Canaan in the second millenium bce

86 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Wreszinski 1935:pl. 36). The next station on Biryawaza’s tour was probably
the city of [. . .]še, whose identification cannot be established (line 19).10

Provided that these site identifications are correct, one may easily recon-
struct the chain of events described in the letter. Biryawaza inspected the
southernmost areas of the Bashan along the Yarmuk river. When he was on
his way from Edrei to Yeno‘am, Biridashwa of Ashtaroth stirred a rebellion
and, with the help of the rulers of Buṣruna and Ḫalunni, tried to attack his
strong northern neighbor. “But I escaped from them and took a stand in [ . . .
in] the city of Damascus.” (lines 19-21).11 Biryawaza further accused Arzawiya
of Ruḫizzi, his northern neighbor, of attacking Shaddu, a city apparently sit-
uated on Upi’s northern border (lines 26-31). The letter ends with a conclud-
ing remark (lines 31-34): “And behold, Etakkama has destroyed the land of
Qidshu and now Arzawiya, with Biridashwa, is destroying the land of Api.”

We may conclude that the land of Upi included all the areas east of Mount
Anti-Lebanon mountain range, from the northern border of Canaan up to the
Yarmuk river. It is for this reason that Biryawaza’s enemies in the north (Arza-
wiya) and in the south (Biridashwa), who stirred up rebellions against him,
were accused of “destroying the land of Api.” Biryawaza was regarded as the
major power in this whole area, reaching the southernmost Bashan area on
the one side and the city of Kumidi, the only Egyptian garrison city in south
Syria, on the other side (lines 37-39).

4. The vast territory inspected by Biryawaza included his own kingdom
and city-states of lesser rank. The area of Bashan was divided into many
units, the most powerful of which was Ashtaroth. Six similar letters (EA 201-
206), all responding to the command of the Pharaoh to prepare for the ar-
rival of an Egyptian expeditionary force, were sent by rulers in the Bashan.
Significantly, these letters were written by the same scribe who wrote two of
Biryawaza’s letters (EA 195-196) (Moran 1987:433, n. 2). One may assume that
Biryawaza summoned the city-state rulers to his city to explain to them the
Egyptian orders, after which his scribe formulated these almost identical six
letters.

Few other kingdoms were located north of Damascus, near the northern
boundary of Canaan (Ruḫizzi, Lapana). Significantly, no kingdom except for
Damascus is known to have existed in the area between the Bashan in the
south and Ruḫizzi in the north. This must have been the territory of the king-
dom of Damascus, most probably governed by Biryawaza.

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

11. For the restoration of lines 13–26. see Na’aman 1977a:169, n.5.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 87

A king who governed such a large territory may well have had more than
one palace. This would immediately explain the situation portrayed in letters
EA 53 and 196, where disasters that befell Biryawaza during the last stages of
the Amarna period are described.

According to the fragmentary passage EA 53:24-34, Etakkama of Qidshu
(Qadesh) attacked the land of Upi, conquered a palace of Biryawaza and car-
ried away heavy booty. It is hardly conceivable that the city of Damascus is
referred to, particularly as Damascus is mentioned in this same letter as a
model of loyalty to the Pharaoh (line 63, see below).12 The conquered city
must have been on the northern boundary of the kingdom of Damascus, and
it is not impossible that the city mentioned in this broken passage is Shaddu,
described by Biryawaza as a place in the land of Upi that was conquered, with
the support of Qidshu and Amurru, by Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi (EA 197:26-31).

In another letter (EA 196), Biryawaza complained of “a deed such as none
has ever done” (line 32). The passage is badly broken, but it is clear that the
accused ruler is Biridashwa (compare lines 32-33 with lines 40-41), who cap-
tured dignitaries (and possibly property as well) of Biryawaza, including his
wives and concubines.13 Biryawaza sent the letter from his capital (lines 6-8
“I am being watchful and I am serving the king, my lord, in this place.”); thus,
it is clear that either a southern town, or even a caravan, was plundered. The
background of the entire episode is unknown, but it reflects the downfall of
Biryawaza, the former suzerain of the land of Upi.

We may conclude that Biryawaza ruled a large territorial kingdom that
apparently included more than one palace. These were built for the admin-
istration of the territory and for his own residence when he was inspecting
various remote places. One or two of these centers of government were cap-
tured in the latest stage of the Amarna period by Biryawaza’s enemies in the
north and south, though the city of Damascus apparently remained in his
hands.

5. The city of Damascus is mentioned three times in the Amarna archive,
always in indicative contexts. In letter EA 197:20-21, it is the place in which
Biryawaza “took a stand” after he had escaped from the Bashan. The pas-
sage is broken, but one is tempted to restore here “in [my palace/city in]
Damascus.” Such restoration would indicate, of course, that Damascus was
Biryawaza’s residency.

To express his loyalty to Egypt, Akizzi wrote the following (EA 53:63-65):
“My lord, just as Damascus in the land of Upi falls at your feet, so Qatna falls

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

88 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

at your feet.” Significantly, only places in Egypt (Ḫikuptaḫ = Memphis [EA
84:37; 139:8] and Magdali [EA 234:29]) and the city of Gaza, the important
Egyptian center on the southern border of Canaan (EA 289:17), are mentioned
in similar contexts. It is clear that the ruler of Qatna considered Damascus
as the center of loyalty and support for Egypt over the entire area of south-
ern Syria. Moreover, in another letter from the same ruler (EA 52:42-44), it is
Biryawaza who is regarded as the main supporter of the Egyptian interests,
standing side by side with the Pharaoh (“I will not withdraw from [the king],
my lord, and from Biryawaza”). When combining these two letters, one can
hardly escape the conclusion that Damascus was Biryawaza’s capital city.

Rib-Adda’s letter EA 107 was written soon after the Egyptian campaign to
the coast of Lebanon and the capture of ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru.14 Aziru, son
of the deposed king, and his brothers appeared in Damascus (lines 26-28), cer-
tainly before Biryawaza, its strong ruler, who was involved both in the affairs
of the coast of Lebanon and also of northern Palestine (see below).

