Canaan in the second millenium bce

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 Ameri-
can 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 po-
litical history, geographical history, historiography, literature, economy, soci-
ety, administration, cult and religion. One article discusses in detail the con-
quest 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 coher-
ence. 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 ques-
tions 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 circum-
stances, of whether or not to revise the articles to take account of more re-
cent works and the present state of knowledge. I have decided against revi-
sion, 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 bibli-
ography 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 de-
cades, 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 modifica-
tions. 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 proj-
ect. 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 indi-
ces. 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 follow-
ing 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

“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

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Oriental Research JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung Society
AJA American Journal of Archaeology Kbo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1916–.
AJSL American Journal of Semitic
Leipzig and Berlin
Languages and Literature KUB Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1912–.
ANET Pritchard, J. B. ed. 1955. Ancient Near
Berlin
Eastern Texts. Princeton. MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AnSt Anatolian Studies Gesellschaft
AOAT Alte Orient und Altes Testament MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-
ARM Archives Royales de Mari.
ARMT Archives Royales de Mari Ägyptischen Gesellschaft
New Enc Arch. Exc. Encyclopedia of
Transcrites et Traduites
ArOr Archiv Orientálni Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
BA Biblical Archaeologist Land. Jerusalem 1993
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia
Oriental Research PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund,
BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Quarterly Statement
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly,
Society; continuation of BJPES continuation of PEFQSt
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis PJb Palästinajahrbuch
BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine QDAP Quarterly of the Department of
Antiquities in Palestine
Exploration Society RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie
BMB Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth Orientale
CAD Assyrian Dictionary of the University RB Revue Biblique
RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique
of Chicago RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie
CAH Cambridge Ancient History VT Vetus Testamentum
EI Eretz-Israel WO Die Welt des Orients
Enc. Miqr. Encyclopaedia Miqra’it ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZAS Zeitschrift für die ägyptische Sprache
(Encyclopaedia Biblica). Jerusalem und Altertumskunde
(Hebrew) ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
ICC International Critical Commentary Wissenschaft
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Society Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vereins

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 de-
stroyed, some were abandoned and resettled only much later, and others suf-
fered 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 sec-
tion 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 num-

1. Reprinted with permission. Levant 26 (1994), 175–187.

1

2 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 di-
rected against their Canaanite allies, and this conquest culminated in the es-
tablishment 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 con-
quest. This hypothesis was formulated long before the overall picture of de-
struction of the Middle Bronze II urban system was fully understood. At that
time, scholars were aware only of the destruction and temporary abandon-
ment 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 natu-
ral 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 cri-
teria for connecting the stratigraphical sequence in most sites with the re-
conquest of Palestine by the Egyptian rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty.”

The many new excavations and the extensive surveys of the hill coun-
try have demonstrated the true nature of the MB/LB transition, but the tra-
ditional 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 centu-
ries 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 conclu-
sion 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.) increas-
ingly 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, sug-
gest a different reconstruction for the course of events. I will try to demon-
strate 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 ac-
count 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

jority of names were West Semitic (Amorite) and that elements of northern
origin are nevertheless detected in all four Palestinian cities in which cunei-
form tablets were uncovered. We may conclude that the infiltration by north-
ern 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 attrib-
uted 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 Syria-
Palestine 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-peo-
ple who were captured at Gezer and settled in Egypt. These and other exam-
ples 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 north-
ern origin of many of these names has been recognized since the beginning

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 immi-
grants 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 ap-
pear 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 dem-
onstrated that there are relatively few Indo-Aryan names in ancient Near
Eastern documents and that various names regarded in the past as Indo-
Aryan are either Hurrian or of unknown northern origin (Kammenhuber
1968; 1977; Diakonoff 1972; Mayrhofer 1974). There are a few distinct Indo-
Aryan 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, re-
served 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 cor-
related 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 rul-
ers’ 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 anal-
ysis 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 sugges-
tion (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 lan-
guage 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 con-
clude 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 re-
gion 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 re-
lation 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 rul-
ers is correct, then we have another case of a ruler bearing a West Semitic name who suc-
ceeded a ruler with a “northern” name.

