eponym. The association of the Calebite and Kenizzite traditions, and

60. For the relations of the Kenizzites and the inhabitants of Edom, see de Vaux 1978: 535–536.

362


Othniel’s description as Caleb’s brother, are the result of their neighborhood in the south Judean hill country (Beltz 1974:83).60 The details of the Achsah narrative are not clear enough. Noth regarded it as a local etiological story explaining why the springs occupied by the Kenizzites are in the territory of the Calebites (Noth 1953:90; cf. Cooke 1918: 144). If one accepts this supposition, the springs should be sought in the area of Hebron, but there is no certainty about this point (for the identification of the springs at some distance from Debir, see Kochavi 1974:2–3, 29–30). A large, possibly fortified, Late Bronze city was discovered at the site of ancient Debir (Khirbet Rabûd) (Kochavi 1974:4–10, 19–26). It was the only urban center in southern Judah in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries, dominating the area from the Beer-sheba Valley in the south to Beth-zur in the north. The exact date of its destruction is unknown, due to the limited scope of the excavation. The explicit conquest tradition in Joshua 15 and Judges 1 may reflect a vague memory of the taking of the Canaanite city by a semi-nomadic group that lived in its vicinity. The Kenizzites possibly took advantage of the situation at the end of the Late Bronze Age, destroyed and sacked the city, and gradually settled at the site, apparently absorbing elements of the former Canaanite population in their midst. 4. Another conquest tradition relates the conquest and total destruction of the city of Zephath, which was renamed Hormah (Judg. 1:17). I already have discussed the subject at length elsewhere and will summarize my conclusions in brief (Na’aman 1980:136–143, with earlier literature). Hormah should be sought in the western Beer-sheba Valley (the biblical Negeb), possibly at Tel Ḥalif (Tell el-Khuweilifeh) — a large mound situated at the junction of the Shephelah, the Negev and the hill country. Its position and the fact that it overlooks vast areas accord well with the name “Zephath.” One may assume that the traditions about the conquest of Hormah (Num. 21:1–3; Judg. 1:17) reflects a vague memory of the capture of the city by a southern semi-nomadic group that subsequently settled at the site (see Josh. 15:30; 19: 4; 1 Sam. 30:29–30; I Chr. 4:30;)61 Excavations at Tel Ḥalif exposed a flourishing Late Bronze II city (Strata IXB-VIII) that came to an end ca. 1200 BCE. Iron Age I occupation (Stratum VII) was exposed immediately above it (Seger 1983:4– 9). The results of the excavations, thus, are in good accord with the biblical traditions of the conquest and settlement of Hormah. 61. The adverbial expressions ‘ad haḥōrmā (Num. 14:45) and ‘ad ḥōrmā (Deut. 1:44) are comparable to the expression ‘ad tummām (Deut. 2:15; Josh. 8:24; 10:20), both meaning “until they were utterly destroyed.” The expression ‘ad (ha)ḥōrmā was selected as a pun on the toponym Hormah. It is evident that Numbers 14:44–45 and Deuteronomy 1:43–44 have nothing to do with the conquest of the city of Hormah (see Na’aman 1980:139).


363

The destruction of Hormah and its eastern neighboring city, Debir, was apparently the outcome of the increase in the number of pastoral groups in southern Canaan in early Iron Age I. The shortage of grain and other necessary supplies brought about conflicts betewen the two Canaanite cities, leading to their destruction and the gradual settlement of the nomads in order to obtain grain. The tribe of Simeon is mentioned twice in Judges 1: in the introduction (v. 3) and in v. 17. It seems to me that Simeon’s place in the conquest and renaming episode is original and that its mention in the conquest tradition influenced the author to include its name in the introduction. The role of Judah in the episode of Hormah is secondary and is due to the author’s intention to attribute it all operations that took place within its allocated territory (see v. 10: “And Judah went”; v. 11: “He went from there”; v. 16 “with the children of Judah”). 5. The episode of the settlement of the Kenites at Arad is related in Judges 1:16 and, with some corrections, reads as follows: And the descendants of [Hobab] the Kenite, Moses’ father-in law, went up from the City of Palms with the children of Judah at the descent(?) (bmwrd) of Arad [LXX version], which is in the Negeb of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the Amalekites (’t h‘mlqy) [LXX version].62

The text refers to the peaceful settlement of the Kenites in the area of Arad (cf. Judg. 4:11) and their neighborly relations with the Amalekites. The latter may well have been the dominant tribal group in the Beer-sheba Valley in Iron Age I (cf. 1 Sam.15:6). Indeed, it has been suggested that Tel Masos, the most important center in the Beer-sheba Valley in the twelfth-eleventh centuries, was an Amalekite center (Kochavi 1984:46; Herzog 1984:72; Rainey 1984:101; Finkelstein 1984:200–202; 1988b:43–46; 1988a:243, 248–251). The earliest settlement at Arad (Stratum XII) was dated to the eleventh century (Aharoni 1981:181–192). Judges 1:16 possibly refers to this time, when Arad was already established, and the Amalekite center of Tel Masos reached its zenith. According to the text, the Kenites “went up from the City of Palms.” Although the latter is a well-known designation for Jericho (Deut. 34:3; Judg. 3:13; 2 Chr. 28:15), it is preferable to identify the site with Tamar, situated south of the Dead Sea (1 Kgs. 9:18; Ezek. 47:19; 48:28), on the main road lead-

62. For the translation of the passage, see Burney 1918:14–17. For the suggestion to read at the end of v. 16 ’th ‘mlk (“and Amalek went and settled with him”), see Barthélemy 1982:73–74. For a detailed discussion including various textual emendations, see Mittmann 1977:213–219.

364


ing from the Arabah to Arad (for the place of Tamar, see Aharoni 1967:197– 198; 1963:30–42; Mittmann 1977:225–233, with earlier literature). 6. The episode of the conquest of Luz (Bethel) in Judges 1:22–26 has no links with the Book of Joshua. It may be assumed that this short anecdote had an independent existence prior to its incorporation into the chapter. The beginning of v. 22 corresponds to the opening lines of the chapter and marks the start of its second part. The author deliberately inserted the words gam hēm (“they also”) in reference to waya‘al yehûdā (“Then Judah went up”; v. 4) to emphasize the relationship between the two somewhat parallel introductions (Auld 1975:276). The short narrative has several traits in common with other biblical spy stories. Particularly clear is the similarity to the narrative of Rahab and the spies (Josh. 2): the sending of spies to prepare the conquest, the promise to deal kindly with the person who agrees to help them perform their mission and the fulfilment of the promise when the city was captured. It seems to me that the etiological notation in v. 26 (“And the man went to the land of the Hittites and built a city, and called its name Luz, that is its name to this date”) was attached to the original story by the author of the chapter, who noted the similarity between the ancient name of the city (Luz) and that of a Neo-Hittite city of his time (for a different analysis, see Noth 1960b:276, n. 22). The etiological element is likewise secondary within the narrative of Rahab and the spies (Josh. 6:25).63 The two etiological notes, which include the formula “until this day,” mark the effort of late scribes to reaffirm the authenticity of the conquest narratives relating to Jericho and Bethel by a kind of personal testimony (Childs 1963:290–292). The two narratives originally ended with an identical motif: the safe departure of the unharmed person who had helped the spies, with his/her family, from the captured city (Josh. 6:23; Judg. 1:25). Bethel was captured by a stratagem that is unique in the conquest narratives: penetration by way of mebô’ hā‘îr into the fortified city. The narrator clearly refers to a secret passage, a kind of postern rather than the city gate that can be seen by everybody (Malamat 1979:48–49, with earlier literature). The words “and they smote the city with the edge of the sword” refer to the razing of the city, the same expression appearing in other episodes of the capture and destruction of Canaanite cities in the Book of Joshua (10:28– 63. Anbar (1984:255–257) has convincingly suggested that the original narrative of Rahab and the spies included Joshua 2:1–9a, 12–16, 22–23 and 6:22–23. This early narrative was expanded in two stages, the earlier of which included 2:12b, 17–21 and 6:17b, 24. The secondary nature of 6:17b and 25 was already noted by Steuernagel 1900:173–174. Thus, it is clear that the etiological element was added only at the second stage of the transmission. For a recent detailed discussion of Joshua 2, see Floss 1982 (esp. p. 72).


365

39). The significance of the expression may be inferred from the comparison of Joshua 19:47 (“and they smote it with the edge of the sword”) with Judges 18:27 (“and smote them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire”), both referring to the same event. There is, thus, no concrete foundation for Noth’s claim (Noth 1957:11–12, n. 6; 1960b:276) of inconsistency between the biblical description of the capture of Bethel (by treachery) and the results of the archaeological excavations conducted at the site (the Late Bronze Age city was covered with ash layers). Archaeologically, it is impossible to date accurately the destruction of the city (Finkelstein 1988b:72–73, with earlier literature). It is likewise impossible to establish with certainty whether Bethel was conquered by a West-Semitic or by a non-Semitic group that entered the hill country at that time. In conclusion, it can be said that the anecdote may have preserved an authentic memory of the conquest of Late Bronze Age Bethel, though this is by no means certain. Why did the author of Judges 1 include the episode of the conquest of Bethel in his composition? An obvious answer is the tendency to fill in “gaps” in the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua. The fall of Bethel is missing in Joshua; only the capture of its eastern neighbor Ai is described in detail. The author, thus, filled in an ostensible “gap,” just as he filled another with the episode of the conquest of Jerusalem. There is, however, another and more subtle answer. It has already been noted that the author deliberately emphasized the failure of the northern tribes to drive out the Canaanites, thus, explaining their troubled history as portrayed in the Book of Judges. Is it just by chance that the only city conquered by the Josephites (who may stand in this context for all the northern tribes) is Bethel, the future center of apostasy and the seat of the golden calf? With all due caution, I would suggest that the episode in vv. 22–26 was incorporated into the chapter both as a bridging of a “gap” in the conquest tradition of Joshua and as a kind of hidden polemic against the northern tribes, who were able to capture only one city: the future center of heresy and idolatry. To sum up, some of these episodes may possibly reflect vague memories of Iron Age I, in particular the traditions of the conquest and occupation of clans that had settled within the territory of Judah. Vague conquest traditions of the Josephites may have survived in the anecdotes of the battle at Bezek and the capture of Bethel. The list of unconquered Canaanite cities in Judges 1:21, 27–35 was probably borrowed from the description of the tribal 64. My previous analysis of the list of unconquered Canaanite cities in Judges 1 must be corrected in light of the present conclusions. See Na’aman 1986:95–98, 198–199. For a recent discussion, see Rösel 1988:121–127.

366


allotments in the Book of Joshua, a system that possibly reflects the reality of the tenth century BCE.64 We may conclude that the short notes and anecdotes are better sources for the early history of Israel than the detailed conquest stories of the Book of Joshua.

The Conquest of Hazor and Dan and the List of the Vanquished Canaanite Kings (1) According to Joshua 11:10–11, the city of Hazor was conquered and burnt after the great victory at the Waters of Merom. Fritz suggested that the original narrative in chapter 11 included vv. 1–9, 12a and 14 and that the capture of Hazor was added to the story at a later stage of transmission (Fritz 1973:129–130). Other scholars also assumed that the taking of Hazor does not belong to the original account.65 Fritz’s claim that vv. 12b–13 are editorial is acceptable. The capture of Hazor, on the other hand, finds a parallel in the conquest of the six southern cities after the great victory at Gibeon (Josh. 10: 28–39). The taking of Hazor plus a general statement concerning the conquest of the other northern cities is exactly what one would expect in light of the sequence of events in chapter 11 and the similarity to chapter 10. We may conclude that vv. 10–11 are an integral part of the original story of the battle at the Waters of Merom. Some scholars assumed that the sequence of events in Joshua 11 reflects historical reality and that the city of Hazor was destroyed following the defeat in battle at the Waters of Merom.66 In light of the doubts concerning the antiquity and historicity of the sources describing the latter battle, this assumption is highly unlikely. Rather, we should treat the episode of conquest (vv. 10–11) in isolation to determine whether it reflects an authentic memory of the early history of Israel. According to the excavation report, Hazor was destroyed around the midthirteenth century or slightly later (Yadin 1972:108–109; 1976:495).67 The last mention of the city is in Papyrus Anastasi I (“Where does the mahir make the journey to Hazor? What is its stream like?”), a text composed in the time of the Egyptian Nineteenth Dynasty (Wilson 1969b:477). On the other hand, the Iron Age I settlement of Tel Hazor and Upper Galilee does not antedate the late twelfth or early eleventh century BCE (Finkelstein 1988b:98–110, with earlier literature). The long time-span of about 100–150 years between

65. Noth 1938:10–11; 1953:69; [but note 1957:14–15; 1960:273–274]; Miller 1977:234, 282. 66. Noth 1957:14–15; 1960b:273–274, 275 n. 1; Maass 1958:109–117; Yadin in Aharoni 1960:234–238; 1972:108–109, 129–132; 1979:60–63, 66–67; 1982:19–22; Soggin 1972:135–137; Malamat 1979:52; de Vaux 1978:660–667, 677.


367

the destruction of Hazor and the resettlement of the mound and its vicinity makes it difficult to trust the authenticity of the biblical conquest tradition. One would rather suggest that the short note in vv. 10–11 is an inference based on the historical memory that “Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms” (Josh. 11:10). The author attributed to Joshua (who, according to his narrative, captured the entire Land of Israel) the conquest of “the head of all those kingdoms” as well. The background for the conquest of Hazor round about the mid-thirteenth century BCE is unknown. One can only hope that the renewed excavations at the site will shed more light on the destruction of this important Canaanite city. (2) A detailed description of the migration of the tribe of Dan and the conquest of Laish is related in Judges 18; other short notes appear in Joshua 19: 47 and Judges 1:34–35. Scholars have noted that the narrative in Judges 18 concerning northward migration is a transparent mockery of the tribe of Dan, its sanctuary and priests.68 Noth (1962:71) noted correctly that the narrative could be considered a legend of the founding of the sanctuary at Dan, but that “this would be but a caricature of such a legend.” Both the Levite and the cult image standing at the center of the newly founded sanctuary are portrayed in an unflattering light. The molten image, which was produced from stolen silver, is stolen for the second time and transferred to the north. The lowly Levite, dependent entirely on the “lord of the temple,” behaved both disgracefully and disloyally: He remained silent when the cult object was removed and then joined the robbers, seeking a better job in the north. The Danites are likewise depicted as highly unsavory types — a band of brigands, rather than a migrating clan: They took by threat the cult image from a place where they had formerly enjoyed hospitality, inducing the priest who served there to leave his benefactor and join them. After they had robbed Micah’s shrine and taken away his priest, they insolently threatened to kill Micah if he tried to stop them. In the description of Jeroboam’s cultic arrangements, it is related that he made two golden calves, erecting them in Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs. 12:28–29). Verse 30b reads: “and the people went before the one even unto Dan.” This transfer of the golden calf from Bethel to Dan is, in my opinion, the background against which the polemical narrative of Judges 18 was composed. It 67. For an earlier proposed date for the destruction of Canaanite Hazor, see Beck and Kochavi 1985:36–38, with earlier literature. 68. Halévy 1890:207–217; Noth 1962:68–85; Preuss 1971:60–67; Soggin 1981:264–278; Rudin-O’Brasky 1985:143–151; Amit 1990:4–20, with earlier literature. For a comprehensive study of the biblical Danite traditions, see Niemann 1985:61–147.

368


is the transfer of the bull image (and other cult objects as well) to Jeroboam’s newly founded cult center at Dan that is ridiculed by the author of Judges 18. The priests who served in Dan presumably came from the priesthood of Bethel and were likewise portrayed in a satiric manner. One may also recall the suggestion of Halévy that Judges 17 contains a hidden but severe criticism of the temple and cultic arrangements of Bethel and that the condemnation of Bethel is stronger than that of Dan (Halévy 1890:210–216; Amit 1990: 12–19). Judges 17–18 is a harsh criticism of the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan and of Jeroboam I’s cultic objects and priests in both sites. When we eliminate for a moment the elements that refer to the house of Micah, the graven image, the Levite and the etiological note (v. 12) from the narrative, we are left with a clear and coherent narrative. It opens with a short exposition of Dan as a tribe seeking an inheritance (v. 1). The Danites sent spies to explore the land (v. 2); these spies came to Laish and reconnoitred the site (v. 7). Then they returned and urged their brothers to go and conquer it (vv. 8–10). A band of 600 armed men set forth from Zorah and Eshtaol (v. 11), reached Laish, captured it and set the city on fire (vv. 27a–28), renaming it Dan, “after the name of Dan, their ancestor” (v. 29). Malamat suggested that “this tribal episode is a sort of diminutive model of a campaign of inheritance, the pattern of which appears on the national scale in the Exodus and pan-Israelite conquest cycles” (Malamat 1970:1). In my opinion, the narrator attained the “diminutive model” by reworking the old spy story in Numbers 13–14 and combining it with the short note in Joshua 19:47. No independent sources for the Danite northward migration were available to him. Malamat has already noted the close relations between the spy story in Numbers and our episode (Malamat 1970:1–7). For the similarity of Joshua 19:47 and Judges 18:27–29 note: wykw ’wth/m lpy ḥrb, wyšbw bh, wykr’w llšm/šm h‘yr dn k/bšm dn ’byhm. The narrator of Judges 17– 18 clearly borrowed the details of the Danite migration and the conquest of Laish from the Book of Joshua (for a different analysis, see Veijola 1977:24, n. 69). He sometimes expanded and somewhat altered his sources, as is evident from the exposition of the story (compare v. 1 with Josh. 19:40–47; Judg. 1:34–35). We may conclude that the narrative of Judges 17–18 includes polemic and satiric elements directed against the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan on the one hand and the reworking of earlier sources on the other hand. It is certainly not the kind of document that may shed light on the Danite migration of Iron Age I. Joshua 19:47 reads as follows: When the territory of the Danites was lost to them, the Danites went up and fought against Leshem, and after capturing it and putting it to the sword they took posses-


369

sion of it and settled in it, calling Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor.