6. There are certain indications of Biryawaza’s military strength, as com-
pared with the Egyptian power in Canaan. Most important is Rib-Adda’s let-
ter EA 129:81-84.15 To understand the passage correctly, it must first be com-
bined with two other passages in the Byblian correspondence, EA 116:72-76
and 117:59-63.16 The two Egyptian officials referred to in all these passages
are Yanḫamu of Gaza (?) (EA 129:84 uru.kiA[z-za-ti]) and Piḫuru of Kumidi. Rib-
Adda suggested two alternative plans to the dispatch of an Egyptian expedi-
tionary force against the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta: either to send the gover-
nors of the two Egyptian provinces of the land of Canaan (Yanḫamu and
Piḫuru), with their soldiers and the auxiliary troops of the vassals, or to send
Biryawaza, the powerful king of Damascus, with his troops. A similar solution
is raised in letter EA 250:21-27: Ba‘lu-UR.SAG suggested that the Pharaoh will
send one of his officers to Biryawaza and command him to march against the
rebellious sons of Lab’ayu. In both cases it is the military strength and politi-
cal standing of Biryawaza that made him fit for such delicate missions, which
would be accomplished without the direct intervention of the Egyptian au-
thorities in Canaan.

14. For the Egyptian campaign and the fate of the ruler of Amurru, see Moran 1969:94*–
99*; Altman 1977:1–11. For the text of EA 101, see Moran 1987:294–95. In line 20, one may
restore [ma-an]-ga (compare EA 84:21, 106:15, 362:15): “he (Rib-Adda) is distressed.” For EA
107. see Moran 1975a:155–56.å

15. For the passage, see Moran 1987:345, 347, nn. 29–31.
16. For a detailed discussion of the three passages, see Na’aman 1975:169–171. On the
basis of EA 117:61–62, one may restore in EA 116:74 [ḫa-za]-ni (rather than [qe-pa]-ni).

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 89

Letter EA 195 was sent by Biryawaza as an answer to a pharaonic letter
that commanded him to be prepared, with his troops, to participate in an
Egyptian campaign.17 All the letters that were dispatched at that time were
brought by Egyptian messengers, and, as suggested above, certain tablets
sent to the kingdoms of Bashan were distributed by the king of Damascus.
The pharaonic letters that ordered the deportation of the ‘Apiru to the land of
Cush (KL 69:277 and 69:279) were likewise distributed by the Egyptian authori-
ties of Kumidi.18 Does it reflect the time after the downfall of Biryawaza,
when Kumidi took over some of the functions formerly held by the ruler of
Damascus?

Letter EA 196 was written in an answer to the message transmitted by
[. . .]saya (line 6). It answers all the elements appearing in the Egyptian let-
ter of command: to listen carefully to the orders of the messenger (lines 5-
6), to guard the city and obey the Pharaoh (lines 6-7), and to prepare every-
thing that is necessary for the planned Egyptian campaign (lines 8-12 “When
the s[trong army] of the king, my lord, arrives [soon] to m[e, then ple]nty [of
food and] plenty [of everything else will be prepared] by me”).19

Summing up the discussion, it is clear that Biryawaza was a king who as-
cended his throne according to dynastic principle and operated in the land
of Canaan side by side with the Egyptian authorities. It is also evident that
Damascus is the logical candidate for his residency. All the documentary ev-
idence fits this location perfectly, whereas no other place in the land of Upi
can fill these requirements.

Chronologically, the letters that mention Biryawaza’s name cover almost
all the Amarna period. The earliest letters are EA 107 and 250, dated imme-
diately after the death of Lab’ayu of Shechem and ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru.
The Egyptian expedition sent to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta took place under
Amenophis III, as is witnessed by the group of Byblian letters in which Rib-
Adda reminds the Pharaoh (Akhenaten) of the campaign to Amurru under-
taken by his father (EA 108:28-33; 117:24-28; 121:41-44; 131:30-34; 132:12-

17. For the preparations in anticipation of an Egyptian campaign to Asia, see Na’aman
1975:52–54; 1981:173–174, 180–184; 1986:476–478; 1988:22. Bienkowski 1987:55–60; Campbell
1964:32–36.

18. There is a marked discrepancy between the early date assigned by Hachmann 1970:
90–91 to the two letters of Kāmid el-Lōz and his claim in 1982:139–44, 152–58 that Kumidi
became an Egyptian garrison city only in the time of Akhenaten. For a criticism of the sec-
ond claim see Na’aman 1988:21. n. 4.

19. For EA 196:5–12, see Moran 1987:433–434. My reconstruction of lines 10–11 is based
on the comparison to EA 367:16–17: (10) a-na i[a-ši ù ma-(a)]-ad [NINDA] (11) ma-a[d mi-im-
ma šu-ši-ra-ti].

90 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

18; 138:28-34; 362:16-20) (Moran 1969:98*; Na’aman 1975:19-20, 207-210).
Biryawaza is mentioned in the latest Amarna letters (e.g., EA 53, 151, 195-
197). His career covered the entire reign of Akhenaten and doubtless started
even earlier, in the time of Amenophis III.

With these conclusions in mind, one may discuss the possible date of
Zalaya of Damascus. First, we can now reject the proposal to assign his ten-
ure of kingship to the Amarna period and to combine the deportation of
the Cushites (KL 69:277, lines 5-11) to Akhenaten’s Nubian campaign of the
year 12 (Schulman 1982:314-315; see Klengel 1977:231). Hachmann’s (1970:
88-91) suggestion to date this letter to the early years of Amenophis III is
also doubtful. Biryawaza mentions his forefathers to the throne of Damas-
cus, and as he had ascended the throne during the days of Amenophis III,
his grandfather may well have reigned even before the coronation of the lat-
ter. Zalaya was either an early predecessor of Biryawaza, or one of his suc-
cessors.

ÌR-šarri (of Enishazi?)

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

20. The West Semitic theophoric element iršu/iršuna (see Weippert 1966:321–327;
Gröndahl 1967:101) has nothing to do with ri-ša, in particular because West Semitic names
are uncommon among the rulers of the Beqa‘ (see below). Weippert (1970:322) suggested
transcribing the name of the ruler of Hazor (EA 228:3) as ÌR-dir4-ši, i.e., ‘Abd-irši. The ma-
jority of scholars followed Knudtzon and rendered it ‘Abdi-Tirshi.

21. Clauss 1907:25–26 suggested that Ḫa-ra-bu (EA 250:44) is a metathesis of Ra-ḫa-bu,
i.e., the city of Raḫabu in the Beth-shean Valley, well known from Egyptian inscriptions of
the Late Bronze Age.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 91

(i.e., Bieri, An/Ildaya,22 Yamiuta, Mayarzana, Amanḫatpi, Shatiya,23 Arašša)
(See Helck 1971:478-481). A Hurrian name for the ruler of Enishazi fits well
with this onomastic pattern.