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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-x-
tar, 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 ÌR-
sharri, 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‘lu-
meḫir, 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 city-
state 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 Anti-
Lebanon 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 rul-
ers are of “northern” origin, with relatively few exceptions (notably the rul-
ers 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 in-
cluded 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 de-
tected 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

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 cit-
ies, 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; Hurrian-
speaking 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 north-
ern 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 popula-
tion, 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 sit-
uation. The Hittite rulers conquered and annexed the Hurrian kingdoms of

10 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

eastern Anatolia, destroyed the great kingdom of Ḫalab and attacked the
Hurrian principalities east of the Euphrates. Bloody wars of succession weak-
ened 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 popu-
lation 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 re-
search 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, ac-
cording 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 cen-
tury BCE (Kühne 1982:210–224; Stein 1989:56–60). It is difficult to accommo-
date 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 histori-
cal and archaeological synchronisms among the various parts of the ancient

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 chron-
ological 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 king-
dom 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 impor-
tant 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 econ-
omy 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 inhab-
itants 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 run-
ning 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 signif-
icant 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 peo-
ple 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 doc-
umentation 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 lo-
cated 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 mi-
gration 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 al-
ready 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 popu-
lation of Canaan. Larger northern groups who entered the country later on,

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 devel-
oped network of supply; with symbiotic relations between the urban and
rural populations, including neighboring pastoral groups; with intensive ex-
ploitation of agricultural and grazing lands; and with a developed organi-
zation 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 docu-
ments 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 de-
cline 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 neighbor-
ing 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 necessar-
ily implied an early conquest of Palestine (Dever 1990, 76–79) ignores the his-
torical 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 perma-
nent presence on the coast of Lebanon. Close economic (and political?) re-
lations 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 de-
veloped 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 sepa-
rating it altogether from the biblical town.

6. The Soleb, Aksha and Amarah topographical lists were recently discussed in de-
tail by Edel (1980). Hoffmeier’s discussion of the Amarah list (1991, 119–20) should be up-
dated in light of Edel’s work. The lists are not based on itineraries, as is evident, for exam-
ple, 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.

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 dur-
ing 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 concen-
trated 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 exhaus-
tion of their forces in a long march from the Egyptian border to the battle-
field 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 ef-
fectively 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 occu-
pation of the Lebanese coast and a few ports in Palestine was necessary for
conducting campaigns into inner Syria. Moreover, in various historical situa-
tions 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 ac-
curately 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 neighbor-
ing 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 cam-
paign 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 an-
archic 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 sit-
uations “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 an-
archy caused by the destruction of cities by northern groups and the strug-
gle 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 north-
ern 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

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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 forti-
fied. It was a country already desolated and exhausted that Thutmose III con-
quered following his decisive victory at Megiddo. The Pharaoh was quick to
take advantage of the situation, subjugate the land and establish the founda-
tions 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 in-
filtration of northern groups since the seventeenth century, and in particu-
lar 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 in-
cluded in the list, and even a superficial examination will show that they were not re-
corded 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 sec-
tion 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 iden-
tifications, see Görg 1979:168–173) and can hardly support the assumption that the list was
drawn from itineraries.

18 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

(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 mem-
bers 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 threat-
ened to drive the Egyptians all the way back to their homeland. This expan-
sion 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, for-
merly 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 through-
out 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 ob-
tained from the excavations at Tell ed-Dab‘a (Bietak 1984; 1989), but the as-
sumedly 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 culminat-
ing 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-

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 19

inite date is suggested; no a priori date should be assigned in light of an as-
sumed overall Egyptian conquest.

Once the destruction of the urban system of Palestine is detached from ei-
ther 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 de-
struction 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 re-
served 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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).

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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. Ugarit-

Forschungen 8: 101–115.
Hess, R.S. 1989. Cultural Aspects of Onomastic Distribution in the Amarna Texts. Ugarit-

Forschungen 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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. Ugarit-
Forschungen 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.

The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine 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. Ugarit-
Forschungen 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 pre-
sented in the title of the chapter, there is a marked difference in the num-
ber 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 infor-
mation 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 ref-
erences 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 correspon-
dence 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 neces-
sary 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 occasion-
ally, whenever the situation demanded such action, there was a seasonal pat-

1. 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

tern for the correspondence. “The seasonal (or modular) patterning is based
on the assumption that the administrative procedure into which the let-
ters 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 cen-
ters? Or does this corpus, with its narrative patterns and personal tone, re-
flect 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 back-
ground 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 vas-
sals influence their perception of their mutual obligations? Were there con-
siderable 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 cor-
respondence and the diplomatic measures taken by both sides, will be sys-
tematically 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 prep-
aration 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 mili-
tary 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 over-
all 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 let-
ters, 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 vas-
sals. 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 com-
mon 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

We may further note that on many occasions, vassals sent several let-
ters in response to a single royal letter. This is typical of the correspon-
dence 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 or-
ders 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 im-
portance of a particular command. Routine messages were delivered ver-
bally 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 prov-
ince 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 execu-
tion of certain military missions, the transfer of information, or the dispatch
of special commodities to Egypt. Letters of admonition were addressed to rul-
ers 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, re-
sponses to royal letters and sometimes also a reference to the visit of (im-
portant?) Egyptian officials. As a result, the number of their letters is mini-
mal. 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 mes-
sages 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 pre-
ferred. My analysis is based on this contextual approach.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 29

letters to the Pharaoh. Most remarkable is Rib-Hadda of Byblos. Other exam-
ples 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 connec-
tions 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 con-
cerning 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 prob-
ably 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 re-
turn for payment.