Judges 1:34–35 relates that the Amorites exerted pressure on the Danites pushing them back “into the hill country.” Later, the sons of Joseph subdued the Amorites and subjected them to forced labor.69 The best points of departure for a historical evaluation of these notes are the excavations conducted at Tel Dan (for the Iron Age I findings from Tel Dan, see Biran 1989:71–96). Several collared-rim jars were found in pits that had been dug into a level of destruction of the Late Bronze Age. The pits are ascribed to Stratum VI and contained various vessels of Iron Age I. Collaredrim jars were revealed in large numbers in Strata VI-V of Tel Dan and are of the type common in the central hill country. The northern limit of distribution of these vessels is the Jezreel Valley and the Acco plain. Their appearance in large numbers in far-off Dan most probably reflects the migration of people from the central hill country to northern Palestine. What remains unclear is the chronological relationship between Stratum VII (Late Bronze Age) and Stratum VI (Iron Age I) at Tel Dan. Pits dug into a destruction level do not indicate the time span that separated the two strata.70 At Hazor, too, pits of Iron Age I were dug into the destruction level of the Canaanite city. However, there is a gap of about 100–150 years between the destruction of the Late Bronze Age city and the first Iron Age I settlement.71 Provided that there is a similarity in the history of Tel Dan and Hazor in Iron Age I (Hazor XII = Dan VI; Hazor XI = Dan V), a similar occupational gap between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I may be suggested for Tel Dan. This issue must be investigated in detail before any historical conclusions can be drawn about the settlement process at Tel Dan in Iron Age I. The excavations at Tel Dan have demonstrated that the Iron Age I settlement was founded by people who migrated from the central hill country. This is in good accord with the biblical tradition of the origin of the Danites from the northern Shephelah. This migration was apparently the result of the

69. For the LXX version of Joshua 19:47 and its assumed contribution to textual history of the MT, see Holmes 1914:15–16, 70; Cooke 1918:186; Auld 1975:277–278. 70. Biran (1989) did not discuss in detail the possible gap of settlement between Stratum VII and Stratum VI at Tel Dan. Moreover, he dated both Hazor XII and the sites discovered by Aharoni in Upper Galilee to the beginning of the twelfth century BCE (1989:75– 76, 81; for the correct chronological date of these settlement, see next note). His dating of Stratum VI is, thus, partially based on erroneous data. 71. Finkelstein (1988b: 98–101, 104–110) dated the foundation of both Hazor XII and the settlements of Upper Galilee to about 1100 BCE; see Mazar 1981:34–35; 1984:64. 72. For the city of Ekron in Iron Age I, see Gitin and Dothan 1987:200–205; Dothan 1989:

370


conflict with the autochthonous population (called “Amorites” in the LXX to Josh. 19:47 and Judg. 1:34–35, and “Canaanites” in Josh. 16:10; Judg. 1:29; 1 Kgs 9:16) and the strengthening of the neighboring Philistine kingdom of Ekron.72 It remains unclear whether this was a peaceful migration and the Danites settled in a site that was mainly deserted, or whether they conquered and destroyed the Late Bronze settlement, as related in the biblical tradition. The expansion of the Josephites (i.e., the Ephraimites) to the northern Shephelah (Judg. 1:35) should be dated to the tenth century BCE, following the defeat of the Philistines and the establishment of the monarchy. David’s conquests opened the way for migration of the inhabitants of the hill country to the lowlands, including the northern Shephelah. The events to which Joshua 19:47 and Judges 1:34–35 refer can be dated to the twelfth century (the Danite migration) and the tenth century (the subduing of the Amorites/ Canaanites by the Josephites), with a considerable time span separating them. (3) The list of “the kings of the land whom Joshua and the people of Israel defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad . . . to Mount Halak . . .” (Josh. 12:7) was composed to fill the territorial gaps that remained in the conquest narratives. Baal-gad and Mount Halak are located on the northern and southern boundaries of the tribal allotments (Kallai 1975:31–32; Na’aman 1986: 39–73 [esp. pp. 42–43]); the list of kings and their cities reflected the overall scope of the Israelite conquest. The MT lists thirty-one cities, whereas the LXX gives only twenty-nine: Bethel and Madon are missing. The city of Maron was already listed after Shimcon (LXX version: mlk šm‘wn mlk mdwn), and Madon (an old scribal error for the original Maron) must have been inserted into the text by a glossator; Bethel possibly was excised from the LXX, because, according to Judges 1:1, it was conquered “after the death of Joshua.”73 Thus, it is possible that the original list included thirty names. Fritz (1969:136–161) suggested that the author used a register of fortified cities of the time of Solomon for his list, which he copied and integrated into the conquest stories. However, first, many important cities mentioned in the accounts of David and Solomon (e.g., Dan, Beth-shean, Aruboth, Socoh, Bethshemesh, Beth-horon, Beer-sheba) are not included in the list. Second, the resemblance between the list and the conquest narratives both in names of towns and in their order of listing is not explained by this proposal. Third, the 1–22. For a suggested reconstruction of the Philistine growth and expansion, see Singer 1985:114–118. 73. For the city of Madon, see Barthélemy 1982:23–24. For the city of Bethel, see Aharoni 1967:209; Barthélemy 1982:25. For other textual differences between the MT and the LXX of Joshua 12, see Barthélemy 1982:23–27, with earlier literature.


371

assumption that the author arbitrarily selected a list of towns for his composition has no clear parallels in the Deuteronomistic history. More plausible is the assumption that the list was based on the conquest and settlement narratives (Aharoni 1956:29–36; 1967:208–211). The names of many towns were cited from these narratives, though not exactly in their original order. The list was supplemented by additional names (Geder/Gerar, Adullam, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Jokneam, Tirzah) to reach the number thirty. Aharoni (1967:208–209)] suggested that the names were borrowed from additional descriptions that have not been preserved. It is not clear, however, whether such sources were available to the author; the analysis of the conquest stories, rather, indicates the limited scope of the available source material. It seems to me that the author of the list selected the names of various “old” towns located in regions that were missing from the conquest narratives, possibly towns that were situated on ancient tells, a phenomenon that was considered an indication of great antiquity. He, thus, created a “map of conquest” that covered most of the districts of the Land of Israel and served as a supplement to the detailed narratives in the previous chapters. We may conclude that the list of Canaanite kings and their cities is a late literary compilation and cannot be used for the historical reconstruction of the early Iron Age.

The Treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites The treaty with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9) is an outstanding narrative within the conquest stories of the Book of Joshua. The semi-legendary character of the narrative becomes evident even from a superficial reading of the text: Why did the Gibeonites rely on such a transparent deception as the request for a covenant, although such a covenant was not needed by people who lived in a remote country? How were the Israelites deceived so easily, although the suspicion “perhaps you live among us” was expressed at the beginning of the negotiation? It is clear that the entire narrative, with all its legendary traits, was only the means by which the author was able to attain his objective — the treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites. From the beginning of modern research, scholars were aware of the presence of secondary elements in the story. There is consensus about the scope of the late Priestly stratum inserted into the story (vv. 15b, 17–21, and the word lā‘ēdāh in v. 27) (Steuernagel 1900:185–186; Noth 1953:9, 11; Liver 1963: 227–232; Halbe 1975:613–617, 630). However, there has been a long debate about the original core of the narrative, and various solutions to the problem have been offered (see, e.g., Steuernagel 1900:185–188; Cooke 1918:75–82; Möhlenbrink 1938:241–245; Noth 1953:50–59; Halbe 1975:617–630; Rösel 1985: 30–35). The exact demarcation of the original story is not necessary for my

372


discussion. Therefore, I will treat the narrative, minus the Priestly stratum, as a complete literary unit. The key to the correct understanding of the aim of the story is its close relationship with the rules for the conduct of warfare in Deuteronomy 20:10–18 (Blenkinsopp 1966:207–213; Kearney 1973:1–19). One set of laws demands, unconditionally, the extermination of all the inhabitants of Canaan (vv. 16–18); a second set allows subjugation of cities that are “very far from you,” if they surrender unconditionally (v. 11), and orders the extermination of all males if they refuse (vv. 12–14). The relevant law for interpreting the episode of the Gibeonites is worded as follows (v. 11): “And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.” Joshua adhered to the Deuteronomic law in all its details: he believed that the Gibeonites had come “from a very far country” (v. 9), surrendering unconditionally to the Israelites and, thus, “made peace with them, and entered into a covenant with them, to let them live” (v. 15a). The idiom ‘krt bryt l’ (“made a covenant with”) refers to a vassal treaty (compare 1 Sam. 11:1–2; 1 Kgs. 20:34), an interpretation that is supported by both the orders of the Gibeonite elders to their messengers (v. 11: “we are your servants”) and the messengers’ words to Joshua (v. 8: “we are your servants”). Joshua treated the Gibeonites according to the strict law that applied to a “very far from you” city that surrenders unconditionally. The close relationship between the law and the narrative is indicated by both theme and vocabulary (Vriezen 1975:151, n. 38). Joshua had unconsciously violated the law of the ban (cf. Ex. 23:32; 34:12; Deut. 7:2; Judg. 2:2), and the narrator emphasized this by repeating the key expression ‘krt bryt l’ (vv. 11. 15a, 16) three times. This analysis clarifies the main message of the narrative: Under no condition was it permissable to conclude a treaty with the inhabitants of the land and to spare them; the one exception — Gibeon — was achieved by deception. The Gibeonite narrative is, thus, a paradigm: A historical hero or historical event is portrayed in a way that teaches a lesson to all generations to come. The elements of the narrative may be authentic, at least partially, and derived from reality as it was known to the narrator, but, in its present form, it is nonhistorical (Rofé 1974:153–154; 1988, pp. 140–141). Various elements in the narrative suggest a relatively late date: (a) The reference to the conquest of Jericho and Ai in the introduction (v. 3). Also, the words (v. 4) “they on their part (gam hēmāh) acted with cunning” refer to the stratagem by which the city of Ai was conquered. Thus, it is clear that the narrator had before him the two conquest narratives. (b) The close relationship to the Deuteronomic laws of war. (c) The Gibeonites’ reply in v. 24 is Deuteronomistic in both formulation and concept and depends on the wordage of Joshua 2:9. The verse (save possibly for the words “his servant Moses”)


373

is an integral part of the original story and answers Joshua’s question in v. 22. The originality of the other Deuteronomistic elements is disputed among scholars (e.g., vv. 9b–10, 27b) and will not be taken into account (although they may well belong to the original story). (d) It is the only narrative in the conquest and settlement cycle in which Joshua and the men of Israel are portrayed critically. Note, in particular, the severe accusation in v. 14 that they “did not ask direction from the Lord.” We may conclude that the story of the treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites was composed by a narrator who was familiar with the conquest stories relating to Jericho and Ai and with the Deuteronomic law of war, exemplifying the latter in the “historical reality.” The earliest possible date for the narrative is the end of the First Temple period, but it is prefeable to date it to the early Second Temple period, when the problem of relationships with the inhabitants of the land was again on the agenda.74 For a better understanding of the Gibeonite story, I would like to compare it with another paradigmatic narrative that refers to the relationship of the Israelites with the local inhabitants of Canaan, that is, to Genesis 34. This narrative was composed in the post-exilic period as an admonition against marriage with the inhabitants of the hill country of Samaria (Amit 1984:31–47; Diebner 1984:59–76; Na’aman 1993).75 To exemplify the prohibition, the narrator, at the beginning, presents a marriage proposal that is ostensibly a logical offer to make amends for the rape (v. 4). Negotiation between the parties is at the center of the narrative and the Shechemites are willing both to be circumcised and to offer generous economic terms to settle the matter (vv. 8–12). But the sons of Jacob resist all temptations, and, for them, the negotiation is merely a stratagem to revenge the rape, to release their sister and to cancel the marriage agreement. The message of the narrative is clear: You must not marry the local inhabitants under any conditions, including a readiness on their part for circumcision and/or the offer of desirable economic terms. There are numerous elements that are common to the Gibeonite and Shechemite narratives: (a) Both are paradigmatic stories ostensibly portraying past relationships with the autochthonous population, called “Hivites” by the narrator; (b) Negotiation occupies a major part in both narratives; and (c) A cunning stratagem is used in both to achieve one side’s objective. It seems to me that the late narrators deliberately selected foreign enclaves, of which they

74. For a similar date based on different arguments, see Kearney 1973:1–8, 16–19. 75. The very late date attributed by Diebner to the narrative in Genesis 34, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

374


learned or inferred from earlier sources, as a background for their compositions. The story of Abimelech at Shechem (Judg. 9) refers to a Canaanite enclave at Shechem in the period of the Judges, and the episode of the execution of Saul’s offspring at Gibeah of Saul (2 Sam. 21:1–14) refers to the Gibeonites as a non-Israelite group. Whether the narrators were familiar with other traditions about Gibeon and Shechem in the pre-monarchic period is unknown (for a close comparison of the two narratives, see Blenkinsopp 1972:37–40). A third legendary story that uses one of the pre-Israelite nations to convey a message is Genesis 23. The narrative has been assigned to P since the early days of modern research (Skinner 1910:335; Gunkel 1917:273–274; von Rad 1972:246–250) and has distinctive parallels in the Neo-Babylonian “dialogue sale documents” of the seventh-fifth centuries BCE (Petschow 1965: 103–120; Tucker 1966:77–84). A long negotiation with the local Hittite population is at the center of the story, culminating in an agreement and the purchase of the burial plot. The message conveyed by the narrative is clear: The land of Hebron was legally purchased by the Patriarchs, who buried their family there, and it belongs to the people of Israel for all time to come. The story reflects a time when Hebron was settled by non-Israelites, following the exile or desertion after 587/586 BCE. One may safely assume that it was composed to justify the rights of the post-Exilic community to the burial site in the former Judahite city of Hebron. Several elements are common to all three narratives: (a) the conveyance of a message to a contemporaneous audience; (b) the dialogue that occupies a central place in the story; and (c) the selection of “pre-Israelite nations” who lived in the hill country (Hivites, Hittites) as the counterparts to the Israelites. In my opinion, all three were composed in the early Second Temple period, reflecting specific problems that troubled the Jewish community of returnees at that time. The three towns (Shechem, Gibeon and Hebron) were selected in accordance with the narrators’ assumptions about the location of the pre-Israelite nations. The possible sources for Shechem and Gibeon were mentioned above; the narrator may well have learned of Hittites in Hebron from the three non-Semitic names of the “sons of Anak,” whom Caleb drove out from the site (Num. 13:22, 28; Josh. 15:14; Judg. 1:10). We may conclude that Joshua 9 is a late legendary story, possibly of the early Second Temple period, and cannot help us to reconstruct the history of Israel in the early Iron Age. For the relationship with the Gibeonites, we must examine the source used by the author of Joshua 9, that is, 2 Samuel 21:1–14. The close relationship of the two episodes is well known and has been discussed in detail by many scholars (see, e.g., Cazelles 1955:165–175; Malamat 1955:1–12; Blenkinsopp 1972:89–94; McCarter 1984:440–446, with earlier literature).


375

There was a famine in the days of David for three years, so runs the story, and by divination the “reason” for the famine was discovered: “There is blood guilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death” (v. 1). David negotiated with the Gibeonites and finally gave them seven of Saul’s offspring, who were executed at the spring “in Gibeah of Saul on the mountain [sic!] of the Lord” (bgb‘t š’wl bhr yhwh) (note v. 9: “on the mountain before the Lord”).76 The second part of the story (vv. 10–14) does not concern us here. Other evidence of Saul’s conflict with the inhabitants of the western Benjaminite hill country appears in 2 Samuel 4:2. The city of Beeroth was populated by Benjaminites following the flight of its inhabitants to Gittaim, a village located in the northern Shephelah (today el-Burj = Ḥorvat Tittora), on the margins of the hill country (for the identification of Gittaim at el-Burj, see Schmitt 1980:80–92). The flight was certainly the result of Saul’s persecution of the town’s population. The background to the enmity of Saul toward the inhabitants of western Benjamin is not related in our sources. One would naturally assume that it was the result of their non-Semitic origin, the difference in cult and culture (2 Sam. 21:2), and their close relationship with the Philistines, Saul’s mortal enemies. What was Saul’s grave sin that brought about three years of famine, which could only be cleared by the blood of his offspring? The nature of the offense is related explicitly in the story (v. 2b): Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to slay them in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.

It was suggested that the verse is an editorial Deuteronomistic expansion of the original story (Veijola 1975:108). Granting this assumption, its words still fit the overall tenor of the story. We may conclude that an old treaty between the Israelites and the Gibeonites is at the background of the story of David and the Gibeonites’ revenge in 2 Sam. 21:1–14. When was the treaty concluded and who were the parties to the agreement? As a point of departure, we must take the pattern of settlement in the hill country of Benjamin and the southernmost part of the land of Ephraim in

76. For a recent discussion of 2 Samuel 21:6, see Barthélemy 1982:300–301. The reading “in Gibeah of Saul on the mountain of the Lord” is supported by the reference to Gibeathelohim in 1 Samuel 10:5. In my opinion, the two names refer to one and the same place, the cultic site of Gibeah of Saul, where Saul prophesied according to the story of 1 Samuel 10:9–13 (see Driver 1913:80, 82). For a different interpretation of the text, see Blenkinsopp 1974:5; McCarter 1984:438.