The toponym Enishazi also requires some comments. In the Amarna let-
ters, it is written e-<ni>-ša-zi (EA 363:4) and e-ni-ša-ṣi-[i?] (EA 187:12). On the
basis of the transcription ‘Ain-Shasu from Kom el-Hēṭan, the mortuary tem-
ple of Amenophis III, Weippert (1970:259-272 Rainey 1975:13-16, with ear-
lier literature) suggested that both the Amarna town and toponym no. 6 in
the topographical inscription of Thutmose III should be transcribed in this
manner. The name “Spring of the Shasu” was called, according to this line of
thought, after the Shasu, i.e., nomadic elements that settled there.

However, this attractive suggestion is open to criticism. The name Shasu
is known exclusively from Egyptian sources and is a general term for the no-
madic groups living in the peripheral areas of Canaan, as well as the Egyptian
delta.24 The corresponding term in Akkadian is Sutu, which is known from cu-
neiform sources of the Old Babylonian period and which became a generic
term for nomads in the Akkadian literature (Kupper 1957:83-145: Heltzer
1985:59-70; Rowton 1976:16). By deciphering the toponym as ‘Ain-Shasu (i.e.,
“Spring of the Shasu”), one presupposes that Shasu was a well known designa-
tion among the population of Canaan. Until now, however, there is no evidence
that the name was in use outside Egypt, either as a generic term for nomads (as
it appears in the Egyptian documents) or as a tribal name for a certain group. It
seems more likely that the name Enishazi has nothing to do with the Egyptian
Shasu; the Egyptian orthography in the Kom-el-Hēṭan inscription represents
only an Egyptian popular etymology of its name (Ahituv 1984:58).

The ṣi sign is sometimes written as zi in peripheral Akkadian (e.g., EA 158:
37); the writing of this sign to designate si, on the other hand, is very rare

22. The name AN/il-da-a-a (EA 175:3) was interpreted as West Semitic (Il-dayyi) and
compared with the Ugaritic name ildy (Schult 1969:200; Moran 1987:580). The interpreta-
tion is, naturally, not clear of doubts. The elements ant and tai are well known from Hurrian
names (Gelb, Purves and MacRae 1943:201, 261); the name An-ta-a-a is known from Nuzi
(Gelb, Purves and MacRae 1943:21). For further references and discussion, see Landsberger
1954:56, n. 106; Weippert 1970:268, n. 38. Note also the Egyptian(?) name Daasharti (EA 162:
75) (but see Schult 1969:200).

23. Rainey (1975:15) suggested that the sender of letter EA 187 was called by the West
Semitic name Shadeya (ša-de4-ya) and compared it with the Ugaritic name šdyn. However,
Moran (1975b:151) demonstrated that, with the exception of the Jerusalem Amarna letters,
all occurrences of te = de4 in the Amarna archive are confined to forms of idû. The name of
the sender of letter EA 187 should be rendered as Shatiya (Moran 1987:426).

24. Giveon 1971; Ward 1972:35–60; Weippert 1974:265–280, 427–433; Görg 1976:424–428;
1979:199–202; Astour 1979:17–34; Na’aman 1982:27–33.

92 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

and does not appear in the western periphery (von Soden and Röllig 1967:No.
109). In light of the transcription e-ni-ša-ṣi-[i?], it seems preferable to tran-
scribe the toponym as Enishazi, although the transcription Enishasi is not
ruled out.

The second Kāmid el-Lōz letter (KL 69:279) was sent to ÌR.LUGAL of ša-za-
e-na. Eph‘al (1971:155-157) suggests identifying the town with the road sta-
tion Sazana mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian letter ABL 414 that was sent by
Bēl-iqbi, governor of the province of Ṣupite in the days of Sargon II. He iden-
tified the town at the junction of the Beqa‘’s road and the Beirut-Damascus
route.

Letter ABL 414 reflects the efforts of the governor of Ṣupite to build
road stations along the desert routes of his province. It is reasonable to as-
sume that Sazana was also located on the caravan road east of mount Anti-
Lebanon. Furthermore, none of the places mentioned in the Assyrian letter
is known from second millennium documents; they all were apparently small
frontier settlements built by the Assyrians as part of their control system
over the eastern Syrian routes (Eph‘al 1982:95-98). It should also be noted
that most of the territory of Ṣupite was part of the kingdom of Damascus in
the Amarna period and that there is hardly room for an independent city-
state in this area. Moreover, a place called Saza(e)na is not mentioned in the
entire corpus of the Egyptian topographical lists. In spite of the similarity
of names between Shazaena of the Kumidi letter and Sazana of the Assyrian
letter, the identities are far from clear. Sazana may well have been founded
by the Arameans only in the first millennium BCE and further built by the
Assyrians after the annexation of the Damascene area.

As suggested above, with all due reservation, letter EA 363 was sent by
ÌR-šarri of Enishazi. Letters EA 174-176 and 363 are dated to the last stage of
the Amarna period.25 Is it possible to identify ÌR-šarri of letter EA 363 with
ÌR.LUGAL the addressee of KL 69:279? The latter’s city is called ša-za-e-na.
Could it be the creation of the Egyptian scribe, who mistakenly wrote ša-za-
e-na for e-na-ša-za? This, of course, is no more than a hypothesis and cannot
be verified. Accepting it and identifying the author of letter EA 363 with the
addressee of KL 69:279 would lead to the conclusion that the two letters KL
69:277 and 6.9:279 were written not long after the Amarna period. Zalaya,
accordingly, would be considered as Biryawaza’s successor to the throne of
Damascus.

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

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 93

Dating the Kāmid el-Lōz Letters

Dating Zalaya and ÌR-šarri to the post-Amarna Age is not dependent only
on the identification of names and toponyms in EA 363 and KL 69:279. Such
a late date for the Kāmid el-Lōz letters remains plausible even if my argu-
ments concerning the assumed identity of personal names (ÌR-šarri) and top-
onyms (Enishazi) are not acceptable. Reluctance to accept the identification
will pave the way for the second alternative suggested above, namely, that
the letters were sent at an early date, prior to the time of Amenophis III. The
deportation of the Nubians and ‘Apirus, as reflected in the two letters, there-
fore, should be discussed in the light of the historical developments either in
the late 15th-early 14th century or the last third of the 14th century BCE.