Ammunira of Beirut and Zimredda of Sidon do not mention either trib-
ute or gift. At the request of the Pharaoh, Abi-Milki of Tyre sent one hun-
dred 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 pre-
pared 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 re-
ceived 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 ex-
plained. He started from a low position and sought the Pharaoh’s recogni-
tion. Later on he expanded, gained political and military strength, and occa-
sionally 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 as-
sumed on the basis of Knudtzon’s decipherment (gišK[U-m]a). See Moran 1992:206, n. 2.

30 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 im-
position 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 prep-
aration 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, re-
quested” (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 vari-
ous 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 four-
teen hundred shekels of silver as compensation for murdered Egyptian mer-
chants (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

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 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 proce-
dures 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 Egyptian-
Canaanite correspondence. I would question the assumption that the contri-
butions 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 im-
posed tribute in the different areas of Canaan remain unknown.

These conclusions contradict the assumption that the correspondence re-
flects 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 neigh-
borhood 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 enti-
ties 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 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

The self-image of the Canaanite rulers was quite different. They consid-
ered 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 concep-
tion 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 guard-
ing are only one aspect of the theme of defense. All the complaints of vas-
sals about encroachments on their territories and their neighbors’ expan-
sion, about attacks by the ‘Apiru and Sutu and the general insecurity in the
land, and statements about the expected arrival of Egyptian archers and gar-
risons — all these are aspects of the major theme of guarding. The vassals in-
terpreted 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 dem-
onstrated that the ideal of loyalty unifies the entire correspondence of Rib-
Hadda. 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 Rib-
Hadda’s letters. Even rulers who operated against the Egyptian interests in
Canaan praised their own loyalty and condemned the treachery and faith-
lessness 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 let-
ters, some other obligations, all derived from their status as mayors, are spo-
radically mentioned. These include the payment of contributions, the hous-
ing and feeding of Egyptian troops and officials, the dispatch of military units
and ships to help the Egyptians in their campaigns northward, the safe pas-
sage of foreign caravans, the cultivation of the lands of the Egyptian garri-
son 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.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 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 guard-
ing was reciprocal and all-inclusive, comprising all aspects of security and
territorial integrity. They also knew that their rivals might send a contradic-
tory 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 sin-
gle 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 demon-
strated that, in accordance with its ideology, Egypt conceived its relation-
ship 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 se-
vere 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 sys-
tem. Egypt and Canaan were separate economic entities, and the vassals were
never regarded as Egyptian mayors in the full meaning of the term.

34 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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 bu-
reaucratic 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 excep-
tional and does not properly represent the corpus of vassal letters. The let-
ters of other mayors answered the command to guard in clear terms and oc-
casionally 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-cen-
tric view of the relationship.

5. For a systematic discussion of Liverani’s arguments and an entirely different inter-
pretation 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.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 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 (mes-
sages 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 can-
not accurately be established.

Egyptian Officials as Translators of the Royal Commands

The Egyptian commissioners (rābiṣu) played a central role in the negotia-
tions with the local rulers. Royal letters being infrequent, they were respon-
sible 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 messen-
gers arrived from Egypt, and, after transmitting their messages, they returned
home. These agents translated the Pharaonic policy and commands into ac-
tion, 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 con-
flicts. 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 instruc-
tions they had received from officials. Such reports must have had a double
message: on the one hand, to confirm that they obeyed the transmitted or-
ders and thereby manifested their loyalty, and on the other hand, to check
on the commissioner. Accusations against certain officials, or efforts to per-
suade Pharaoh to reverse their decisions, appear quite frequently in the cor-
respondence. 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 re-
strict 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 correspon-
dence is overshadowed by these muddy relationships. The bone of conten-
tion 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 be-
fore Pharaoh (286:16–21). He fought back by denouncing the Egyptian com-
missioners (notably in the words in EA 286:17–19 “I say to the commissioner