376


Iron Age I. Excavations and surveys conducted in the area revealed a marked difference between the eastern and western parts of the region: Some nineteen Iron Age I settlements are located east of the Jerusalem-Nablus road, as against five on its western side (Finkelstein 1990:199–200). A similar picture was discerned in the hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh: The settlement process initially took place mostly on the desert fringes and in the central range; only at later stages, from the eleventh century onward, did penetration into the hilly and rocky areas in the west intensify (Finkelstein 1989:53– 59). Two of the western Iron Age I sites are identified with Gibeonite villages: Gibeon (el-Jib) and Beeroth (Khirbet el-Burj). It is not clear, however, whether Chephirah (Khirbet Kefireh) also was extensively settled in Iron Age I (Vriezen 1975:135–158). Whether the four Hivite cities mentioned in Joshua 9:17 were indeed occupied in the pre-monarchial period is not beyond doubt (note their mention in the early Second Temple period: Ezr. 2:25; Neh. 7:25, 29).77 In light of the pattern of settlement in the hill country and the intensification of the settlement process in its western parts only in the eleventh century, we may assume that the treaty between the “Israelites” and the Gibeonites should best be dated to the eleventh century BCE. Consolidation and unification of the settlements in the eastern and central parts of Benjamin necessarily antedated this event. It was only with the emergence of problems that were the concern of the entire hill country of Benjamin that such a treaty became necessary. We may conclude that the attribution of the “Israelite” treaty with the Gibeonites to the “conquest era” is due to literarytheological considerations and does not suit the historical reality. It is not clear who concluded the treaty on the “Israelite” side: Was it the villages of eastern and central Benjamin? Or did south Ephraimite villages take part in the agreement? Or was it Saul himself who concluded the treaty, violating it after a while?78 The nature of the treaty is also not clear. One would naturally assume that at first it was a parity agreement and that with the gradual strengthening of the “Israelite” side, the latter became the dominant party. We may further assume that, in light of this development, the Gibeonites tried to rely more heavily on their western neighbors, the Philistines, as a counter-balance to the growing strength of their eastern neighbors, and that the conflict with Saul was the direct result of this policy. At all events, the presentation of the Gibeonites as the inferior party to the treaty is due to the paradigmatic nature of the story of Joshua 9, being modeled on the laws of war

77. For a Second Temple dating of the story, see recently Briend 1992:10–17. 78. For a discussion of the problem, see Schunck 1963:38–39; Vriezen 1975:149–157; Halbe 1975:630–641.


377

in the Book of Deuteronomy. The narrator depicted them according to the law that refers to very distant cities that surrendered unconditionally before the Israelites, thus, making them “hewers of wood and drawers of water . . . for the altar of the Lord to continue to this day” (Josh. 9:27).79

Summary The few possible authentic indications of the early Iron Age have been preserved in the short anecdotes and notes, rather than in the long narratives of the Book of Joshua. Such are the references to the occupation of Hebron, Debir, Hormah, Bethel and Laish, and the settlement at Arad. Common to all these episodes (save for Arad) is the renaming of the sites after their conquest: Kiriath-Arba — Hebron; Kiriath-Sepher — Debir; Zephath — Hormah; Luz — Bethel; Laish — Dan. A reference to the renaming of sites also appears in the short episodes of the conquest and settlement of Transjordan (Num. 32:37–38, 41–42) and may indicate an early conquest tradition. (For the renaming of cities in biblical tradition, see Eissfeldt 196:69–79). Also remarkable is the persistence of traditions relating to the occupation of important sub-tribal centers in the land of Judah (clans of Calebites, Kenizzites, Kenites, Simeonites). Similar traditions have not survived for the northern tribes. This may reflect the authors’ interest in the history of Judah and their willingness to “investigate” the origins of the tribe on the one hand, and their ignorance of the history of the northern tribes on the other hand. Only few cities in the central hill country were destroyed in the late thirteenth-early twelfth centuries BCE. Debir was the only Canaanite city in the hill country of Judah in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries and was possibly conquered by the Kenizzites. Jerusalem was apparently captured by the Jebusites, who subsequently settled there. The note on its conquest by the tribe of Judah (Judg. 1:8) lacks historical reliability. Bethel was the only Canaanite city in the southernmost part of Ephraim and was conquered by one of the groups that entered the hill country in early Iron Age I. The conquest tradition in Judges 1:22–25 may have preserved a vague memory of its capture by stratagem, although this is by no means certain. Some of the Canaanite cities in the hill country of Manasseh probably existed side by side with the new Iron Age I settlements (Alt 1939:8–13; de Vaux 1978:635–640; Finkelstein 1988b:80–91, 348– 351). It is evident that the conquest of the few isolated Canaanite cities in the

79. For the complicated problems involved with historical understanding of v. 27, see Haran 1961:159–169, with earlier literature; Halbe 1975:632–634; de Vaux 1978:623–624; Briend 1992:17–20.

378


hill country played a secondary, though vital, role in the overall process of the occupation of the hill country in early Iron Age I. Enormous difficulties are involved with the historical analysis of the narratives about wars conducted near Gibeon, the Waters of Merom and Bezek. One cannot exclude the possibility that these narratives preserved some remote echoes of wars conducted in these places in early Iron Age I. However, such wars — if they indeed took place — do not lend themselves to reconstruction. On the other hand, the narratives of the capture of Jericho and Ai and the conquest of the six cities of the Shephelah and the hill country of Judah are devoid of historical reality. The comprehensive conquest saga in the Book of Joshua is a fictive literary composition aimed at presenting the occupation of the entire Land of Israel, initiated and guided by the Lord and carried out by the twelve tribes under Joshua. Military events that took place in the course of the later history of Israel were used by the author as models for his narratives. These military episodes were entirely adapted to the new environment, so that, in no case, can we trace a direct literary relationship between the original story/tradition and its literary reflection. When were the conquest narratives of the Book of Joshua composed? The unified character of the text, in which Joshua and the twelve tribes play the major role, points to a relatively late date. I have suggested above both that Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah in 701 BCE possibly served as a model for the description of Joshua’s campaign to the Shephelah and the hill country of Judah (Josh. 10:28–39) and that the mentioning of hanging on ‘ēṣîm (Josh. 8:29; 10:26) possibly reflects the Assyrian way of punishing rebel leaders by impalement on posts. The composition of the conquest saga is certainly no earlier than the seventh century BCE. One cannot rule out the possiblity that isolated episodes, in particular the short anecdotes and notes, were written sometime before the penning of the unified literary work. However, the main block of material was composed at a late date as part of the Deuteronomistic history of Israel. Thus, hundreds of years separate the historical work from the time to which it is attributed. This enormous gap explains the minor contribution of the conquest stories to the early history of Israel. At the end of the second section, I suggested that the long period of drought and famine in the late thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE was engraved in the collective historical memory of Israel and that the stories of migration from Canaan to Egypt and back vaguely reflect this memory. It seems to me that the overall historical picture in the Book of Joshua may be explained in the same manner. The collective historical memory of Israel retained the impression of the total destruction of the Canaanite urban system in the late thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE. When the Dtr historian tried to portray the early history of Israel, he took this vague memory as his point


379

of departure, describing how the Canaanite towns were captured and razed by the twelve tribes under the leadership of Joshua. The conquests were associated with the great tells located in the hill country and the Shephelah, which were conceived as the former seats of the Canaanite kings. In this way emerged the biblical conquest description that, save for its underlying very thin foundation, has only a tenuous contact with historical reality.

References Abou-Assaf, A. Bordreuil, P. and Millard, A.R. 1982. La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Paris. Abramski, S. 1985. The Attitude toward the Amorites and Jebusites in the Book of Samuel: Historical Foundation and Ideological Significance. Zion 50: 27–58. (Hebrew). Adams, R. McC. 1974. Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthropology 15: 239–258. Aharoni, M. 1981. The Pottery of Strata 12–11 of the Iron Age Citadel at Arad. Eretz-Israel 15: 181–204. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1956. The List of Canaanite Kings. In: Gevaryahu, H.M.Y. et al. eds. A. Biram Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: 29–36. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1960. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in the Land. In: Rabin, H. et al. eds. Studies in the Book of Joshua. Jerusalem: 220–247. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1963. Tamar and the Roads to Elath. IEJ 13: 30–42. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Ahlström, G.W. 1984. The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition. JNES 43: 141– 149. Ahlström, G. W. 1986. Who Were the Israelites? Winona Lake. Ahlström, G.W. and Edelman, D. 1985. Merneptah’s Israel. JNES 44: 59–61. Albright, W.F. 1950. Cilicia and Babylonia under the Chaldean Kings. BASOR 120: 22–25. Albright, W.F. 1954. Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C. JAOS 74: 222–233. Albright, W.F. 1970. Midianite Donkey Caravans. In: Frank, H.T. and Reed, W.L. eds. Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Essays in Honor of Herbert G. May. New York: 197–205. Alt, A. 1925. Judas Gaue unter Josia. PJb 21: 100–116. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 276–288). Alt, A. 1927. Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buch Josua. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Sellin Festschrift: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas. Leipzig: 13– 24. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 193–202). Alt, A. 1936. Josua. Volz, P. et al. eds. Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament (Beiheft zur ZAW 66). Berlin: 13–29. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 176–192). Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Palästinas. PJb 32: 8–33. Alt, A. 1939. Erwägungen über die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. PJb 35: 8–63 (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 126–175). Alt, A. 1953. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. In: Alt 1953a: 89–125. (Original publication: 1925. Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig).

380


Alt, A. 1953a. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München. Amit, Y. 1984. The Art of Composition in the Book of Judges. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Amit, Y. 1990. Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XII-XIII. VT 40: 4–20. Anbar, M. 1984. A History of the Composition of Rahab and the Spies Narrative. Beth Mikra 39: 255–257. (Hebrew). Anbar, M. 1985. The Amorite Tribes in Mari and the Settlement of the Israelites in Canaan. Tel Aviv. Anbar, M. and Na’aman, N. 1986–1987. An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13–14: 3–12. Astour, M. 1978. Les Hourrites en Syrie du Nord: rapport sommaire. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 1–22. Auld, A.G. 1975. Judges I and History: A Reconsideration. VT 25: 261–285. Avneri, A.L. 1980. The Jewish Land Settlement and the Arab Claim of Dispossession (1878–1948). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Ayalon, E. 1985. Trial Excavation of Two Iron Age Strata at Tel ‘Eton. Tel Aviv 12: 54–62. Bachi, R. 1977. The Population of Israel. Jerusalem. Barnett, R.D. 1975a. Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 417–442. Barnett, R.D. 1975b. The Sea Peoples. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 359–378. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Beck, P. 1990. The Taanach Cult Stands: Iconographic Traditions in the Iron I Cult Vessels. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 417–446. (Hebrew). Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13th Century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12: 29–42. Beltz, W. 1974. Die Kaleb-Traditionen im Alten Testament. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 5/18). Stuttgart. Ben-Arieh, Y. 1988. The Population and Settlements of Palestine on the Eve of the Zionist Settlement. In: Ben-Aryeh, Y. et al. eds. Historical-Geographical Studies in the Settlement of Eretz Israel. Jerusalem: 1–14. (Hebrew). Ben-Dov, M. Nph — A Geographical Term of a Possible “Sea-Peoples” Origin. Tel Aviv 3: 70–73. Bietak, M. 1980. Hyksos. In: Helck, W. and Westendorf, W. eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie III. Wiesbaden: 93–103. Bietak, M. 1984. Problems of Middle Bronze Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. AJA 88: 471–485. Bietak, M. 1991. Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 281: 27–72. Biran, A. 1989. The Collared-rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 71–96. Blenkinsopp, J. 1966. Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28: 207–219. Blenkinsopp, J. 1972. Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel. Cambridge. Blenkinsopp, J. 1974. Did Saul Make Gibeon His Capital?. VT 24: 1–7.


381

Bottéro, J. 1954. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. (Cahiers de la société asiatique 12). Paris. Bottéro, J. 1981. Les Ḫabiru, les nomades et les sédentaires. In: Castillo, J.S. ed. Nomads and Sedentary Peoples. Mexico City: 89–107. (= 1980. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 6: 201–213). Briend, J. 1992. Gabaon à l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 5: 9–20. Bright, J. 1960. A History of Israel, London. Brinkman, J.A. 1968. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 B.C. (Analecta Orientalia 43). Rome. Brinkman, J.A. 1976–80. Kassiten. RLA V: 464–473. Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. 1989. Les inscriptions Araméennes de Hazaël. RA 83: 35–44. Broshi, M. 1977. Naṣbeh, Tell en-. In: Avi-Yonah, M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land III. Jerusalem: 912–918. Brug, J.F. 1985. A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. (BAR International Series 265). Oxford. Buccellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples. Bulliet, R.W. 1975. The Camel and the Wheel. Cambridge. Bunimovitz, I. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Burney, C. 1989. The Khirbet Kerak Question and the Early Transcaucasian Background. In: de Miroschedji, P. ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’age du Bronze ancien (BAR International Series 527). Oxford: 331–339. Burney, C.F. 1918. The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. London. Callaway, J.A. 1985. A New Perspective of the Hill Country Settlement of Canaan in Iron Age I. In: Tubb, J.N. ed. Palestine in the Bronze Ages: Paper in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: 31–49. Callaway, J.A. and Cooley, R.E. 1971. A Salvage Excavation at Raddana, in Bireh. BASOR 201: 9–19. Cavigneaux, A. and Ismail, B.K. 1990. Die Statthalter von Suḫu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. Baghdader Mitteilungen 21: 321–456. Cazelles, H. 1955. David’s Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim (II Sam. XXI, 1–14). PEQ 87: 165–175. Chaney, M.L. 1983. Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements and the Formation of Premonarchic Israel. In: Freedman D.N. and Graf, D.F. eds. Palestine in Transition: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Sheffield: 39–90. Childs, B.S. 1963. A Study of the Formula “Until This Day.” JBL 82: 279–292. Childs, B.S. 1967. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis. (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 3). London. Childs, B.S. 1974. The Etiological Tale Re-examined. VT 24: 387–397. Clements, R.E. 1980. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 13). Sheffield. Coats, G.W. 1987. The Book of Joshua: Heroic Saga or Conquest Theme. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38: 15–32. Cooke, G.A. 1918. The Book of Joshua. (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). Cambridge. Coote, R.B. and Whitelam, K.W. 1987. The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective. Sheffield. Dearman, A. ed. 1989. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta. del Monte, G.F. and Tischler, J. 1978. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. VI: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 7/6). Wiesbaden.

382


Delcor, M. 1980. De l‘Astarte Cananéenne des textes Bibliques à l’Aphrodite de Gaza. Folia Orientalia 21: 83–92. Diebner, B.J. 1984. Gen 34 und Dinas Rolle bei der Definition “Israels.” Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 19: 59–76. Donner, H. 1984. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. I: Von den Anfängen bis zur Staatenbildungszeit. Göttingen. Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1968. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften II. Wiesbaden. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 1–14. Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis. (Ph.D. Thesis). Ann Arbor. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford. van Dyk, P.J. 1990. The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives. ZAW 102: 19–33. Eissfeldt, O. 1968. Renaming in the Old Testament. In: Ackroyd, P.R. and Lindars, B. eds. Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to D. Winton Thomas. Cambridge: 69–79. Eissfeldt, O. 1973. Protektorat der Midianiter über ihre Nachbarn im letzten Viertel des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Kleine Schriften V. Tübingen: 94–105. Elliger, K. 1934. Josua in Judäa. PJb 30: 47–71. Engel, E. 1979. Die Siegesstele des Merneptah. Biblica 60: 373–399. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Eph‘al, I. and Naveh, J. 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions. IEJ 39: 192–200. Falkenstein, A. 1959. Akiti-Fest und Akiti-Festhaus. In: von Kienle, R. et al. eds. Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag. Heidelberg: 147–182. Fecht, G. 1983. Die Israelstele, Gestalt und Aussage. In: Görg, M. ed. Fontes atque Pontes. Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 106–138. Finkelstein, I. 1984. The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands: Sedentarization of the Nomads. Tel Aviv 11: 189–209. Finkelstein, I. 1988a. Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries B.C.E. JNES 47: 241–252. Finkelstein, I. 1988b. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1989. The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44: 43–74. Finkelstein, I. 1990. Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara: An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem. Tel Aviv 17: 163–208. Finkelstein, I. 1990. The Emergence of Early Israel: Anthropology, Environment and Archaeology. JAOS 110: 677–686. Floss, J.P. 1982. Kunden oder Kundschafter? Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu Josh. 2. I: Text, Schichtung, Überlieferung. St. Ottilien. Forrer, E. 1936. The Hittites in Palestine. PEQ 68: 190–203. Forrer, E. 1937. The Hittites in Palestine. PEQ 69: 100–115. Fritz, V. 1969. Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12. ZDPV 85: 136–161. Fritz, V. 1973. Das Ende der Spätbronzezeitlichen Stadt Hazor Stratum XIII und die biblische Überlieferung in Josua 11 und Richter 4. Ugarit-Forschungen 5: 123–139. Fritz, V. 1981. The Israelite “Conquest” in the Light of Recent Excavations at Khirbet elMeshâsh. BASOR 241: 61–73.