The Egyptian border in Nubia in the 15th-14th centuries BCE reached
the Fourth Cataract, near the fortified town of Napata. Scholars agree that
subsequent to the conquest of this area, most, if not all, of the 18th Dynasty
expeditions to Nubia were directed not against the peaceful inhabitants of
the river valley, but against the predatory tribesmen on its periphery (Säve-
Söderbergh 1941:151; Hayes 1973:347). Thus, various operations undertaken
by the local Nubian authorities in reaction to the outbreak of violence in the
land, and royal campaigns, may all be the background for the deportation of
the Nubians.

The deportation of groups of tribesmen and ‘Apiru from the areas of the
Beqa‘ and east of the Anti-Lebanon, may well be connected to the armed
struggle of the great Powers over the hegemony of northern Canaan and cen-
tral Syria, as was the long struggle between Egypt and Mitanni in the second
half of the 15th century BCE. Indeed, a large scale deportation of the unstable
elements in the peripheral areas of Canaan is mentioned in the second booty
list on the Memphis stela of Amenophis II.26 This mass deportation is directly
linked with the Egyptian-Mitannian fighting that took place in these years.27
Curiously, according to the Amada stela of Amenophis II, one of the rulers of
Taḫshi was shipped to Nubia and hanged upon the enclosure wall of Napata.28
According to this hypothesis, the two Kāmid el-Lōz letters are contemporane-

26. For the controversy over the interpretation of the booty list of Amenophis II, see
Edel 1953a:170–173; Alt 1954:57–58; Janssen 1963:141–147; Helck 1971:344; Spalinger 1983:
92–101.

27. For the Egyptian-Mitannian struggle, see Edel 1953a:97–176; Alt 1954:33–62; Helck
1971:115–164: Drower 1973:417–462; Spalinger1983:89–101.

28. Wilson 1969:248a: Rainey 1973:71–74. The episode may well illustrate the motif of
transferring the rebellious prince from the northernmost border of the empire (Taḫshi) to
its southernmost limit (Napata).

94 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

ous with the Taanach letters and were written in the course of the mass de-
portation organized by the Egyptian king in the ninth year of his reign.29

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

Addendum: Kāmid el-Lōz Glosses
(a) KL 69:100
Line 8: The ten-sign is identical in form to the Glossenkeils that are com-

mon in letters sent from all over southern Syria and northern Transjordan
(e.g., EA 183:4; 185:19, 32; 195:5, 9, 23; 207:21; 215:4; 216:16; 228:19; 256:7, 9).
See Artzi 1963:34-35. Also the syllabic writing a-la-ni appears only once in the
Amarna correspondence (EA 209:7) and is rather doubtful. The reading of the
line cannot be established with certainty.

Lines 12-16: a-mur-mi a-n[a-ku . . . .] ù ši-mi ia-[ši . . . ù] la-a ti7-il-qú-n[a . . .] iš-te URU AN
A [ . . . ù la-a] te-pu-šu-na [. . .].

Translation: “Behold, I [am your loyal servant] and listen to [me. Give? order? so that]
they will not take [. . .] from the city .. [. . . and] will [not] do [. . .].”

In this light we may tentatively restore also:

Lines 5, 7: ù a-na ma-[ni . . .] ù ti7-[il-qú-na . . .].

Lines 9-10: ù a-na m[a-ni . . . ù] te-pu-š[u-na . . .].

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

29. For the date of the Taanach letters, see Albright 1944:12–14, 26–27; Glock 1971:17–
30; Rainey 1973:71-74.

30. Davies and Gardiner 1962:pl. 2; Schulman 1964:55–56 and n. 33.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 95

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

References

Ahituv, S. 1973. New Documents Pertaining to Deportation as a Political System in Ancient
Egypt. Beer-Sheva. Studies in Bible, Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East 1: 87-89.
(Hebrew).

Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.
Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94:12-27.
Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2.

3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98-116.
Alt, A. 1954. Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches nach

Palästina. ZDPV 70: 33-75.
Altman, A. 1977. The Fate of Abdi-Ashirta. Ugarit-Forschungen 9: 1-11.
Arnaud, D. 1991. Une lettre de Kamid-el-Loz. Semitica 40: 7-16.

96 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Artzi, P. 1963. The “Glosses” in the Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit). Bar-Ilan: Annual of Bar-
Ilan University I. Jerusalem: 24-57. (Hebrew).

Astour, M.C. 1979. Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists. In: Görg, M. and Pusch, E. eds.
Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten and Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 17-34.

Bienkowski, P. 1987. The Role of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age. PEQ 119: 50-61.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters with Special Reference to the

Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore.
Campbell, E.F. 1965. Shechem in the Amarna Archive. In: Wright, G.E. Shechem. The Biography

of a Biblical City. London: 191-207.
Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1-78.
Davies, N.M. and Gardiner, A.H. 1962. Tutankhamun’s Painted Box. London.
Drower, M. 1973. Syria c. 1550-1400 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed.

Cambridge: 417-525.
Edel, E. 1953a. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über

die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97-176.
Edel, E. 1953b. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II: KUB III 37 + KBo I

17 and KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift
für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29-63.
Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz
- Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
7). Bonn: 55-62.
Edzard, D.O. 1976. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 66: 62-67.
Edzard, D.O. 1982. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kamid el-Loz. In: Hachmann,
R. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974
(Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 131-135.
Edzard, D.O. 1980. Ein neues Tontafelfragment (Nr. 7) aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 70:52-54.
Eph‘al, I. 1971. uruŠa-za-e-na = uruSa-za-na. IEJ 21: 155-157.
Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries
B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden.
Gelb, I.J. Purves, P.M. and MacRae, A.A. 1943. Nuzi Personal Names. (Oriental Institute
Publications 57). Chicago.
Giveon, R. 1971. Les bédouins shosou des documents Égyptiens. (Documenta et Monumenta
Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden.
Glock, A.E. 1971. A New Ta‘annek Tablet. BASOR 204: 17-30.
Goetze, A. 1975. The Struggle for the Domination of Syria (1400-1300 B.C.). The Cambridge
Ancient History II/2. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 1-20.
Görg, M. 1974. Untersuchungen zur hieroglyphischen Wiedergabe palästinischer Ortsnamen. Bonn.
Görg, M. 1976. Zur Geschichte der Š3św. Orientalia 45: 424-428.
Görg, M. 1979. Tuthmosis III. und die Š3św-Region. JNES 38: 199-202.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome.
Hachmann, R. 1970. Kāmid el-Lōz – Kumidi. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz - Kumidi.
Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn:
63-94.
Hachmann, R. 1982. Arahattu — Biriawaza — Puhuru. In: Hachmann, R. Bericht über die
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker
Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 137-161.
Hayes, W.C. 1973. Egypt: Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amenophis III.
The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 313-416.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 97

Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd
revised ed. Wiesbaden.