383

Fritz, V. 1987. Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine. BA 50: 84–100. Fuss, W. 1962. II Samuel 24. ZAW 74: 145–164. Garelli, P. and Nikiprowetzky, V. 1974. Le Proche-Orient asiatique: Les empires mésopotamiensIsraël. Paris. Gelb, I.J. 1961. The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples. JCS 15:27–47. Gitin, S. and Dothan, T. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines: Recent Excavations at an Urban Border Site. BA 50: 197–222. de Geus, C.H.J. 1966. Richteren 1:1–2:5. Vox Theologica 36: 32–53. de Geus, C.H.J. 1976. The Tribes of Israel. An Investigation into Some of the Presuppostions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 18). Assen and Amsterdam. Giveon, R. 1971. Les bédouins shosou des documents Égyptiens. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden. Glock, A.E. 1971. A New Ta‘annek Tablet. BASOR 204: 17–30. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera‘ in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11: 77–93. Golka, F.W. 1976. The Aetiologies in the Old Testament. VT 26: 410–428. Golka, F.W. 1977. The Aetiologies in the Old Testament. VT 27: 36–47. Gonçalves, F.J. 1986. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne. (Etudes Bibliques 7). Louvain-la-Neuve. Gonen, R. 1984. Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. BASOR 253: 61–73. Gonen, R. 1992. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 7). Winona Lake. Görg, M. 1976. Ḥiwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ugarit-Forschungen 8: 53–55. Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250– 1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings, A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Grayson, A.K. 1976. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions II. Wiesbaden. Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series, 39). New Haven. Gunkel, H. 1917. Genesis übersetzt und erklärt. (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1). Göttingen. Gunn, D.M. 1974. Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel. VT 24: 286– 317. Gurney, O.R. 1977. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. Oxford. Halbe, J. 1975. Gibeon und Israel: Art, Veranlassung und Ort der Deutung ihres Verhältnisses in Jos. IX. VT 25: 613–641. Halévy, J. 1890. Recherches Bibliques. XXI. L’histoire de Michée. Revue des Études Juives 21: 207–217. Halpern, B. 1975. Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37: 303–316. Halpern, B. 1983a. The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography. Harvard Theological Review 76: 379–401. Halpern, B. 1983b. Doctrine of Misadventure: Between the Israelite Source and the Biblical Historian. In: Friedman, R.E. ed. The Poet and the Historian. Chico: 41–73. Halpern, B. 1983c. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. Chico. Halpern, B. 1988. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco. Hammond, P.C. 1965. Hébron. RB 72: 267–270. Hammond, P.C. 1966. Hébron. RB 73: 566–569. Hammond, P.C. 1968. Hébron. RB 75: 253–259.

384


Haran, M. 1961. The Gibeonites, the Nethinim and the Sons of Solomon’s Servants. VT 11: 159–169. Hawkins, J.D. 1974. Assyrians and Hittites. Iraq 36: 67–83. Hawkins, J.D. 1982. The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia. The Cambridge Ancient History III/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 372–441. Helck, W. 1979. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7 Jahrhundert v. Chr. Darmstadt. Hellwing, S. 1984. Human Exploitation of Animal Resources in the Early Iron Age Strata at Tel Beer-sheba. In: Herzog, Z. ed. Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: 105–115. Hellwing, S. and Adjeman, Y. 1986. Animal Bones. In: Finkelstein, I. ‘Izbet Ṣarṭah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha‘ayin, Israel. (BAR International Series 299). Oxford: 141–152. Herrmann, A. 1953–54. Die Königsnovelle in Ägypten und in Israel. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx Universität Leipzig 3/1: 51–62. Hertzberg, H.W. 1926. Adonibezeq. JPOS 6: 213–221. Hoffner, H.A. 1969. Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study. Tyndale Bulletin 20: 27–55. Hoffner, H.A., 1973. The Hittites and Hurrians. In: Wiseman, D.J. ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: 197–228. Holladay, J.S. 1968. The Day(s) the Moon Stood Still. JBL 87: 166–178. Holmes, S. 1914. Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge. Honor, L.L. 1926. Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study. New York. Hörig, M. 1979. Dea Syria. Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgottin in Vorderasien. (Alte Orient und Altes Testament 208). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Hornung, E. 1983. Die Israelstele des Merneptah. In: Görg, M. ed. Fontes atque Pontes. Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 232–233. Huffmon, H.B. 1965. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore. Ishida, T. 1982. Solomon’s Succession to the Throne of David — A Political Analysis. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 175–187. Isserlin, B.S.J. 1982. Invasions and Cultural Changes: A Comparative Study of Four Test Cases. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section 18/1: 9–24. Isserlin, B.S.J. 1983. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan: A Comparative Review of the Arguments Applicable. PEQ 115: 85–94. Jones, G.H. 1975. “Holy War” or “Yahweh War.” VT 25: 642–658. Kallai, Z. 1975. The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible. Eretz-Israel 12: 27–34. (Hebrew). Kaufman, I.T. 1982. The Samaria Ostraca — An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing. BA 45: 229–239. Kaufmann, Y. 1955. The Biblical Story of the Conquest of the Land. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kaufmann, Y. 1959. The Book of Joshua. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kearney, P.J. 1973. The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35: 1–19. Kempinski, A. 1979. Hittites in the Bible: What Does Archaeology Say? Biblical Archaeology Review 5/4: 20–46. Kirkpatrick, P.G. 1988. The Old Testament and Folklore Studies (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 62). Sheffield. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster. Klengel, H. 1974. “Hungerjahre” in Hatti. Altorientalische Forschungen 1: 165–174.


385

Knauf, E.A. 1983. Midianites and Ishmaelites. In: Sawyer, J.F.A. and Clines, D.J.A. eds. Midian, Moab and Edom. Sheffield: 147–162. Knauf, E.A. 1988. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Kochavi, M. 1974. Khirbet Rabûd = Debir. Tel Aviv 1: 2–33. Kochavi, M. 1984. The Settlement Period (Late 13th Century — Late 11th Century BCE). In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel. II: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 19–84. (Hebrew). van der Kooij, A. 1986. A. Das assyrische Heer von den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr. ZDPV 102: 93–109. Kramer, C. 1977. Pots and Peoples. In: Levine, L.D. and Cuyler Young, C. eds. Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7). Malibu: 91–112. Kupper, J.R. 1957. Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari. Paris. Kupper, J.R. 1978. Les Hourrites à Mari. Revue Hittite et Asianique 36: 117–128. Kyrieleis, H. and Röllig, W. 1988. Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 103: 37– 75 L’Heureux, C.E. 1976. The yelîdê hārāpā’ — A Cultic Association of Warriors. BASOR 221: 83– 85. Lambert, W.G. 1960. The Domesticated Camel in the Second Millennium — Evidence from Alalakh and Ugarit. BASOR 160: 42–43. Landsberger, B. 1948. Sam’al: Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstaette Karatepe. Ankara. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106– 133. Langlamet, F. 1976. Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I-II. RB 83: 321–379, 481–528. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques. Vol. 1. Les ostraca. Paris. Lemaire, A. 1982. Recherches actuelles sur les origines de l’ancien Israël. Journal Asiatique 270: 5–24. Lemaire, A. 1988. Recherches actuelles sur les sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques. VT 38: 220– 230. Lemche, N.P. 1984. On the Problem of Studying Israelite History: Apropos Abraham Malamat’s View of Historical Research. Biblische Notizen 23:94–124. Lemche, N.P. 1985. Early Israel. Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society Before the Monarchy. (Supplement to VT 37). Leiden. Lemche, N.P. 1988a. Ancient Israel. A New History of Israelite Society. Sheffield. Lemche, N.P. 1988b. Rachel and Lea. Or: On the Survival of Outdated Paradigms in the Study of the Origin of Israel, II. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2: 39–65. Lemche, N.P. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 110). Sheffield. Licht, J. 1983. Biblical Historicism. In: Tadmor, H. and Weinfeld, M. eds. History, Historiography and Interpretation. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: 107–120. Lipiński, E. 1979 Aram et Israël du Xe au VIIIe siècle av. N.È. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 49–102. Lipiński, E. 1974. ‘Anaq-Kiryat ’Arba‘-Hébron et ses sanctuaires tribaux. VT 24: 41–55.

386


Lipschitz, O. 1983. Pre-Israelite Residues in the Conquest Stories. In: Rofé, A. and Zakovitch, Y. eds. Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World I. Jerusalem: 95–110. (Hebrew). Liver, J. 1963. The Literary History of Joshua IX. Journal of Semitic Studies 8: 227–243. Liver, J. 1967. The Book of the Acts of Solomon. Biblica 48: 75–101. London, G. 1989. A Comparison of Two Contemporary Lifestyles of the Late Second Millennium B.C. BASOR 273: 37–55. Long, B.O. 1968. The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. (Beiheft zur ZAW 108). Berlin. Maass, F. 1958. Hazor und das Problem der Landnahme. In: Hempel, J. and Rost, L. eds. Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt. (Beiheft zur ZAW 77). Berlin: 105–117. Macalister, R.A.S. 1911. The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. London. Malamat, A. 1955. Doctrines of Causality in Biblical and Hittite Historiography: VT 5: 1–12. Malamat, A. 1970. The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern. Biblica 51: 1–16. Malamat, A. 1979. Israelite Conduct of War in the Conquest of Canaan. In: Cross, F.M. ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Cambridge: 35–55. Malamat, A. 1983. The Proto-History of Israel: A Study in Method. In: Myers, C.L. and O’Connor, M. eds. The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake: 303–313. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria. BASOR 234: 1–42. Mayes, A.D.H. 1983. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London. Mazar, A. 1981. Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem. IEJ 31: 1–36. Mazar, A. 1984. The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the Light of Archaeological Excavations. In: Amitai, J. ed. Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem April 1984. Jerusalem. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1930. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1936. Das vordavidische Jerusalem. JPOS 10: 181–191. Mazar, B. 1971. The Exodus and the Conquest. In: Mazar, B. ed. Judges. (The World History of the Jewish People). Tel Aviv: 69–93, 304–307. Mazar, B. 1981. The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country. BASOR 241: 75–85. McCarter, P.K. 1980a. The Apology of David. JBL 99: 489–504. McCarter, P.K. 1980b. I Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible), Garden City. McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. McClellan, T.L. 1984. Town Planning at Tell en-Naṣbeh. ZDPV 100: 53–69. Mellaart, J. 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut. Mendenhall, G.E. 1962. The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: 66–87. Mendenhall, G.E. 1974. The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore and London. Mendenhall, G.E. 1986. Cultural History and the Philistine History. Gerarty, L.T. and Herr, L.G. eds.The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Essays Presented to Siegfried H. Horn. Berrien Springs: 525–546.


387

Mettinger, T.N.D. 1976. King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. (Coniectanea Biblica, 8). Lund. Meyer, E. 1881. Kritik der Berichte über die Eroberung Palaestinas (Num. 20, 14 bis Jud. 2, 5). ZAW 1: 117–146. Millard, A.R. 1985. Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah. Tyndale Bulletin 36: 61–77. Miller, J.M. 1977. Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan: Some Methodological Observations. PEQ 109: 87–93. Miller, J.M. 1977. The Israelite Occupation of Canaan. In: Hayes, J.H. and Miller, J.M. eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Philadelphia: 213–284. Mittmann, S. 1977. Ri. 1,16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der kenitischen Sippe Hobab. ZDPV 93: 213–235. Möhlenbrink, K. 1938. Die Landnahmesagen des Buches Josua. ZAW 56: 238–268. Moore, G.F. 1895. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mowinckel, S. 1963. Israelite Historiography. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2: 4–26. Mowinckel, S. 1964. Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken. (Beiheft zur ZAW 90). Berlin. Munn-Rankin, J.M. 1975. Assyrian Military Power 1300–1200 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 274–306. Na’aman, N. 1974. Sennacherib’s “Letter to God” on his Campaign to Judah. BASOR 214: 25–39. Na’aman, N. 1977. Yeno‘am. Tel Aviv 4: 168–177. Na’aman, N. 1979. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps. VT 29: 61–86. Na’aman, N. 1980. The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV 96: 136–152. Na’aman, N. 1982. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze Ages (ca. 2000–1200 BCE). In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel. I: The Early Periods. Jerusalem: 129–256. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1986. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere. JNES 45: 271–288. Na’aman, N. 1986. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. BASOR 261: 5–21. Na’aman, N. 1987. Beth-aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries. ZDPV 103: 13–21. Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz cApiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–194. Na’aman, N. 1988. Canaanites and Perizzites. Biblische Notizen 45: 43–47. Na’aman, N. 1988. The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5–10 — A Reply to Y. Garfinkel. BASOR 271: 74–77. Na’aman, N. 1989. Population Changes in Palestine following the Assyrian Deportations. Cathedra 54: 43–62. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana 23). Jerusalem: 80–98. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1993. Shechem and Jerusalem in the Exilic and Restoration Period. Zion 58: 7– 32. (Hebrew).

388


Na’aman, N. 1994. The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 26: 175–187. Na’aman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988. Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716–708 B.C.). JCS 40: 36–46. Neumann, J. and Parpola, S. 1987. Climatic Change and Eleventh-Tenth-Century Eclipse of Assyria and Babylonia. JNES, 46: 161–182. Nielsen, K. 1986. Incense in Ancient Israel. (Supplement to VT 38). Leiden. Niemann, H.M. 1985. Die Daniten: Studien zur Geschichte eines altisraelitischen Stammes. Göttingen. Noth, M. 1930. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 4/1). Stuttgart. Noth, M. 1937. Die fünf Könige in der Höhle von Makkeda. PJb 33: 22–36. (Reprint: Noth 1971: 281–293). Noth, M. 1938. Grundsätzliches zur geschichtlichen Deutung archaologischer Befunde auf dem Boden Palästinas. PJb 34: 7–22. (Reprint Noth 1971: 3–16). Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Noth, M. 1943 (2nd ed. 1957). Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen. (English trans. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History. [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Suplement 15]. Sheffield). Noth, M. 1957. Hat die Bibel doch Recht? In: Schneemelcher, W. ed. Festschrift für Günter Dehn. Neukirchen: 7–22. (Reprint Noth 1971: 17–33). Noth, M. 1960a. The History of Israel, London. Noth, M. 1960b. Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur Geschichte Israels. Supplement to VT 7: 262–282. (Reprint: Noth 1971: 34–51). Noth, M. 1962. The Background of Judges 17–18. In: Anderson, B.W. and Harrelson, W. eds. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. New York: 68–85. Noth, M. 1971. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I. Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden. Ofer, A. 1989. Excavations at Biblical Hebron. Qadmoniot 22: 88–93. (Hebrew). Ofer, A. 1990. The Judaean Hill Country — From Nomadism to a National Monarchy. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 155–214. (Hebrew). Otto, E. 1979. Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels. Stuttgart. Petschow, H. 1965. Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23. JCS 19: 103–120. Pitard, W.T. 1988. The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stela. BASOR 272: 3–21. Postgate, J.N. 1974. Some Remarks on Conditions in the Assyrian Countryside. Journal of the Economy and Social History of the Orient 17: 225–243. Postgate, J.N. 1985. Rezensionen: Khaled Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, Wiesbaden 1982. AfO 32: 95–101. Preuss, H.D. 1971. Verspottung fremder Religionen im Alten Testament. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 5/12). Stuttgart. Puech, E. 1974. L’inscription du Tunnel de Siloé. RB 81: 196–214. Puech, E. 1986. Origine de l’alphabet. Documents en alphabet linéaire et conéiforme du IIe millenaire. RB 93: 161–213. Puech, E. 1992. La stèle de Bar-Hadad à Melkart et les rois d’Arpad. RB 99: 311–334.


389

von Rad, G. 1944. Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 32: 1–42. (English trans. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays). Edinburgh: 166–204. von Rad, G. 1951. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Zürich. von Rad, G. 1953. Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma. Supplement to VT 1: 120–127. (English trans. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh: 292– 300). von Rad, G. 1962. Old Testament Theology I. Edinburgh and London. von Rad, G. 1972. Genesis, a Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Rainey, A.F. 1983. The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. BASOR 251: 1–22. Rainey, A.F. 1984. Early Historical Geography of the Negeb. In: Herzog, Z. ed. Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: 88–104. Redford, D.B. 1986. The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and the Israelite Stela. IEJ 36: 188–200. Rofé, A. 1974. Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and Parable. Supplement to VT 26: 143–164. Rofé, A. 1988. The Prophetical Stories. The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History. Jerusalem. Rösel, H. 1976a. Studien zur Topographie der Kriege in den Büchern Josua und Richter. ZDPV 92: 10–46. Rösel, H. 1976b. Wer kämpfte auf kanaanäischer Seite in der Schlacht bei Gibeon, Josh. X? VT 26: 505–508. Rösel, H.N. 1985. Anmerkungen zur Erzählung vom Bundesschluss mit den Gibeoniten. Biblische Notizen 28: 30–35. Rösel, H.N. 1988. Das “Negativ Besitzverzeichnis” — traditionsgeschichtliche und historische Überlegungen. In: Augustin, M. and Schunck, K.D. eds. “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden.” Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Welt). Frankfurt: 121–135. Rosen, H.B. 1955. Arawna — nom hittite? VT 5: 318–320. Rost, L. 1926. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 3/6). Stuttgart. (English trans. 1982. The Succession to the Throne of David. Sheffiel). Roth, W.M.W. 1963. Hinterhalt und Scheinflucht. ZAW 75: 296–303. Rowton, M.B. 1973a. Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment. JNES 32: 201–215. Rowton, M.B. 1973b. Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia. Orientalia 42: 247–258. Rowton, M.B. 1974. Enclosed Nomadism. Journal of the Economy and Social History of the Orient 17: 1–30. Rowton, M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and Topology. Oriens Antiquus 15: 17–31. Rudin-O’Brasky, T. 1985. The Appendices to the Book of Judges (Judges 17–21). In: Cogan, M. ed. Beer-Sheva II. Jerusalem: 141–165. Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples. London. Sanmartín Ascaso, J. 1986. Geschichte und Erzählung im Alten Orient (I): Die Landnahme Israels. Ugarit-Forschungen 17: 253–282. Sass, B. 1988. The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 13). Wiesbaden. Schachermeyr, F. 1982. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wien. Schmidt, W.H. 1982. A Theologian of the Solomonic Era? A Plea for the Yahwist. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 55–73.

390


Schmitt, G. 1980. Gat, Gittaim und Gitta. In: Cohen, R. and Schmitt, G. Drei Studien zur Archäologie und Topographie Altisraels. Wiesbaden: 77–138. Schoors, A. 1985. The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument. In: Lipiński, E. ed. The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. Leuven: 77–92. von Schuler, E. 1965. Die Kaškäer. Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasien. Berlin. Schunck, K.D. 1963. Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines Israelitischen Stammes (Beiheft zur ZAW 86). Berlin. Seebass, H. 1985. Josua. Biblische Notizen 28: 53–65. Seeligmann, I.L. 1961. Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography. Zion 26: 141–169. (Hebrew). Seger, J.D. 1983. Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel, 1976–1980. BASOR 252: 1–24. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Shmueli, A. 1980. Nomadism about to Cease. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Singer, I. 1983. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3–25. Singer, I. 1985. The Battle of Niḫriya and the End of the Hittite Empire. ZA 75: 100–123. Singer, I. 1985. The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia. Tel Aviv 12: 109–122. Singer, I. 1988. The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 239–250. Singer, I. 1989. Toward an Identity of Dagon, the God of the Philistines. Cathedra 54: 17–42. (Hebrew). Skinner, G. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC). Edinburgh. Smelik, K.A.D. 1989. The Ark Narrative Reconsidered. Oudtestamentische Studiën 25: 128–144. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992a. King Mesha’s Inscription: Between History and Fiction. Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. (Oudtestamentische Studiën 28). Leiden: 59–92. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992b. Hidden Messages in the Ark Narrative: An Analysis of I Samuel iv-vi and II Samuel vi. Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. (Oudtestamentische Studiën 28). Leiden: 35–58. Smend, R. 1971. Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte. In: Wolff, H.W. ed. Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. München: 494–509. Soggin, J.A. 1972. Joshua, a Commentary (Old Testament Library). London. Soggin, J.A. 1981. Judges, a Commentary (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Soggin, J.A. 1984. The History of Israel: From the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt, AD 135. London. Stager, L.E. 1985. Merneptah, Israel and Sea Peoples: New Light on an Old Relief. Eretz-Israel 18: 56*–64*. Stager, L.E. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35. Steuernagel, C. 1900. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament). Göttingen. Stoebe, H.J. 1973. Das erste Buch Samuelis. (Kommentar zum Alten Testament VIII/1). Gütersloh. Strobel, A. 1976. Der spätbronzezeitliche Seevölkersturm. Berlin.


391

Tadmor, H. 1983. Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature. In: Tadmor, H. and Weinfeld, M. eds. History, Historiography and Interpretation. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: 36–57. Tadmor, H. 1985. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Considerations. Zion 50: 65–80. (Hebrew). Tchernow, E. and Drori, I. 1983. Economic Patterns and Environmental Conditions at Ḫirbet el-Mšaš during the Early Iron Age. In: Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māśōś) 1972–1975. Wiesbaden: 215–221. Thompson, T.L. 1987. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. 1: The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1–23 (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 55). Sheffield. Tidwell, N.L. 1979. The Philistine Incursions into the Valley of Rephaim. Supplement to VT 30: 190–212. Todd, I. 1973. Anatolia and the Khirbet Kerak Problem. In: Hoffner, H.A. ed. Orient and Occident, Essays Presented to Cyrus Gordon. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22). Neukirchen-Vluyn: 181–206. Tucker, G.M. 1966. The Legal Background of Genesis 23. JBL 85: 77–84. Ussishkin, D. 1980. The “Lachish Reliefs” and the City of Lachish. IEJ 30: 174–195. Ussishkin, D. 1982. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Tel Aviv. Ussishkin, D. 1990. The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17: 53–86. Van Driel, G. 1969. The Cult of Aššur. Assen. de Vaux, R. 1967. Les Ḫurrites de l’histoire et les Horites de la Bible. RB 74: 481–497. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Veijola, T. 1975. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. Helsinki. Veijola, T. 1977. Das Königtum im Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie. Helsinki. Vogt, E. 1986. Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr. (Analecta Biblica 106). Rome. Vriezen, K.J.H. 1975. Ḫirbet Kefīre: eine Oberflächenuntersuchung. ZDPV 91: 135–158. Wainwright, G.A. 1959. The Teresh, The Etruscans and Asia Minor. Anatolian Studies, 9: 197– 213. Wainwright, G.A. 1960. Merneptah’s Aid of the Hittites. JEA 46: 24–28. Wapnish, P. 1981. Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralism at Tell Jemmeh. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13: 101–120. Weimar, P. 1976. Die Jahwekriegserzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4 und 1 Samuel 7. Biblica 57: 38–73. Weinfeld, M. 1967. The Period of the Conquest and of the Judges as Seen by the Earlier and the Later Sources. VT 17: 93–113. Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London. Weippert, M. 1973. Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins. VT 23: 415–442. Weippert, M. 1974. Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über die Š3św der ägyptischen Quellen. Biblica 55: 265–280, 427–433. Wellhausen, J. 1889. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. Berlin. Whitelam, K.W. 1984. The Defence of David. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29: 61–87. Whitelam, K.W. 1989. Israel’s Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44: 19–42. Whybray, R.N. 1987. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 53). Sheffield.

392


Wilhelm, G. 1982. Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter. Darmstadt. (English trans. 1982. The Hurrians. Warminster). Willesen, F. 1958. The Yālīd in Hebrew Society. Studia Theologica 12: 192–210. Wilson, J.A. 1969a. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264. Wilson, J.A. 1969b. An Egyptian Letter. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 475–479. Wilson, J.A. 1969c. Egyptian Hymns and Prayers. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 364–381. Wiseman, D.J. 1975. Assyria and Babylonia c. 1200–1000 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 443–481. Wright, G.E. 1964. The Literary and Historical Problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1. JNES 5: 105–114. Wright, G.E. 1975. Beth-shemesh. In: Avi-Yonah, M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I. Jerusalem: 248–253. Wyatt, N. 1985. “Araunah the Jebusite” and the Throne of David. Studia Theologica 39: 39–53. Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor. The Head of all those Kingdoms, Joshua 11:10. (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970). London. Yadin, Y. 1976. Hazor. In: Avi-Yonah, M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land II. Jerusalem: 474–495. Yadin, Y. 1979. The Transition from a Semi-Nomadic to a Sedentary Society. In: Cross, F.M. ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Cambridge: 57–68. Yadin, Y. 1982. Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable? Biblical Archaeology Review 8/2: 16–23. Yakar, J. 1990. The Chronology of the Transcaucasian-East Anatolian Early Bronze Age. Eretz-Israel 21: 94*–100*. Yeivin, S. 1971. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan. Leiden. Yeivin, Z. 1972. A Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa. Qadmoniot 5: 45–46. (Hebrew). Yeivin, Z. 1990. The Silver Hoard from Eshtemo‘a. ‘Atiqot, Hebrew Series 10: 42–57. (Hebrew). Young, I. 1992. The Style of the Gezer Calendar and some “Archaic Biblical Hebrew” Passages. VT 42: 362–375. Yurco, F.J. 1986. Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 189–215. Zadok, R. 1985. Die nichthebräischen Namen der Israeliten vor dem hellenistischen Zeitalter. Ugarit-Forschungen 17: 387–398. Zadok, R. 1985. Some Problems in Early Aramean History. In: Röllig, W. ed. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 6. Stuttgart: 81–85. Zadok, R. 1985. Suteans and Other West Semites during the Latter Half of the Second Millennium B.C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16: 59–70. Zadok, R. 1987. Peoples from the Iranian Plateau in Babylonia during the Second Millennium B.C. Iran 25: 1–26. Zadok, R. 1991. Elements of Aramean Pre-History. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 33). Jerusalem: 104–117. Zevit, Z. 1983. Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7–8. BASOR 251: 23–35. Zimhoni, O. 1985. The Iron Age Pottery of Tel cEton and Its Relation to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages. Tel Aviv 12: 63–90.

Index of Ancient Personal Names Aḫiyami, 222, 233, 234, 235, 236 Ahmose, 2, 3, 13, 18, 19 Aitakama/Etakama of Qadesh, 86, 87, 100, 126, 137, 196n, 250 Akab-giashe, 295, 297, 298 Akabtaḫe, 297, 298 Akhenaten, 26, 28, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 89-90, 100, 106, 113, 115, 126, 137, 148, 217, 218, 244, 245, 246, 250 Akiya, 114 Akizzi, 87 Amalek, Amalekites, 324, 363 Amanappa, 242 Amanḫatpi of Tushulti, 7, 91, 264 Amayashe, 7 Amenope, 159 Amenophis II, 4, 93, 119, 161, 165, 207n, 208n, 277 Amenophis III, 28, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 68, 89, 90, 91, 127n, 151, 165, 196, 217, 218, 221, 244, 245 Ami-ibâl, 255 Amman-m[a]di?, 56 Ammiṣaduqa, 10 Ammishtamru I, 5, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47 Ammitaqum I of Alalakh, 289n Ammunira of Beirut, 6, 28, 29, 62, 104-105, 151n Amon (god), 199, 244, 245 Amorites, 13, 338, 349, 350, 369, 370, 375 Amos, 318 An/Ildaya, 92 Anak, Anakim, 337, 360, 361, 374 ‘Anat (goddess), 248 Arašša, 91 Araunah/Auarnah, 337 Artamanya, 7 Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi, 7, 86, 100 Asa, 322 f Ašdada, 157 Ašdudana, 157 Asher, 208 Ashera(t) (goddess), 69 Ashtabishar, 295 ‘Ashtoreth (goddess), 248

A (god), 244-246, see also Aten Abbael, king of Yamḫad, 286, 287 ‘Abdi-‘Anati, 248 ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru, 5, 30, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47n, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 66, 68, 69, 78n, 88, 89, 106, 114, 116, 151n, 162, 166, 223, 228, 245, 257, 275, 281, 283 ‘Abdi-Ashtarti of Gath, 6n, 30, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 101, 149n, 155, 156, 220, 227 ‘Abdi-Hadda, 61, 62, 151n ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem, 7, 8, 29, 30, 35, 54, 72n, 75, 76, 154, 155, 176, 187, 189, 190, 201n, 204, 205, 206, 207, 220, 221, 227n, 246n, 267 ‘Abdi-Ḫebat of Siannu, 46, 47 ‘Abdi-Milki of Shasḫimi, 7 ‘Abdina, 163 ‘Abdi-dNIN.URTA, king of Siyannu, 246, 248, 275 ‘Abdi-risha of Enishazi, 7 ‘Abd-irši, 90n ‘Abdi-Tirshi of Hazor, 7, 90n Abiathar, 263 Abigail of Carmel, 263 Abimelech, 264, 374 Abi-Milki, 28, 29, 36, 55, 66, 68, 101, 103, 116, 117, 134, 136, 151n, 219 Abinoam, 305 Abner, 320 Abraham, 270 Abram, 342 Absalom, 265, 266, 268 Achish, king of Gath, 256 Achsah, 362 Adad-apla-iddina, king of Babylon, 334 Adda-dāni, 65 Addu-sharrum, 256 Adoni-bezek, 358, 359 Adoni-zedek, 359 Ad-ra-INNIN, 69 Ahiman, 337, 360 Ahimelech the Hittite, 337 Ahinoam of Jezreel, 263 Ahitophel of Giloh, 265 Aḫi-y[a . . .], 163 d

393

394


Ashurbanipal, 200n Ashur-bel-kala, 334 Ashurnaṣirpal II, 225, 346 Astarte (Atargatis) (goddess), 324 Ataḫ[maya], 118, 139 Atamrum, 255 Aten (god), 244, 246 Athaliah, 327 Ayyab of Ashtaroth, 6, 7, 8, 84, 155, 195, 196n Aziru of Amurru, 5, 27, 28, 29-30, 36, 43, 46, 47, 53, 54, 57, 58, 66, 88, 100, 101, 106, 107, 115, 116, 137, 151n, 196n, 219, 225, 244, 245, 246, 249, 257n Ba‘al (god), 104, 247 Ba‘al/Haddu (god), 43 Ba‘alath (goddess), 243, 245 Ba’lu-UR.SAG, dIM.UR.SAG, 7, 88, 152-153 Baasha, 327 Baduzana, 7, 163 Balaam, 318 Balume, 6 Ba’lu-meḫir, 7 Balu-mer, 7, 162 Ba’lu-shipṭi, dIM.DI.KUD, 6, 65, 75, 76, 101, 105, 160, 161 Ba’luya, 5, 46, 47 Barak, son of Abinoam, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 Barattarna, 301 Bayadi, 7, 163, 164 Bayawa, 7, 149, 163 Becher, 266, 267 Bechorath, 267 Bēl-iqbi, 92 Ben-elima, 84 Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, 327 Benjamin, Benjaminites, 183, 187, 191, 266, 267, 268, 349, 350, 357, 375 Beti-Ili, 5, 46-47 Beya, 160, 162 Birashena of Shechem, 3 Bieri of Ḫashabu, 7, 91 Bin-azimi, 61, 62 Biridashwa, 6, 7, 84, 86, 87, 195-196, 201 Biridiya of Megiddo, 30, 220, 223, 235, 236, 238 Biryawaza of Damascus, 6, 7, 82-90, 92, 101, 105, 150, 195-196, 201 Bn-Tbšn, 117 Burnaburiash, king of Babylonia, 113, 114 Caleb, Calebites 183, 360, 361, 362, 374, 377 Dagan-takala, 7

Dagon, 324 Daḫamunzu, 92n Dan, Danites, 125, 126, 223, 264-265, 268, 326, 367-370 Danuna, 116, 117, 136, 137 Dashru, 7, 163 David, king of Israel, 183, 256, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 317, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 327, 329, 337, 350, 351, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361, 370, 375 Deborah, 129, 208n, 303-305 Dido of Tyre, 68n Dini-Addu, 289n Diocletian, 184 DUMU-biḫa, 56 Duppi-Teshub, 225 Durusha, king of Qadesh, 288 Eglon, king of Moab, 190 Eḫli-Ashtar, 290 Eḫli-Teshub, king of Taanach, 4, 209 Eḫli-Teshub of Alalakh, 294n Ehud, 190, 267 El (god), 295 Eliada, 264 Elissa of Tyre, 68n Endaruta, 7, 8, 101, 151n Ephraim, Ephraimites, 183, 187, 191, 350, 357, 360, 370 Esarhaddon, 225 Esau, 337 Etakama, see Aitakama Etruscans, 341 Ezekiel, 126, 337 Gaal, 264 Gad (prophet), 263 Gasharu (god), 247 Gideon, 264, 305, 313, 325 Gindibu’, 325 Girgashites, 12, 337, 338 Goliath, 324n Gulatu, 160 Ḫa[š?-x]-tar, 6, 7, 82, 83 Hadad of Ḫalab, 247, 286, 287, 288, 289 Hadadezer, king of Zobah, 264, 355 Haddu (god), 43 Ḫagurru, 164 Ḫaip, 36, 57, 60 Ḫaliya, 289 Ḫammuniri, 281 Ḫammurapi I, king of Yamḫad, 286 Han’i, 101, 102, 105, 115 Hanani, 327 Ḫani, 127

Index Ḫanutu of Hazor, 3 Hathor, 243 Hatshepsut, 18 Ḫattushili I, 9, 10, 118 Hazael, 318 Hdys‘y, 318 Ḫebat (goddess), 286, 287 Herodotus, 327, 341 Hesed, 209 Hezekiah, king of Judah, 184 Ḫibiya, 7 Hiram, 122 Hittites, 12, 337, 361, 364, 374 Hivites, 12, 337, 339, 373, 374 Ḫiziru, 75, 105, 149, 156, 175 Hobab, 363 Hoglah, 210 Homer, 122 Ḥoron (god), 247n Hosea, 318 Hushai, 266 Hyksos, 2, 5, 16, 335, 339 Idrimi, king of Alalakh, 112, 263, 285, 286, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 301 Ilim-ilimma, DINGIR.DINGIR-ma, 286, 294, 295 Ili-rapiḫ/Ili-rāpi’ of Byblos, 5, 30, 53, 151n, 233, 235 Inanna (goddess), 287 Intu of Hebron, 3 ÌR dINNIN, 69, see also ‘Abdi-Ashtarti Iriyamašša, 102 Irkabtum of Yamḫad, 289n, 294 ÌR.LUGAL of Shazaena, 82, 92 ÌR-dNIN.URTA, 246, see also ‘Abdi-‘Anati ÌR-šarri of Enishazi, 90, 92, 93 ÌR-šarri of Shasḫimi, 7 Isaac, 342 Isaiah, 313 Ish-Baal, 320, 327 Ishḫara (goddess), 263n Ishḫi-Addu of Qatna, Ishtar of Alalakh, 248, 285-291 Issachar, 59n, 208, 232 Jabin, “king of Canaan,” king of Hazor, 307, 308-309, 310, 354, 355 Jacob, 113, 343 Jael, 309, 310 Jehu, son of Hanani, 327 Jephthah, 262, 268 Jeroboam I, 368 Jeroboam II, 327 Joash, king of Judah, 327 Jobab, king of Madon/Maron, 355