Heltzer, M. 1981. The Suteans. (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici,
Series Minor 13). Naples.

Huehnergard, J. 1996. A Byblos Letter, Probably from Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 86: 97-113.
Janssen, J.J. 1963. Eine Beuteliste von Amenophis II. und das Problem der Sklaverei im

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

98 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Rainey, A.F. 1975. Toponymic Problems: ‘Ain-Shasu. Tel Aviv. 2: 13-16.
Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Seven Studies.

Toronto.
Rowton. M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apiru-‘Ibrîm. JNES 35: 13-

20.
Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1941. Ägypten und Nubien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte alt-ägyptischer

Aussenpolitik. Lund.
Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der

Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig.
Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna

Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51-69.
Schulman A.R. 1982. The Nubian War of Akhenaton. L’Egyptologie en 1979. Axes prioritaires de

recherches II. (Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. No 595). Paris: 299-316.
Schult, H. 1969. Bücherbesprechungen: Gröndahl, Frauke, Die Personennamen der Texte

aus Ugarit, Rome 1967. ZDPV 85: 197-200.
Smith, G.A. 1901. Notes of a Journey through Hauran, with Inscriptions Found by the Way.

PEQ 33: 340-361.

von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das Akkadische Syllabar. 2nd revised ed. (Analecta
Orientalia 42). Rome.

Spalinger, A. 1983. The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II.
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 13: 89-101.

Ward, W.L. 1972. The Shasu “Bedouin.” Notes on a Recent Publication. Journal of Economic
and Social History of the Orient 15: 35-60.

Weippert, M. 1966. Archäologischer Jahrbericht. ZDPV 82: 274-330.
Weippert, M. 1970. Die Nomadenquelle. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds. Archäologie und

Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen: 259-272.
Weippert, M. 1974. Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über die Š3św der

ägyptischen Quellen. Biblica 55: 265-280, 427-433.
Wilhelm, G. 1973. Ein Brief der Amarna-Zeit aus Kāmid el-Lōz. ZA 63: 69-75.
Wilhelm, G. 1982. Die Fortsetzungstafel eines Briefes aus Kamid el-Loz (KL 72:600). In:

Hachmann, R. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren
1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn: 123-129.
Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227-264.
Wreszinski, W. 1935. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte II. Leipzig.
Zadok, R. 1985. Suteans and Other West Semites during the Latter Half of the Second
Millennium B.C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16: 59-70.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for
Campaign to Canaan1

I

The Conquest of Canaan by Thutmose III was accompanied by adminis-
trative measures intended to consolidate Egyptian control in the newly cap-
tured territory. One of these measures was the storage of food supplies and
materials needed for future campaigns in bases situated along the coast of
Lebanon (Alt 1959:97–101; Pintore 1972:112–115; 1973:300–301, 316–317;
Ahituv 1978:96–98). Supplying the commodities was the task of the Canaanite
vassals. The list of these products (bread, olive oil, incense, wine, honey and
fruits) in Thutmose’ annals is similar to lists of food supplies that the local
rulers in Canaan were ordered to prepare for Egyptian troops, according to
several Amarna letters (EA 55:11–12; 324:12–14; 325:16–17; 367:1617) (Pintore
1973:300–301; Moran 1983:175–176).

One of these letters, EA 367, was intended to be sent to the ruler of
Achshaph, but for some unknown reason it was not dispatched and remained
in the Amarna archive. It announces the arrival of Egyptian troops (ṣābē
piṭāti) and commands Endaruta, king of Achshaph, to guard his city, to pre-
pare everything required, to listen carefully to the orders of the royal mes-
senger and to execute them in full. The other three tablets belong to a larger
group. In the letters of this group, the Canaanite rulers express their loyalty
to the Pharaoh, emphasizing that they are guarding their towns and are com-
plying with the orders of the king and his officials. They are also preparing
everything according to his command and are ready with their troops to join
the Egyptian campaign. Royal letter EA 367 is directly related to the vassal
letters: whatever is requested in it is to be obediently performed. Every single
order in the former is submissively approved in the other letters.

The resemblance of commodities mentioned in the inscriptions of
Thutmose III to those in the Amarna documents and the perfect accord be-
tween the royal and the vassal letters are sometimes regarded as evidence

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

99

100 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

that the latter reflect a particular occasion, namely, the planning of an
Egyptian campaign to Asia during the reign of Akhenaten (Bonkamp 1939:
256–260; Schulman 1964:58, 63–64; Reviv 1966:45–51; Na’aman 1975:133–135,
201–202, 210–213; 1981:180–181). According to this assumption (which will
be defended in what follows), the Canaanite rulers received strict orders and
reported back that they were fulfilling them from beginning to end. Others,
however, regard these documents as descriptions of routine measures re-
flecting the normal correspondence between the Pharaoh and his vassals
(Liverani 1971:257–263; Pintore 1972:115–117, 130). Model letters from the
Ramesside period, in which the same formulae appear in the Egyptian lan-
guage, were suggested as verification of the stereotyped character of these
documents. Recently, Liverani advanced this claim one step further, suggest-
ing that there was a misunderstanding in communication: the Canaanite rul-
ers misinterpreted the Egyptian text, which the royal scribes had botched
when translating into Akkadian (Liverani 1983:53–54). The routine request
that a contingent of Egyptian troops led by an officer was on its way and that
it was necessary to make preparations before its arrival was interpreted in
certain Canaanite city-states to mean that the rulers must be at the head of
the Egyptian troops to guide them.

Did the Amarna letters refer to a specific event, or were they routine cor-
respondence? This question can be answered only by chronological investi-
gation of the tablets. Provided that they were written at one particular his-
torical moment, we may safely assume that they refer to a specific episode,
whereas sporadic dates would mean that they refer to various episodes. To
clarify this question, we shall first define the scope of the group, then pres-
ent the chronological data of each letter briefly.