395

John Hyrcanus, 184 Jonah, 270 Jonathan, 262 Joseph, Josephites, 183, 187, 267, 270, 342, 357, 359, 365, 369, 370 Josephus, 271 Joshua, 173, 308, 321, 326, 347, 349, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 367, 370, 372, 373, 378, 379 Josiah, king of Judah, 187, 320, 353 Ka[lbu], 55n Kadashman-Enlil, 244 Kashka, 334 Kaššena, 289n Kassites, 300, 335 Kenaz, Kenizzites, 361, 362, 377 Kenites, 309, 363, 377 Khu-sebekh, 179 Kmšyt, 318 Kubaba (goddess), 323n Kurigalzu, 113, 114 Kusuna, 6, 55n Kybele (goddess), 323n Lab‘ayu of Shechem, 7, 8, 28, 30, 36, 76, 77n, 83, 88, 89, 150, 152, 163n, 164, 166, 187, 189, 196n, 205, 207, 222, 237, 238, 239, 277n Lady of Byblos (goddess), 242-243, 245, 249 “Lady-of-the-lions”, 73, 74, 75 Lulaḫḫu, 299, 300 Lullu, Lullubu, 299-300 Lupakku, 46 Mahlah, 210 Maireya, 101 Manasseh, 183, 191, 267, 305n, 359, 360 Mardu, 335 Maya, 90, 101, 102, 103 Mayarzana, 6, 91 Mayāti (Merit-aten), 67 Mekal (god), 201n Melqart (god), 318 Mer-ne-ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, 342 Merneptah, 119, 120, 195, 198, 202, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346n Mesha, 307, 318 Micah, 264, 367, 368 Milcah, 210 Milkilu of Gezer, 6, 8, 28, 30, 72, 74n, 75, 76, 77, 78, 152, 153, 186, 189, 205, 206, 207, 210, 218, 220, 221, 227, 244, 245 Milkuru, 243 Miya of Arashni, 6 Moses, 320, 363, 372

396


Murshili I, 9, 10 Murshili II, king of Hatti, 225, 248 Mushki, 333 Mut-Baḫlu of Piḫilu, 7, 84, 155 Mutu-bisir, 111 Muwatalli of Ḫatti, 119 Muzun-Addu, 286 Nabal, 263, 320 Nakkušše, 289 Naphtali, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314 Napḫururiya, 244 Necho II, 15 Nēšēti, queen of Ugarit, 73n Nimmuriya, 244 d NIN.URTA, Ninurta (god), 176, 242, 246-249 Niqmaddu II, king of Ugarit 5, 46, 47, 225, 248 Niqmepa, king of Alakh, 294, 297 Niqmepa, king of Ugarit, 46, 47, 248 Niqmepuḫ, king of Yamḫad, 288, 289n Noah, 210 Nullu, 299, see also Lullu, Lullubu Og, 339 Othniel, 360, 362 Paḫamnata, 36, 53 Pariḫnawa (Purḫanuwa), 140, 141 Perizzites, 337, 338, 360 Peya, 160n Philo, 271 Piḫuru of Kumidi, 88 Psammetichus I, 15 Pu-Ba‘lu of Amurru, 57 Pu-Ba‘lu of Yurza, 57 Puḫewa, 275 Purdaya, 233 Puwuru, 35 Rahab, 364 Ramesses II, 117, 118, 126, 127, 139, 141, 196 Ramesses III, 339, 341 Ramesses VI, 321, 339 Ramesses XI, 159 Rashap (god), 247 Rēanapa, 101 Rewashur, 6, 209, 233, 235 Rezon, 264, 268 Rib-Adda/Rib-Hadda of Byblos, 5, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43-44, 45, 47, 50-63, 88, 101, 106n, 114, 151n, 166, 219, 228, 234, 242, 243-244, 245, 259, 275, 280, 281, 283, 284 Rusmanya, 7 Šamaš, Shamash (god),43, 246, 247

Sargon II, 92 Satatna, 6, 7, 151n, 164n Saul, king of Israel, 256, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 320, 321, 324, 327, 374, 375, 376 Sauštatar, king of Mitanni, 200 šdyn, 91n Sennacherib, 184, 223, 283, 352, 353, 356, 378 Septimus Severus, 184 Sesostris III, 15 Seti I, 59n, 85, 127, 195, 197, 198, 201, 202 Shalmaneser I, 117, 346 Shalmaneser III, 225, 325 Shamshi-Addu I, 111 Sharruwa, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 Shatiya, 7, 91 Sheba ben Bichri, 265-268 Shemarana, 297 Sheshai, 337, 360 Shimei ben Gera, 266 Shipṭi-Ba‘lu, 6, 75, 76 Shipṭuriṣa, 7, 163 Shishak, 176, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 Shubandu, 7, 8, 28, 72n, 74, 75, 156, 175, 220, 227 Shulum-Marduk, 84 Shum-Adda, 6, 55n, 163n Shum-xxx, 74, 75 Shuppiluliuma, 10, 40, 46, 47-48, 92n, 126127, 225 Shutarna of Mushiḫuna, 6, 7, 82, 83 Shuwardata/Šuwardatu of Gath, 6n, 7, 8, 28, 6878, 149n, 156, 174n, 189, 205, 206, 207, 210 Sihon, 339 Simeon, Simeonites, 13n, 358, 363, 377 Sisera, 129, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 313 Si-x-ib?-ni, 75, 156, 160, 162 Solomon, king of Israel, 176, 204, 205, 209, 210, 236, 264, 267, 317, 319, 329, 370 Surata, 6, 7, 8, 151n, 164n Tadua, 84 Tagi/Tagu of Ginti-kirmil, 7, 8, 30, 77, 78, 153, 174n, 201n, 205, 206, 207, 210, 219 Taku, 6 Takuḫuli, 297 Talmai, 337, 360 Tašmiš, 246n Teḫu-Teshup, 7 Teshub (god), 245, 286n Teshup-nirari, 6 Tewati of Lapana, 7, 100 Thutmose III, 2, 3, 10, 15-16, 17, 18, 19, 91, 99, 126, 127n, 139, 165, 179, 197, 199-200, 201, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 221, 222, 224-225, 236, 237, 238

Index Thutmose IV, 4 Tiamat (goddess), 295 Tiglath-pileser I, 333-334, 346 Tiglath-pileser III, 205, 276n, 312 Tiye, 165 Turbazu, 8, 71, 72, 154, 155 Tursha, 341 Tushratta of Mitanni, 114, 244 Tutankhamun, 94, 151, 218 Tyrsenoi, 341 Ummaḫ nu, 242-243 Ummidura, 297, 298 Uriah the Hittite, 337 Wiktasu, Yiktasu, 7, 163 Yab/p[. . .], 6, 65, 68 Yab[ni-. . .], 55 Yabasa, 338n Yabni-ilu, 75, 76, 151n Yabusum, 338n Yaḫtiru, 156, 162 Yaḫ zib-Adda, 156, 175 Yakhdunlim, king of Mari, 296 Yam (god), 295

397

Yamiuta, 91 Yanḫ amu, 43, 54, 56, 88, 102, 115, 116, 245, 275 Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut, 6, 50, 56-62 Yapaḫu of Gezer, 6, 72, 73, 75, 76, 161, 277 Yaptiḫ-Hadda, 71, 72, 154, 155 Yaqqim-Addu, 256 Yarimlim, 286, 288, 289 Yashdata, 6, 164, 210 Yidya of Ashkelon, 28, 75, 101 Yishuya, 84 Zalaya of Damascus, 6, 82-83, 90, 92, 93 Zebulun, 208, 235, 304, 305, 308, 310, 312, 313, 314 Zelophehad, son of Hepher, 210 Zilip-nanun, 298 Zimredda of Sidon, 6, 29, 36, 55n, 68, 75, 76, 101, 101, 105, 137, 151n, 154, 155 Zimrilim, 296 Zitana, 46 Zitriyara, 7 Zurashar, 8 [xx]-DI.KUD, 68

Index of Places el-‘Abeidîyeh, 195 Abel of Beth-maacah, 265, 268 ’bl, 208n Abû Gosh, 204 Acco, 6, 8, 113, 151, 152, 156, 163, 164n, 167 port of, 59 Acco plain, 7, 8, 11, 12, 165, 207, 208, 369 Acco valley, 152 Achshaph, 99, 151, 152, 158, 161, 163, 165, 167, 208, 354 Adami-nekeb, 307 Addaya, 35 Adullam, 371 cave of Adullam, 263 Aegean region, 336 Aegean-Anatolian-Syro-Palestinian region, 333 Aelia Capitolina, see Jerusalem Afqa, 276 Africa, 341 Aḫtiashna, 147, 150, 154, 167, 175 Ai (Khirbet et-Tell), 181, 186, 189, 190, 321, 348-349, 356, 365, 372, 373, 378 Aijalon, 176, 205, 209, 351 Aijalon valley, 351 ‘Ain, 124, 127 ‘Ain-Shasu, 91 Akhetaten, 148, 175, 217 Akhlab, 158 Akka, 156n Akkad, 128, 138, 156, 277, 278 Aksha, 14n Akshapa, 115 Alalakh, 9, 10, 11, 112, 117, 120, 123, 135-136, 158, 160n, 234, 263n, 285-291, 293-301 Alashiya, 112, 135, 138, 157, 158-159 Amada, 93 Amae, 112 Amanus, 335 Amarah, 14n Amarna, 4, 5, 12, 26, 27, 31, 34, 40, 43, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 56, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74n, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101, 105n, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113-117, 122, 126, 128, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153,

158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 173, 174, 175, 177, 186, 188, 190, 191, 196n, 198, 204, 205, 207, 210, 217, 218, 225, 226, 232, 234, 236, 238, 242-250, 252, 257-260, 269, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 299 Ambi, 221n Amman, 332 Ammiya, 112, 218, 219, 220 Ammon, Ammonites, 262, 269 ‘Amqi, 12, 90, 92n, 126, 127, 223n, 227n, 234 Amurru, 5, 27, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47n, 53n, 54, 70, 87, 88, 89, 100, 106, 115, 116, 118, 128, 136, 137, 151n, 196n, 219, 223, 225, 227, 228, 244, 245, 246n, 299, 334 Anab, 361 Anaharath, 165, 167, 175, 177 Anat of Suḫu, 334 ‘Anathoth, 248 Anatolia, 12, 157, 323, 332, 333, 335, 336, 340 eastern Anatolia, 9, 10, 12 northern Anatolia, 334 southeastern Anatolia, 110, 117, 300, 333 western Anatolia, 338 Annašše, 294n ‘n š3sw, 276 Aphek, 124, 207n, 229, 341, 371 Api, see Upi ’ptn, 207n Arabah, 354, 364 Arabia, 325 Arad, 319, 321, 358, 363, 364, 377 Aram, Arameans, 13, 327, 346, 356 Aram Damascus, 264, 335 Aram Zobah, 335, 327, 346 Arbatta, 211 Arqat, 178 ‘Arrâbeh, 205, 211, 236n Arrapḫa, 200 Aruboth, Arubboth, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 236n, 370 Arwada, 56, 57, 158 Ashdad, 117, 142, 157, 158, 159, 163 Ashdod, 75n, 78, 142, 145, 156-163, 322, 361 Asher’s allotment, 208 Ashkelon, 14n, 72n, 75, 76n, 78, 101, 149, 152,

398

Index 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 178, 195, 198, 223, 344, 345, 357 Ashtaroth, Ashtartu, 6, 8, 69, 84-85, 86, 150, 155, 196, 197, 201 Ashur, see Assyria Asia, 2, 13, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28, 37, 63, 85n, 100, 102, 103, 106, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 126, 127, 128, 145, 224, 258, 341 Egyptian Empire in, 139 Egyptian province in, 120, 122-123, 134, 137, 138, 139, 142, 148-149 Hither Asia, 335 Western Asia, 120, 121, 134, 137, 146, 181, 253, 255, 269, 270, 336, 342, 343 Asia Minor, 323n Assyria, Ashur, Assyrians, 13, 113, 114, 117, 122, 160n, 187, 225, 226, 227, 228, 283, 313, 314, 333, 334, 352, 353 ’trn, 207n ‘yn, 208n Azekah, 350, 351 Azor, 223 Baal-gad, 124, 370 Baal Perazim, 351 Babylon, 83n, 84n, 244, 334 Babylonia, 9, 13, 32, 45, 113, 119, 120, 122, 127, 183, 184, 256, 288, 296, 320, 334 Bachuth, see Bochim Balkans, 333, 336 Bashan, 7, 8, 12, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 127, 150, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 208n, 227 Beēroth (Khirbet el-Burj), 375, 376 Beer-sheba, 370 Beer-sheba valley, 168n, 174, 184, 185, 209, 362 Beirut, 6, 29, 50, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 92, 101, 151n Bene-berak, 223 Benjamin, hill of, 1, 191 Benjamin, hill country of, 173, 180-182, 187, 191, 375 Benjamin’s allotment, 173, 266, 267n, 337, 376 Beqa‘ of Lebanon, 1, 7, 8, 11, 90, 92, 93, 126, 146-147, 150, 177, 221, 223 southern Lebanon Beqa‘, 207 Berath/Beēroth, 208 Berothan, 124 B’rt, 208 Beten, 208 Beth-‘Anath, 248 Beth-‘Anon, 248 Beth-‘anoth, 248n Beth-dagon, 223 Bethel (Luz), 113n, 174, 180, 181-182, 186, 187,

399

189, 190, 266, 308, 309, 357, 358, 364-365, 367, 368, 370, 377 Beth-gubrin, 184 Beth-haggan, 239 Beth-horon/Bīt-Ḥoron, 176, 205, 247, 349350, 351, 370 Bethlehem, 176, 181, 350 Beth-shean, 59n, 165, 166, 176, 197, 201, 205, 206, 208, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 235, 236, 237, 324n, 370 Beth-shean plain, 11, 14n, 207n, 208 Beth-shean valley, 59, 90n, 165, 175, 177, 197, 208, 222-223, 237, 238 Beth-shemesh, 176, 190, 323, 370 Beth ‘Ur, 204 Beth Yerah, 12 Beth-zur, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 362 Bezek, 359, 365, 378 Bit-dNIN.URTA, 176, 189 Bit-tenni, 162 Bit Zamani, 225 Black Sea, 334 Bochim/Bachuth, 357 “Bull Site”, 332 el-Burj, 375 Burqîn, 211 Burquna, 166, 210, 211, 239 Buṣruna, 85, 86, 196 Byblos, 5, 14, 15, 26, 29, 30, 33, 36, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 65, 74n, 78n, 101, 106, 114-115, 120, 123, 126, 135, 178, 219, 221n, 228, 234, 242-244, 245, 246n, 249, 257, 259, 275, 276, 280, 281, 282, 283 Caesarea, 222n Cape Calidonia, 58 Cappadocia, 8, 255, 340 Carchemish, 225, 248, 334, 336 Carmel, 263 Charbata, 204 Charchemish, 156n Chephirah (Khirbet Kefireh), 376 Chinnereth, 161, 165, 167, 168 Chinnereth, sea of, 124, 125 Chinneroth, 354 Cilicia, 337 eastern Cilicia, 116 Cisjordan, 85, 195, 196, 198 City of Palms, 363, see also Jericho; Tamar Coastal plain, 205, 260, 322 southern coastal plain, 207 Cush, 71, 89 Cyprus, 58, 112, 157, 158, 159

400


Damascus, 6, 12, 27, 29, 54, 82, 83, 85n, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 101, 116, 124, 125, 127, 150, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 200n, 201, 205 Dan, 264, 366, 367-368, 370, 377 Dan’s allotment, 176, 223 Dead Sea, 363 Debir, 177, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 326, 353, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 377, see also Khirbet Rabud; Kiriath-sepher Deir el-Balaḥ, 229 Deir el-Medineh, 276n District of the Shasu, 276, see also Shasu lands Djahi, 4 139, 161 Dor, 167, 312, 313, 354 Dothan (Tell Dothan), 211 Dothan plain, 211, 212, 236n Dothan valley, 166 Dubbâ, 111 Ebla, 290, 296, 336 Edom (Seir), 190, 267n, 322, 337, 342, 361 Edrei, 85, 86, 196, 197, 205 Egypt, 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 25-38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 83, 85n, 87, 88, 91, 93, 101, 102n, 106, 107, 113-114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 146, 148, 153, 157, 158, 161, 165, 166, 174, 179, 196n, 197, 201, 209, 216-229, 243, 244, 249, 261, 269, 270, 275, 278, 321-322, 335, 338, 339, 340, 342, 343, 344, 345, 357, 378 Ekron, 164, 323n, 357, 370 Eleutheropolis, 184 Eleutheros, see Nahr el-Kebīr Elon Tabor, 309 Eltekeh, 353 Emar, 112, 160n, 299 En-dor, 313 En-gannim, 239 Enishazi, 30, 90-92, 93, 177 Enkomi, 142, 157, 158, 159, 163 ‘En-Nāb, 198 Ephraim, hill of, 1, 181, 262 Ephraim, hill country of, 376 Ephraim, Land of Ephraim, 191, 360, 375 Ephraim’s allotment, 187 Esdraelon plain, see Jezreel plain/valley Eshtaol, 368 Eshtemoa, 318n Euphrates river, 9, 10, 224, 270, 334 Middle Euphrates, 325, 334 Europe, 341 Fertile Crescent, 9