Only letters that accord with one of the following criteria will be assigned
to the group under discussion:

(1) Those referring to several subjects appearing in EA 367, the Egyptian
letter of command.

(2) Those referring to preparations (šūšuru/šutēšuru) before (ana pāni).
the arrival of the Egyptian troops (ṣābē piṭāti).

Twenty-four letters from 21 different places fulfil these criteria: Nos. 55,
65, 141–142, 144, 147, 153, 191, 193, 195, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 216, 217,
218, 227, 292, 324–325 and 337.

Letter EA 55 from Qatna is dated to the last stage of the Amarna archive,
when the Hittite army, with the help of Aziru of Amurru, sacked the towns
of the kingdom of Qatna (Kitchen 1962:44; Campbell 1964:135; Redford 1967:
216–221; Helck 1971:178–179). Tablet EA 191 was sent by Arzawiya of Ruḫizzi
and EA 193 by Tewati (ti4-wa-te) of Lapana. Both rulers cooperated with the
Hittite king and Aitakama of Qadesh in attacking the land of Upi (EA 55:35–

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 101

39, 56–57; 54:26–34), an event that occurred at the end of the Amarna period
(Campbell 1964:135; Redford 1967:220–221; Helck 1971:179, 183–184). The let-
ter of Tyre (EA 147) was written at a time when Aziru was generally regarded
as a traitor (lines 67–68), i.e., when he started negotiations with the Hittites
and attacked the vassals of Egypt. Abi-Milki of Tyre, thus, accused his own
enemy, Zimredda of Sidon, of reporting to the traitor Aziru regarding prepa-
rations for the impending Egyptian Asiatic campaign (lines 66–69).

The Beirut letters (EA 141–142) were written subsequent to the expulsion
of Rib-Adda of Byblos from his city (EA 142:18–24) and, therefore, date close
to the end of the archive. Moreover, Ḫan’i son of Maireya, who was sent to
the land of Canaan according to the royal letter (EA 367:7), is probably men-
tioned in both the tablet of Beirut (EA 142:7)2 and that of Hazor (EA 227:16).
Ḫan’i also figures in a letter sent by Aziru (EA 161:11–34) and in a royal letter
sent to him (EA 162:56–63), both written after the expulsion of Rib-Adda from
Byblos, when Aziru was ordered to appear before the Pharaoh (EA 162:42–54).
Ḫan’i’s missions to the land of Canaan can safely be dated to the last stage of
the archive (Albright 1946:11–13).

The Egyptian high official Maya was nominated as commissioner in
Canaan during the last stage of the archive (see below) (Campbell 1964:126–
130). He is mentioned in letters EA 216:13, 217:16, 218:14, 292:33, 337:26, all of
which may safely be dated to the end of the period. Māya appears side by side
with another Egyptian official, Rēanapa, in a letter of Ba‘lu-šipṭi of Gezer (EA
292:33, 36); both were nominated to their posts in Canaan at the same time
(Albright 1946:19–20; Edel 1953:57; Campbell 1964:126). Rēanapa again figures
in one of the letters of Yidya of Ashkelon (EA 326:17), which must be assigned
to the close of the archive. Yidya is known from a broken royal letter (EA 370),
which is parallel to the letter sent to Endaruta (EA 367) and was intended
to direct him to prepare everything necessary for the campaign. Moreover,
Ba‘lu-šipṭi of Gezer, Yidya of Ashkelon and ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti of Gath(?) (the au-
thors of letters EA 292, 324–325 and 65) came to power only at the end of the
period of rebellions and disturbances in southern Canaan, once again during
the last stage of the archive (Na’aman 1979:676–682).

This short survey clearly indicates that all the datable letters in our group
were written during the final stage of the Amarna period. Two other rulers
whose letters have no particular clue for dating — Zimredda of Sidon and
Biryawaza of Damascus — are also attested at this historical moment. No
ruler sending one of the tablets enumerated above is known to have been re-

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

102 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

placed before this time. Therefore, we may conclude that the entire group of
letters dates to one and the same time and may safely assume that they deal
with preparations in anticipation of a specific Egyptian campaign to Canaan.

As noted above, the texts of these vassal letters echo the contents of the
royal letters. This was bureaucratic routine: the vassals regularly responded
with words and sentences borrowed from their overlord’s messages. The pro-
cedures involved in preparing for military campaigns has been discussed at
length by others (Reviv 1966:30, 45–51; Pintore 1972:106–31; 1973:299–315).
Only one point needs to be elaborated: the role of the messengers.

The emissaries who delivered the royal letters and orders to the vassals
were often of high rank. Thus, Ḫan’i, for example, held the title “chief of the
stable of the king” (EA 367:7–8).3 Iriyamašša (EA 370:8–9) possibly had the
same title.4 The participation of Egyptian officials in the organization of the
campaign is mentioned either alongside their names (EA 142:7; 216:12–14;
217:13–13; 218:13–14; 227:1517; 337:24–30) or anonymously (EA 55:14–15; 147:
17, 30–31; 292:20–22). Consequently, it is difficult to accept Liverani’s sugges-
tion that the Canaanite rulers misunderstood the royal orders (Liverani 1983:
31, 54). Misinterpretation of certain Egyptian concepts and expressions is
certainly possible, but, in this particular case, messengers were sent deliber-
ately to avoid any such confusion. It seems that the northern Canaanite rul-
ers were ordered to participate in the expedition (just as the Hittites mobi-
lized their vassals on similar occasions), and they understood this command
perfectly well.

Most prominent among the Egyptian officials involved with the prepara-
tions for the campaign was Māya (Albright 1946:5, 15; Edel 1953:57; Campbell
1964:75–77, 126–30; Redford 1990:14–16). Possibly, he replaced Yanḫamu at
that time as governor (Campbell 1964:90–101). The seven letters mention-
ing his office (EA 216, 217, 218, 292, 300, 328, 337) are distributed in southern
and northern Canaan. Another letter (EA 230), whose author so far has not
been identified, might also be assigned to him, although his name was mis-
takenly written ia-ma, i.e., a metathesis of ma-ia. As far as I am aware, this is
the only cuneiform diplomatic exchange between the pharaonic court and
Egyptian officials in Asia that has come down to us. The routine correspon-
dence was certainly recorded on papyrus by hieroglyphic signs (Alt 1936:30–
31). Following is a translation of the letter.

3. For the high position sometimes held by persons bearing the titles “charioteer” or
“groom” both in Ḫatti and in Egypt, see Singer 1983:9–13, 21.

4. Gordon (1947:5) restored /LÚ.MAŠKIM/ š[a . . .] in EA 370:7. He was followed by
Rainey (1978:44–45). The traces on the tablet, however, hardly justify this reading. One may
tentatively suggest restoring /LÚ.PA.TUR3/ š[a šarri], parallel to EA 367:8.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 103

Speak to the king my lord; thus says Māya your servant. At your feet I have fallen.

Behold, I am your servant at the place where I am. Behold, the places where I am (are)
all your cities; I, your servant, will protect all your city rulers. If your soldier comes to
me, then I will protect him. And all the cities where I am I will protect for you. And you
may ask your city rulers whether I am protecting (them). And may you be informed
that all your cities are well.

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

II

In addition to the above-discussed routine responses, the letters of this
group have a remarkable feature that has not been considered previously.
These are the vassals’ expressions of enthusiasm and happiness upon hearing
of the impending campaign, accompanied by praises to the Pharaoh who is
initiating it. Unlike the stereotyped nature of the reports of preparation and
obedience, these parts of the letters are most unusual, including rare words
and exceptional expressions. We shall translate some of these passages and
discuss them briefly.

The letter of Abi-Milki of Tyre (EA 147) is a long eulogy to the Pharaoh,
extolling him with lofty words for his decision to make the campaign.5 The
rising of the sun in heaven and its celestial effects are compared with the
coming forth of the king and the immediate effects on the land and its inhab-
itants. The response of the king of Tyre to the orders of the royal letter is in-
terwoven with long poetic sections, but every single request of the Pharaoh
finds its approving answer. The tenor of the letter makes it clear that Abi-
Milki believed that the king would personally participate in the expedition
(compare in particular lines 57–60); his enthusiastic and jubilant words were
intended to welcome the king’s anticipated arrival in the land of Canaan.

My lord is the Sun who rises over the countries day after day according to the ordi-
nance of the Sun God, his gracious father, who gives life with his sweet breath and re-

5. For letter EA 147, see Bonkamp 1939:256–257; Albright 1937:190–203; 1967:123–125;
Gevirtz 1973:162–177; Eyre 1976:183; Grave 1980a:205–218; 1982:161–183; cf. Moran 1975:
157, n. 3.

104 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

turns with his northwind,6 who places the entire country in a state of peace by the
strength of his arm, who gives his cry from heaven like Ba‘al so that every country
takes fright at his cry (lines 5–15).

This (is) what the servant has written to his lord when he has heard the gracious mes-
senger of the king who reached his servant, and the sweet breath that has come forth
from the mouth of the king, my lord, to his servant, and his breath has returned. Before
the arrival of the messenger of the king, my lord, the breath did not return, my nose
was stopped up.7 Behold, now that the breath of the king has come forth to me, I rejoice
greatly and I celebrate? day by day because I rejoice. Did not the (entire) land prosper?
(ti-[ši-i]r) since it has heard of the gracious messenger from my lord, and all the coun-
try is reverent before my lord since it has heard of the sweet breath and the gracious
messenger who reached me (lines 16–35).

When the king, my lord, has said, “prepare (ku-na) before the great army,”8 the servant
has said to his lord, “Aye, aye.” On my belly and on my back I am carrying the command
of the king, my lord. He who listens to the king, his lord, and serves him in his places,
to him the Sun rises and the sweet breath returns from the mouth of his lord. But he
who does not heed the word of the king, his lord, his city is destroyed, his house (i.e.,
dynasty and family) is lost and his name shall not exist in the entire world forever.
Behold, the servant who has listened to his lord, his city is well, his name endures for-
ever (lines 35–51).

You are the Sun that rises to me and a wall of bronze that is erected for me (text: him).
And on account of the strong arm of the king, my lord, I rest secure (lines 52–56).

This I have said to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord: “When shall I see the face of
the king, my lord?” But now, I am guarding Tyre, the capital city, for the king, my lord,
until the mighty arm of the king come forth to me, to give me water to drink and wood
to warm me (lines 57–66).

The other passages, though not as remarkable as the one from Tyre, are
worth quoting in full nonetheless.

EA 141:8–17 (Ammunira): Furthermore, I have heard the words of the tablet of the king,
my lord, my Sun, my god, the breath of my life, and the heart of your servant, the dust
under the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun and my god, the breath of my life, was very,

6. For the interpretation of ṣapānu, see the comprehensive discussions of Grave (1980b:

221–229; 1982:161–83).
7. For this translation, see Grave 1980a:205–218.
8. The routine phrase šūšuru/šutēšuru ana pāni ṣābē piṭāti (CAD E 358a, 359a) inter-

changes in our letter with the variant ku-na ana pāni ṣābē rabiti (lines 35–36). The verbal
form ku-na is Canaanite, as is indicated by the Glossenkeil, and like šūšuru was translated ad
sensum “to prepare.” One of the meanings of the biblical verb kwn in hiphil is “to prepare”
(Koehler and Baumgartner 1974:443b); Canaanite kwn G may have the same connotation.
For a different interpretation of the phrase, see CAD K 171 b, s.v. kânu B.

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 105

very happy, since the breath of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god, came forth to his
servant and the dust under his feet.

EA 142:5–10 (Ammunira): Furthermore, I have heard the words of the tablet which the
king, my lord, sent <by> the hand [of Ḫan]’i. 9 And when I heard the words of the tablet
of the king, my lord, my heart rejoiced and my eyes became very bright.

EA 144:13–18 (Zimredda): And when I have heard the words of the king, my lord, that
he wrote to his servant, and my heart rejoiced and my head was lifted and my eyes be-
came bright upon hearing the words of the king, my lord.

EA 195:16–23 (Biryawaza): My lord is the Sun in the sky and like the rising of the Sun
from the sky, so the servants await the coming forth of the words from the mouth of
their lord.

EA 227:5–18 (king of Hazor): Behold I have guarded the [cit]ies of the king, my lord,
until my lord comes to m[e]. And when I have heard these words of yours and the ris-
ing of the Sun to me and when it was heard . . . and my exultation went forth . . . and
the gods looked upon me (favourably)?10 And now, I have prepared everything for the
arrival of the king, my lord. Behold, when your messenger [Ḫan]’i arrived my heart be-
came very [happy and my [ ] joy.