G[ḏr], 209 G[ḏt], 208 Gadara, 198 Galilee, 113n, 116n, 167, 222n, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 354 hill country of, 307 Lower Galilee, 1, 8, 110, 153, 165, 175, 177 Upper Galilee, 1, 153, 268, 366, 369n Gari, Land of Gari, 84, 198, 207n, 208n Gath, Gimtu (Tell eṣ-Ṣafi), 6n, 7, 8, 72n, 77, 78, 101, 149, 150n, 154, 155, 160, 162, 167, 174, 175, 176, 187, 189, 205, 206, 256, 263, 327, 361 Gath-carmel, Gath-kirmil, 77-78, 163’ 167, 201n, 234, see also Ginti-kirmil, Gimti Gath-padalla, 7, 163, 167, 238 Gath-rimmon, 239 Gath-rimmunima, 166 Gaza, 88, 118, 119, 139, 159, 162, 164, 185, 205, 208, 221, 223, 224, 357, 361 Gazru of Ḥaurân, 205 Geba‘ (Tell Abū Shūsheh), 165, 208, 351 Geba‘-śmn, 165, 167, 175 Geder, 198, 371 gelîl haggôyîm, 313 Gerar, 371 Geshur, 335 Gezer, 3, 4, 6, 8, 17, 18, 65, 72, 73, 74n, 75, 76, 77, 78, 101, 149, 150n, 151, 153, 154, 160, 162, 167, 168, 174, 175, 176, 183, 186, 187, 189, 195, 198, 201n, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 218, 220, 221, 227, 244, 245, 277, 318, 344, 345, 351, 353 Gibeah, Gibeah of Saul, 267n, 348, 349, 356, 374, 375 Gibeath-elohim, 375n Gibeon (el-Jib), Gibeonites, 173, 205, 209, 321, 339, 349, 350, 351, 353, 356, 359, 366, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378 Gibethon, 208 Gilead, 12, 124, 125, 205, 262, 310n, 312, 313 northern Gilead, 207 Giloh, 265 Gimti, see Ginti-kirmil Gimtu, see Gath Gina, 237, 238, 239, 310n Ginae, 239 Ginae brook, 239 Ginti-’eti, 66 Ginti-kirmil, Gimti 7, 8, 30, 77, 174n, 176, 189, 190, 206, 207, 210, 219, 268n, see also Gathcarmel, Gath-kirmil Ginti-rimûnima, 210 Gintu, 207n

Index Gittaim, 176, 209, 375 Golan heights, 12, 84, 153, 208n Goshen, Land of Goshen, 342 Grotto of Adonis, 276 Gubla, 151n, 275 Guddashuna, 177 Gutium, 128 Habor, Upper Habor, 9 Ḫalab (Aleppo), 9, 10, 11, 112, 285, 287, 288, 289, 299, 336 Ḫalba, 276 Hali, 208 Ḫalunni, 85, 86, 196 Hamath, 124, 125, 127, 165, 197 Ḫanigalbat, 128 Hapharaim, 208 ha-Rabbah, 205 Ḫarabu, 166, 205, 210, 211n, 239 Ḫarita, 119 el-Ḥarithiyeh, 310n Ḫarmana, 248 Harnam, 276 Harosheth-ha-goiim, 306-307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313 Ḫashabu, 7 Ḫashum, 9 Ḫasi, 6, 177 Hasmonean kingdom, 184 Ḫattusha, 52, 117-118, 141, 340 Hauran, 124, 125, 127, 297 Ḫayuna, 155, 208n Hazar-enan/on, 123, 124, 127 Hazer hattichon, 124 Hazor, 3, 7, 8, 18, 29, 55n, 84, 85n, 90n, 101, 105, 116, 129, 130, 145, 149, 150, 161, 163, 167, 183, 190, 198, 227, 290, 307, 309, 310, 312n, 321, 353, 354, 355, 366-367, 369 Ḫbḏn, 207n hḏr, 198 Hebron (Kiriath-arba), 3, 78, 113n, 177, 180186, 188-189, 205, 264, 265, 321, 326, 337, 339, 353, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 374, 377 the hill country of, 184 Helkath, 208 Ḫeni-anabi, 198 Hepher, Land of Hepher, 209, 210, 212, 371 Heshbon, 321 Hethlon (Ḥeitela), 124 Ḫikuptaḫ, see Memphis Ḫindanu, 325 Hittite Empire, Hatti, Ḫatti, 10, 37, 40-47, 68, 100, 102n, 118, 119, 120, 122, 127, 136, 137, 139, 141, 158, 160n, 196n, 225, 226, 227, 228,

401

244, 248, 278, 287, 334, 337-340, 341, 344, 345, 361, 364 Ḫlb ‘prm, 278 ḥlkr, ḥlnkr, 199, 200 Ḥoms, 276 Ḥorvat Tittora, 375 Hormah, 357, 358, 362-363, 377 Hrnkr, 237, see also ḥlkr, ḥlnkr Htm, 161 Ḫtsn, 207n Hukkurūna mountain, 200n Ḥuleh valley, 195, 198 Ḫurri-land, 127 Ḫurru, 4, 120, 123, 344, 345 Ḫuwe, 337 Ibirta, 275-278 Idumea, 184 Ilānṣura, 255 Irride, 286 Ishmeriga, 200 Israel, kingdom of, 176, 223, 253n, 261, 265, 313, 314, 317-329, 344-347, 353, 375 Israel, Land of Israel, 111, 124, 125, 127, 195, 306, 308, 310, 347, 354, 356, 357, 367, 378 Issachar’s allotment, 205, 208 Italy, 341 ‘Izbet Ṣarṭah, 325 Jabbok River, 209 Jabneel, 307 Jabneel valley, 195, 308 Japhia, 222n, 235 Jarmuth, 59n, 321 Jebel el-Anṣariyeh, 276n Jebus, 12, 183, 337, 339, 352, 360, 377 see also Jerusalem Jericho, 187, 189, 348, 356, 363, 364, 372, 373, 378, see also City of Palms Jerusalem (Aleia Capitolina, Jebus), 1, 7, 29, 35, 36, 54, 71, 72n, 76, 77, 78, 90, 145, 150, 154, 155, 168, 173-192, 204, 206, 218, 220, 221, 226, 246, 247, 248, 265, 266, 267n, 319, 320, 327, 329, 337, 339, 343, 350, 351, 357, 359, 376, 377 Jett, 207, 210 Jezreel, 263, 310n Jezreel plain/valley, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14n, 59, 166, 175, 190, 207, 208, 210, 232-239, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 369 Jokneam, 208, 371, see also Tel Jokneam Joppa, 14n, 162, 163, 221, 222n, 223, 224, 235, 236 Jordan River, 124, 125, 126, 128, 195, 197, 265, 266, 276, 312, 314, 322, 332, 344, 347, 370

402


Jordan valley, 11, 12, 74n, 85n, 190, 195, 198 Lower Jordan valley, 153, 168, 188 northern plains of, 179 northern Jordan valley, 207 Upper Jordan valley, 11, 307 Judah, kingdom of, 13n, 176, 183, 184, 187, 283, 318, 319, 320, 322, 327, 329, 352, 375 Judah, Land of Judah, 183, 263, 264, 265, 266, 356, 357, 359, 360, 363, 365, 377 northern Judah, 205 southern Judah, 185, 337, 362 Judah highlands, 168n, 173, 182 Judean hill country, 173, 174, 175, 177, 180182, 184, 185, 188, 326, 339, 353, 354, 360361, 362, 378 south of, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 205, 206 Judean Hills, 1, 78, 177, 181, 183, 184, 186, 188, 191, 337 Jund Philastine, 184 Kabul, 310n Kadesh-Barnea, 354 Kāmid el-Lōz (Kumidi), 6, 27, 82, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 139, 177, 201, 221, 223, 234, 278 Karduniash, 128, 334 Karkisha, 338 Karnak, 85, 195, 197, 199, 345 Kedesh of Naphtali, 307, 308, 309, 310 Keilah, 77, 78, 175, 176, 189, 205, 206, 248, 264 Kharu, 139 el-Khirab, 211n Khirbet el-Burj, 376 Khirbet ‘En Ṭaruk, 198 Khirbet Beit Lei, 319 Khirbet Bir el-Ḥilû (Khirbet Ḥamideh), 206 Khirbet Fuqeiqis, 180 Khirbet Ḥafireh, 212 Khirbet el-Ḥamam, 211, 236n Khirbet Ḥamideh, see Khirbet Bir el-Ḥilû Khirbet Ibziq, 359 Khirbet Jel‘ad, 310n Khirbet Kefireh, 376 Khirbet Kerak, 8, 12, 335, 339 Khirbet el-Kidish, 307 Khirbet al-Muḥafar, 212 Khirbet el-‘Oreimeh, 165 Khirbet el-Qom, 319 Khirbet Rabud, 154, 167, 180, 353, see also Debir Khirbet Raddana, 339 Khirbet Shuweiket er-Râs, 209 Khirbet et-Tell, see Ai Kinza, 119, 126, 127 Kiriath-arba, see Hebron

Kiriath-jearim (Tell Deir el-‘Azar), 190, 204, 206 Kiriath-sepher, 360, 361 Kishon River, see Naḫal Kishon Kition, 158 Kizzuwatna, 200 Kom el-Hēṭan, 91 Kumidi, see Kāmid el-Lōz Kummuh, 225 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, 318 Kurdistan, 335 Lab’u, see Lebo-hamath Lachish, 6, 68n, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 151, 154, 155, 161, 168, 175, 176, 186, 206, 229, 318n, 321, 341, 352 Laish, 264, 367, 368, 377 Lake Ḥuleh, 307 Lapana, 86, 100, 137 Laṭrun, 206 Lb’i, see Lebo-hamath Lebanon, 5, 124, 200 coast of, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 28, 88, 99, 137, 149, 157, 158, 178, 281, 334 southern Lebanon, 200 Lebo-hamath (Lb’i, Lab’u, Libo/Lybo, Lebwe), 123, 124, 125, 127 Lebwe, see Lebo-hamath el-Leja mountain, 200n Leshem, 369 Libnah, 352 Libo, see Lebo-hamath Libya, 120, 345 Limassol, 122 Liṭani River, 127, 337 Liṭani valley, 339 Luz, see Bethel Lybo, see Lebo-hamath Lydia, 341 Ma’ḫadu, 157, 158 Maacah, 335 Madon, 354, 355, 370 Magan, 128 Magdali, 88 Mahanaim, 209 Maḫḫazu, see Muḫḫazu Makkedah, 349, 351, 352 Makkitta, see Megiddo Manasseh, hill country of, 1, 330, 346, 376, 377 Manasseh, Land of Manasseh, 191, 359, 360 Manḫatu, 176 Mari, 111-112, 121, 158, 253, 255, 256, 296, 338n

Index Maron, 354, 355, 370 Mearah, 124 Mediterranean, 126, 335, 339 eastern Mediterranean, 58, 158, 343 western Mediterranean, 336 Megiddo (Makkitta), 7, 8, 9, 14n, 17, 18, 19, 30, 118n, 126, 129, 152, 161, 163, 167, 199, 205, 206, 220, 222, 223, 235, 236, 237, 238, 290, 305, 306, 307, 312, 313, 322 Melid, 336 Meluḫḫa, 128 Memphis (Ḫikuptaḫ), 88, 93 Meroz, 305, 311 el-Meshattah, 211 Mesopotamia, 9, 63n, 67, 128, 221, 225, 227, 246, 247, 248, 288, 332, 333, 335, 341 eastern Mesopotamia, 300 northern Mesopotamia, 9, 11, 334, 343 southern Mesopotamia, 334 Upper Mesopotamia, 9, 334 Midian, 305, 313 Migdal Penuel, 305 Mishal, 152, 161, 165, 167 Misrephoth-maim, 124, 354 Mitanni, 5, 11, 16, 18, 32, 41-48, 83, 93, 114, 119, 120, 126, 137, 200, 244, 300, 301 Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh), 322-323 Mizpeh, 354 Mktl, Mktlyn, 207n Mmšt, 184 Moab, 190, 267 Moresheth-(gath), 71 Mount Anti-Lebanon, 7, 8, 86, 92, 93, 124, 125, 128, 207 Mount Bishri, 334 Mount Carmel, 135 Carmel slopes, 207, 208 Lower Carmel, 189 Mount Ebal, 332 Mount Ephraim, 187, 190, 210, 262, 266, 267, 268, 357, 308, 309 Mount Gilboa, 324, 327 Mount Halak, 370 Mount Hebron, 182-185 Mount Hermon, 124, 337 Mount Jearim, 190 Mount Lebanon, 124, 224, 276, 337 Mount Perazim, 351 Mount Seir, 190 Mount Shawe, Mount n š3-w3, 276 Mount Tabor, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312 Mount Zemaraim, 267 Mpśn, 207n ‘mq, 208 Mqr/lt, 208, 209

403

Mu’rashti, 71, 72, 155 Muḫḫazu, 72, 160, 162 Mushiḫuna, 7 Nāb, 198 Nabrachta, 211 Nebi Rubin, 160 Naḫal Besor, 154 Naḫal Elah, 187 Naḫal Gerar, 154 Naḫal Govrin, 155 Naḫal Kishon, 7, 238, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 327 Naḫal Tirzah, 210 Nahr el-Kebir (Eleutheros), 15, 107, 124, 126, 276 Naḫrima, 43, 71 Napata, 93 Naphtali’s allotment, 307, 309, 312, 314 Narbata, 211, 222n, 236 Nasher, 255 Na-x-ḫa-x, 150, 154, 167 Negeb, Negev, 128n, 153, 168, 183, 185, 325, 357, 361, 362 Negeb Highlands, 209 ngs, 199, 200, 237 Nile Delta, 155, 277 Nile valley, 277 Niya, 11, 112 Nob, 324n Nubia, 27, 93, 94, 278 Nuḫašše, 6, 11, 46, 112, 118, 126, 135, 199 Nuribta, 222n, 223, 235, 236 Nuzi, 52, 91n, 200, 220, 234, 271 Oak of Zaanannim, 307, 309 Orontes River, 15, 126, 127, 276 Orontes valley, 12

p3 mgr, 276

Palestine, 1-19, 28, 66, 69, 72n, 75, 123, 130, 135, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 161, 167, 168, 178, 182, 210, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 253, 259, 263, 288, 325, 329, 333, 336, 340, 341n, 343 central Palestine, 163, 167, 324 coast of, 2, 15 eastern Palestine, 205 the hill country of, 3, 8, 184, 346n northern Palestine, 11, 12, 59n, 66, 88, 149, 163, 165, 166, 207, 209, 210, 227, 369 the northern plains of, 2 southern Palestine, 8, 11, 14, 65, 66, 70, 72, 75, 76, 119, 154-156, 167, 207, 210, 218, 219,

404


220, 223 west Jordanian Palestine, 147 Patina, 225 Peḫel, 183 Persian empire, 127 Philistia, Philistines, 122, 130, 208, 263, 323, 324, 350, 356, 361, 370, 375 coast of, 159, 323n, 361 eastern Philistia, 361 Phoenicia, 110, 130, 318 Phoenician coast, 65, 66n, 67, 110, 114, 116, 122, 126, 135, 151, 198, 224, 227, 228 Piḫilu, 7, 8, 17n, 84, 127, 128, 197, 201n, 207 Promised Land, 110, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129 Qadesh, Qidshu (Tell Nebi Mind), 11, 16, 17, 18, 27, 86, 87, 100, 116, 119, 126, 127, 196n, 199, 200, 276, 288, 299 Qa-ḏi-ru, 205 Qantara, 72n Qanu, 196 Qarqar, 15, 325 Qatna, 11, 87, 88, 100, 111, 112, 126, 196, 288 qdr, 198 qḏr, 208, see also Gezer qdtm, 205, 209n Qina brook, 238 Qina valley, 238 [Qm]hn, 196 Qpt, 208 Qrt-‘nb, 198 Que, 337 Rabbah, 204, 206, 212n Rabbith, 204, 205 Raḫābu, 90n, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238 Rāḫisum/Rūḫiṣu, 111, 112, 121, 127, see also Ruḫizzi Ramah, 266, 267n Raphia, 119 Rapiqu, 334 Ras Tawra, 181, 186, 191 Rbt, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, see also Rubutu Rehob (Rḥb), 124, 152, 165, 167, 175, 177, 178, 205, 207n, 208, 222, 223 Rephaim valley, 350, 351 Retenu, 4, 199, 200 Rḥb, see Rehob Riblah, 127 Roman Empire, 138 Rosh-qidshi, 179 Rôsh-ramem, 179 Rubutu, 77, 78,176, 204-212 Rūḫiṣu, see Rāḫiṣum Ruḫizzi, 86, 87, 100, 137, see also Rāḫiṣum/Rūḫiṣu

Š‘rt/Shartu, 190 Ṣab/puma, 74 Sadad, see Zedad Saggaratum, 256 Salt Sea, 124 Sam’al, 225 Samaria, 187, 205, 210, 318, 319, 327 northern Samaria, 211 Samaria hills, 239 Samarian hill country, 212, 373 Saqqara, 122 Sarid, 208, 303-305, 312 Sazana, 92 Seir, see Edom Seirah, 190, 267 Shaalim, 267n Shaddu, 86, 87 Shalisha, 267n Shamḫuna, 6, 7, 30, 55n, 113, 161, 163, 167, 222n Shamir, 267 Sharon, 207, 239 plain of, 7, 8, 207, 209, 210, 211, 236 Shartu, see Š‘rt Sharuhen, see Shir/lḥon Sharuna, 161, 162 Shasu lands, 127n, see also District of the Shasu Shazaena, 27, 82, 92 Shechem, Shechemites, 3, 12, 29, 30, 83, 85n, 89, 113n, 145, 150, 152, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 173, 179-180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190-191, 201n, 205, 207, 210, 232, 237, 264, 267, 290, 337, 339, 345-346, 359, 373, 374 Shepham, 123-124, 127 Shephelah, 2, 8, 17, 18, 72, 74n, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 184, 189, 191, 205, 210, 260, 268, 322, 326, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 362, 370, 378, 379 northern Shephelah, 205, 206, 208, 209, 247, 370, 375 Shēri, 189, 190 Shilhim, see Shir/lḥon Shiloh, 332 Shim‘on, 354, 370 Shim‘on, kingdom of, 235, 354 Shimron, 354 Shir/lḥon (Sharuhen, Tell el-‘Ajjul), 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 119 Shunem, 166, 205, 208, 222, 223, 232, 235, 236, 237, 239 Siannu, 46, 47 Sibraim, 124 Sidon, 6, 29, 36, 53n, 55n, 65, 66, 68, 101, 116,

Index 118, 136, 151n, 156 Great Sidon, 354 Silat el-Ḫarithiyeh, 310n Sile, 72n, 119 Siloam, 319 Silu, 155 Sinai Peninsula, 14n, 16, 335, 347 northern Sinai, 127n Siyannu, 246, 248 Socoh, 14n, 184, 206, 207n, 209, 210, 370 Soleb, 14n Śrt, 208 Subartu, 128, 255 Suḫu, 325, 334 Sumer, 128, 296 Ṣumur (Tell Kazel), 43, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 126, 166, 221, 223, 234, 245, 246n, 257n, 275, 276 Šunem, 204 Ṣupite, 92 Syria, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 45, 68, 103, 117, 123, 146, 161, 196, 221, 227, 288, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338 central Syria, 11, 93, 94, 116, 122, 126, 127, 338 coast of, 157 northern coast of, 116 northern Syria, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 122, 220, 225, 227, 296, 300, 334, 340 southern Syria, 11, 85n, 86, 88, 94, 126, 149, 200, 201, 225, 227, 334-335 Syro-African Rift valley, 330, 338, 340 Syro-Anatolian kingdoms, 336 Syro-Arabian Desert, 335 Syro-Canaanite kingdoms, 16 Syro-Mesopotamia areas, 336 Syro-Mesopotamian West Semitic kingdoms, 227 Syro-Palestine, 228n, 288, 290, 318, 325, 336 Taanach, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14n, 94, 129, 161, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 204, 205, 206, 207n, 208, 209, 210, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 305, 306, 307, 310n, 311, 312, 340 south of, 210 Tadmor, 334 Taḫshi, 86n, 93, 126, 127, 196, 207 Tamar, 124, 363, 364, see also City of Palms Tappuah (Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad), 186, 190, 371 Taurus, 335 Tehenu, 344 Tel Aphek, 66, 236, 243 Tel Ashdod, 156, 159, 162, 163 Tel Beer-sheba, 318n, 325

Tel Dan, 369 Tel Dor, 166 Tel ‘Eton, 154, 167, 352 Tel Ḥalif (Tell el-Khuweilifeh), 362 Tel Haror, 154 Tel Hazor, 366 Tel Jokneam, 166, 167 Tel Kabri, 178 Tel Malḥata, 185 Tel Masos, 185, 229, 325 Tel Mevorakh, 332 Tel Qarnei Ḥiṭṭin, 166, 167, 355 Tel Rekhesh, 165 Tel Sera‘, 229, 322, 341 Tel Shimron, 163 Tell Abū Shūsheh, see Geba‘ Tell el-‘Ajjul, see Shir/lḥon Tell el-‘Amr, 165 Tell Beit Mirsim, 154, 167, 318n Tell Burnaṭ, 155 Tell ed-Dab‘a, 18 Tell Deir ‘Alla, 332 Tell Deir el-‘Azar, see Kiriath-jearim Tell Dothan, see Dothan Tell el-Far‘ah, 191, 322 Tell Harbaj, 165 Tell el-Ḫayyat, 332 Tell el-Ḥesi, 224 Tell Jemmeh, 154, 325 Tell Kazel, see Ṣumur Tell el-Khuweilifeh, see Tel Ḥalif Tell Kisan, 165 Tell Kittan, 332 Tell el-Masallah, 211 Tell el-Muḥafar, 211, 212 Tell en-Na‘ameh, 195 Tell en-Naḫl, 165 Tell en-Naṣbeh, see Mizpah Tell Nebi Mind, see Qadesh Tell er-Rumeideh, 180, 182 Tell eṣ-Ṣafi, see Gath, Gimtu Tell eṣ-Ṣarem, 165, 207n, 235 Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad, see Tappuah Tell esh-Shihab, 85, 197, 198, 200n Tell es-Sultan, 160 Thebes, 148, 175 Tianna, 72, 74, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167 Tigris River, Upper Tigris, 9, 334 Timna, 229 Timnath-heres, Timnath-serah, 266, 356 Tirzah, 210, 371 Tjeko, 342 Tnn (tì-n-ni), 161, 162, see also Tianna Tob, Land of Tob, 262, 335

405

406


Transcaucasia, 12 Transjordan, 17n, 85, 125, 127n, 128, 128n, 195, 198, 199, 222, 224, 227, 237, 322, 339, 345, 377 ”King’s Highway”, 17n, 127n northern Transjordan, 94, 335 Tripoli, 124, 276 Tubiḫu, 177, 276 Tûl Karem, 205 Tunip, 11, 126 Tushulti, 177, 264 Tyre (the city of Mayāti), 6, 29, 36, 50-55, 63, 65-68, 101, 103, 104, 105, 116, 118, 120, 123, 134, 135, 136-137, 151n, 158, 219, 276 Ugarit, 5, 6, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 52, 54, 116, 117, 120, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141-142, 156, 157-158, 160n, 162, 190, 225, 236, 246, 247, 248, 278, 290, 298, 340 Ugulzit, 118 Ulan Burun, 58 Ullasa, 44, 45, 56, 57, 114, 166, 178, 221, 245, 246n, 275 Upi (Api), 82, 85, 86, 87, 89, 100, 126, 139, 196n, 227 Ur, 13, 335 Urartu, 346 Urshum, 9 Uruatri/Uratri, 346, see also Urartu Usu, 36, 55n Wādi Arabah, 128n Wādi el-Far‘ah, 210 Wādi el-Ḥamam, 355 Wādi Jabneel, 195 Wādi Raqad, 198 Waššukanni, 200 Waters of Megiddo, 311, 312, 378 Waters of Merom, 350, 353, 354, 355, 356, 366

y‘n, 198

Yabilima, 155, 208n Yâfā, 235n Yaḥam, 207n Yamḫad, 286, 287, 288, 289n, 336 Yapiḫu, 236 Yapû, 222n, 236, see also Joppa Yarimuta, 57, 58, 59, 60 Yarmuk River, 84, 85, 86, 125, 128, 197, 198, 199, 207, 208n Yarmuta, 59n, see also Yarimuta Yehud, 184 Yeno‘am, 84, 85, 86, 195-202, 221, 237, 344, 345 Yibleam, 165 Yibneh, 72n Yurza, 16, 154, 167, 234 Zagros, 300, 335 Zaphon, 74n Zarephath, 276 Zebulun’s allotment, 208, 235, 304, 305, 312, 314 Zedad (Sadad), 123, 124, 125 Zemaraim, 209 Zephath, 362, 377 Zer‘în, 310n Ziklag, 263 Zilû, 71, 72, 154, 155, 167, 175, 176, 206 Zin, 124 Ziph, 184 Ziphron, 123, 127 Zobah, 264, 355 Zorah, 176, 368 Zuḫra, 147, 150, 154, 167, 175 Zunzurḫi, 118 Zuph, 267n [x-I]G-ma-te, 150, 163, 167

Index of Biblical References Genesis 10:15 338 12:1 270 12:10 342 14:13 270 23 337, 339, 374 23:2 113n 26:1 342 26:34 337 27:46 337 33:18 113n 34 339, 373 34:2 337, 339 34:4 373 34:8-12 373 35:6 113n 35:8 309, 357 36:2 337 36:11 361 36:15 361 36:42 361 37:17 211 39:14 261, 270 39:17 261 40:15 261 41:12 261, 270 42:2 342 47:4 342 49:6 355 49:14-15 232 Exodus 1:16 261 1:19 261 2:6 261 2:7 261 3:18 261 5:3 261 7:16 261 9:1 261 9:13 261 10:3 261 21:2 270 23:9 270 23:32 372

34:12 372 Numbers 13-14 361, 368 13:6 360 13:21 123, 124 13:22 337, 360, 374 13:28 360, 374 14:44-45 362n 14:45 362n 21:1-3 362 26:32-33 212 27:1 212 32:12 361 32:37-38 377 32:41-42 377 34:2-12 125 34:2-12a 123 34:7-12a 124 34:19 360 Deuteronomy 1:43-44 362n 1:44 362n 2:15 362n 3:3-5 198 3:5 282, 283 7:2 372 15:12 270 20:10-18 372 20:16-18 372 20:11 372 20:12-14 372 26:5 343 34:3 363 Joshua 1:4 122, 338 2 364 2:1-9a 364n 2:9 372 2:12-16 364n 2:12b 364n 2:17-21 364n 2:22-23 364n

407

6:17b 364n 6:22-23 364n 6:23 364 6:24 364n 6:25 364 8 348 8:24 362n 8:29 352, 378 9 339, 349, 371, 374, 376 9:3 372 9:4 372 9:7 337 9:8 372 9:9 372 9:9b-10 373 9:11 372 9:14 373 9:15a 372 9:15b 371, 372 9:16 372 9:17 376 9:17-21 371 9:22 373 9:24 372 9:27 371, 377 9:27b 373 10 173, 350, 351, 360 10-11 347 10:1 349 10:1-15 349, 351, 354 10:1-39 353 10:3 177, 349 10:5 177, 349 10:6 349 10:10 190 10:12-13 351 10:16-27 349, 351 10:20 362n 10:23 349 10:26 378 10:28 352 10:28-39 364-365, 366, 378 10:29-39 349, 352, 353 10:36-37 326 10:36-39 177

408 10:38-39 326 10:40-41 347 10:41 354 11 309, 366 11:1-5 308, 353, 354 11:1-9 353, 354, 366 11:1-14 353, 355 11:2 354 11:3 337, 354 11:4 129 11:6 129, 353, 355 11:7-9 353 11:8 354 11:9 129, 355 11:10 355, 367 11:10-11 366, 367 11:10-14 353 11:12a 366 11:12b-13 366 11:14 366 11:16-17 347 11:21 326 11:21-22 361 11:21-23 360 11:23 347 12 212, 223 12:10 177 12:13 177 12:16 187 12:17 212, 370 12:22 308 13:2-6 123, 125 13:2a 124 13:4-6a 124 13:5 126 14:6 361 14:6-14 326 14:6-15 360 14:14 361 15 362 15:1-12 357 15:8 183 15:10 190, 267 15:10-11 304 15:13 360 15:13-14 326, 360 15:13-19 360 15:14 337, 360, 374 15:15-19 326, 360, 361 15:30 362 15:32 13n 15:39 353 15:41 353 15:42 353 15:45-47 129

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE 15:49 353 15:54 353 15:55-56 263 15:59 248n 15:60 204, 206 16:2 304 16:3 190 16:7 304 16:10 370 17:2-3 212 17:11 129, 238 17:16 129, 310 17:18 310 18:6 183 18:22 187 18:28 183 19:4 362 19:6 13n 19:10 304 19:12 235, 304 19:13 304 19:19 208 19:20 204 19:21 239 19:25 208 19:33 307, 309 19:37 308 19:40 223 19:40-46 176 19:40-47 368 19:47 268, 326, 365, 367, 368-369, 370 20:7 308 21:29 59n 21:32 308 24:28-31 357 24:30 357 24:31 357 Judges 1 347, 348, 360, 362, 365 1:1–2:5 357 1:1 357, 370 1:1-2 357 1:1-3 358 1:1-18 357 1:1-26 357-366 1:3 363 1:4 364 1:4-8 357 1:5a 359 1:6-7a 359 1:7 359 1:7a 359 1:7b 359

1:8 358, 359, 377 1:9 357, 358 1:10 326, 337, 363, 374 1:10-15 357, 360 1:11 363 1:11-15 326, 361 1:16 363 1:17 362, 363 1:17-18 357 1:18 358 1:19 129, 310, 358 1:21 357, 358, 365 1:22 364 1:22-25 377 1:22-26 187, 357, 359, 364, 365 1:25 364 1:26 122, 358, 364 1:27 129, 238 1:27-33 357 1:27-35 357, 365 1:29 370 1:34-35 326, 367, 368, 369, 370 1:35 357, 370 2:1-5 357 2:2 372 2:2-4 358 2:4-5 357 2:6-9 357 2:9 357 2:10ff 357 2:11-13 358 2:17-19 358 3:3 337 3:13 363 3:26 190, 267n 3:26-27 267 4 306-312, 327 4-5 303, 313 4:1 311 4:1-3 312 4:2 306, 307, 311, 355 4:2a 309, 310 4:2b 309, 310 4:3 129, 311 4:4b-5 309, 310 4:5 307, 308 4:6 305, 309 4:6a 310 4:9b 310 4:10 308, 309 4:10-14 305, 398 4:11 307, 309, 310, 363 4:13 129, 306, 307, 308, 309

409

Index 4:16 306, 307, 308, 309 4:17 307 4:17b 309, 310 4:22 307 4:23 311, 355 4:24 355 5 129, 327 5:8 304 5:8a 304 5:11 304 5:11b 303 5:11b-13 303, 304, 305 5:13 208n, 303-305 5:13a 304 5:13b 304 5:14-17 305, 311 5:18 305 5:19 129, 304, 306 5:19b 129 5:21 305 5:22 304 5:23 305 5:25 304 6:5 324 7:12 324 8:17 305 8:21 324 8:26 324 9 264, 374 9:4 264 9:26-29 264 9:30-41 264 9:46-49 290 11 262 11:4-11 264 14:3 270 15:18 270 16:23 324 17 368 17-18 368 17:12 368 18 264, 268, 326, 367-368 18:1 368 18:2 368 18:7 368 18:8-10 368 18:11 264, 368 18:16 264 18:17 264 18:25 264 18:27 365 18:27a-28 368 18:27-29 368 18:29 368 19:47 370

20 348 20:1 323 20:3 323 21:1 323 21:5 323 21:8 323 1 Samuel 1:1 267 3:10 324 4:6 261, 262 4:9 261, 262 5:1-7 324 6:9 323 6:12-21 323 6:18 282, 283 9:1 267 9:1-10:16 327 9:4-5 267n 10:3 309 10:5 375n 10:9-13 375n 10:10-12 327 10:17-26:11 327 11:1-2 372 11:8 359 12:9 307 13-14 267 13:3 261, 262 13:6 262, 267 13:7 261n 13:19 261, 262 14:6 270 14:11 261, 262 14:21-22 261 14:22 267 15:6 363 16:14-23 327 16:17 327 17:26 270 17:36 270 17:52 190 18:17-27 361 19:18-24 327 21:10 324n 21:11-16 327 21:17 327 22:1-2 263 22:2 264 22:5 263 22:20-23 263 23:1-13 264, 268 23:13 264 24 327 25 263

26 327 26:6 337 27:1-6 263 27:2 264 27:7-11 263 27:8-11 264 28:1-2 263 29 263 29:3 256, 261, 262 30 263 30:9 264 30:10 324n 30:16 83n 30:17 324 30:29-30 362 31 327 31:4 270 2 Samuel 1:17-27 327 1:18 351 1:20 270 2:1-4 183, 264 4:2 375 4:6 327 4:7 327 5:1-5 183 5:20 351 5:22 350, 351 5:22-25 350, 351 5:23-24 351 5:25 351 8:3 355 8:4 355 8:10-12 324n 8:16-18 319, 327 8:17 317 10:6-18 311 11 337 15-20 165 16:5 266 17:1-14 266 19:10-13 265 19:12-16 266 19:41-44 265, 266 20:1 266 20:1-2 265 20:2 265 20:4-6 268 20:6 266 20:14 266, 268 20:18 268 20:21 266 20:23-26 319, 327 20:25 317

410 21:1 375 21:1-14 374, 375 21:2 375 21:2b 375 21:6 375n 21:9 375 21:10-14 375 21:15-22 361 23:13-17 350 23:39 337 24:7 337 24:8 317 24:16-25 337, 339 1 Kings 4:2-19 319 4:3 317 4:8 267 4:9 176 4:10 204, 205, 209, 212, 236n 4:12 238 4:18 267 9:13 310n 9:16 370 9:18 363 10:29 122, 338 11:1 122, 338 11:16 307 11:23-24 264 11:24 264 12:28-29 367 15:20 268 15:22 322 16:1-4 327 16:7 327 20:1-21 327 20:34 372 2 Kings 6:13 211 6:24-7:20 327 7:6 122, 338 8:20-22 322 9:27 239 11:16 327

Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE 11:20 327 12:21 327 12:22a 327 14:11 323 14:25 327 14:28a 327 15:29 308 18:14 352 18:17 352 18:17-19:9a 327 18:36 327 19:8 352 19:9 353 19:9b-35 327 23:15 187 Isaiah 8:21-23a 313n 8:23 308, 312 8:23b 312-314 8:23b-9:6 313, 314 9:1-6 313 9:3 313 9:5 313 9:6 312 20:1 311 28:21 351 Jeremiah 34:9 270, 271 34:14 270, 271 40-41 322 50:17 312 Ezekiel 16:3 337, 343 16:45 337 38:11 282 47:13-21 123 47:13-18 125 47:15-18 124 47:16 127 47:17 127 47:18 125 47:19 363 48:1 123, 124, 125

48:1-8 125 48:28 363 Amos 1:8 164 Jonah 1:9 270, 271 Zechariah 2:4-5 283 Psalms 83 313 83:6-8 313 83:9-10 313 Esther 9:19 283 Ezra 2:25 376 Nehemiah 3:7 322 3:15 322 3:16 190 3:19 322 3:24 190 3:31 190 7:25 376 7:29 376 1 Chronicles 4:13-15 360 4:30 362 6:61 308 10:10 324 14:13 350 14:13-16 350 14:16 351 20:4-8 361 2 Chronicles 28:15 363

Collected Essays, Volume 2: Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E

Collected Kill- Volume 2

Collected Essays 2 1940-1943

Collected Kill- Volume 2

Collected Essays [essays-47]

Reason in Action: Collected Essays Volume I (Collected Essays Volume 1)