EA 292:8–17 (Ba‘lu-šipṭi): I looked here and I looked there but there was no light; then I
looked to the king, my lord, and there was light. A brick may slip out from beneath its
fellows, but I will never defect from beneath the feet of the king, my lord.11

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

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

106 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Finally we may ask whether the planned campaign was accomplished or
not. The latter alternative was taken for granted by scholars, on the grounds
that nothing further is known regarding such a campaign (Schulman 1964:
58; Reviv 1966:30, 51). However, the absence of any documentation in such a
case must be considered with caution. As suggested above, preparations for
the expedition were being made at the close of the archive. Moreover, just as
the tablets that were necessary for future correspondence were brought to
Akhetaten (Amarna) from the previous capital, other tablets were certainly re-
moved from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment (Riedel 1939:145–148;
Campbell 1964:32–36; Na’aman 1981:174). Our sources for the last years of the
Amarna correspondence, perforce, are meagre, and only a handful of tablets
can be dated later than those dealing with preparations for this campaign.

An indication that the plans for the expedition continued may be in-
ferred from the correspondence of Aziru of Amurru. During the reign of
Amenophis III, Aziru’s father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta, was engaged in a large-scale of-
fensive against his neighbors in northern Canaan, even attempting to cap-
ture the city of Byblos. At last, the Egyptians sent a task force to Amurru to
seize him, and he was captured and taken to Egypt.13 His subsequent fate is
unknown, but it is reasonable to assume that he was executed (see below).
This was an important lesson for his son and heir to the throne, Aziru. As
long as there was no immediate danger, he continued the policy of expan-
sion initiated by his father. The plans for an Asiatic campaign, however, en-
tirely changed the situation. Aziru was well aware of the preparations tak-
ing place in Egypt and Canaan (see EA 147:66–70). Moreover, he received, on
that occasion, an Egyptian letter (EA 162) ordering him to appear before the
Pharaoh to explain his deeds and warning him that, by pursuing his policy,
he was risking his life.

EA 162:33–41: If you become a servant of the king, your lord, what would the king not
do for you? If for any reason you prefer to do evil and if you place evil (and) treacherous
plans in your heart you will die by the king’s axe together with all your family. Thus, be
a servant to the king, your lord, and you will live. And you know that the king does not
want (to go) to the entire land of Canaan when he is angry.

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

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

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 107

Fear of the impending campaign is, in my opinion, the logical explana-
tion for Aziru’s unexpected willingness to go to Egypt (EA 168–170). Under no
other circumstances can one explain his sudden readiness to appear before
the Pharaoh, a visit that he dreaded and, therefore, postponed as long as pos-
sible (EA 162:42–54; 164:1844). One may conclude that preparations for the
military expedition steadily continued: the arrival of the troops was regarded
in the land of Canaan as imminent.

We may further recall S. Izre’el’s recent redating of the “General’s let-
ter” (RS 20.33; Nougayrol 1968:No. 20) to the Amarna period (Izre’el 1988).
According to this tablet, the army under the commander guarded the
coastal plain along Nahr el-Kabir against an anticipated Egyptian campaign
(Nougayrol 1968:69–79; Rainey 1971:131–114, with earlier literature). The an-
ticipated Egyptian attack may well be equated with the planned campaign
discussed in this article. Thus, one cannot rule out the possibility that the
Egyptian troops embarked on an expedition to Asia at the very last stage of
the Amarna archive.14

This short study of the Amarna period is presented to Professor William
L. Moran, the leading authority of our generation on many aspects of the
Amarna tablets. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of examining many
of these letters together with him during my post-doctoral stay in Boston in
the winter of 1978. Certain results of our reading are acknowledged in the
footnotes; many more appear in this and other studies. I hope that he will
enjoy this small contribution, just as I was inspired upon reading his major
contributions to Amarna studies.

References

Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105.
Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190–

203.
Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B.C. JNES

5: 7–25.
Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Palästinas. PJb 32: 8–33.
Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im

syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 107–140).

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

108 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Altman, A. 1977. The Fate of Abdi-Ashirta. Ugarit-Forschungen 9: 1–11.
Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichle der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Eyre, C. 1976. Egyptianism in the Amarna Letters? JEA 62: 183–184.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II.: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17

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

Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for Campaign to Canaan 109

Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149.
Rainey, A.F. 1975. Morphology and the Prefix-Tense of West Semityzed el-‘Amarna Tablets.

Ugarit-Forschungen 7: 395–426.
Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets:359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tablets.

2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Toronto.
Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-sheva IV). Beer-sheva.
Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep

IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew).
Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis’ IV. OLZ 42: 145–148.
Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna

Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69.
Schulman, A.R. 1979. ed. L’Égyptologie en 1979. Colloques Intemationaux du Centre National

de la Recherche Scientifique, No 595, II. Paris: 299–318
Singer, I. 1983. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek.

Tel Aviv 10: 3–25.

The Canaanites and Their Land1

I. Introduction

Ever since the late 1960s, it seemed as if the long debate over the extent
of the land of Canaan in extra-biblical and biblical sources had reached a
point of scholarly consensus. This consensus may be illustrated by the sum-
mary works of Aharoni (1967:61–70), de Vaux (1968; 1978:125–139), Weippert
(1976–80) and Stolz (1988:539–545). It was suggested that Canaan, in Late
Bronze texts, covered most or even the entire area of the Egyptian province
in Asia and that the Promised Land, in a group of biblical historiographical
texts, covered roughly the same area. Thus, it was concluded that Israelite
authors, when describing the history of the nation, had adopted an old his-
torical name and presented it — with or without significant changes — as the
land that YHWH had promised to their ancestors (Maisler 1930:54–74; 1946;
Elliger 1936; Baldi 1950–51; Saebø 1974; Kallai 1975; Na’aman 1986:39–73).

Scholars further observed that another, territorially more limited, use
of the name also appears in certain biblical texts. Canaan, in these texts, re-
fers to the Phoenician coast whose inhabitants are the Canaanites. This sense
would have reflected the usage current in the time of the authors who pro-
duced these texts (Maisler 1930:63–66; de Vaux 1968:30; Weippert 1976–80:
354). De Vaux explained the shift from a broad to a more limited territorial
extent: “The name may have become more limited in its geographical appli-
cation when the name Canaanite was restricted to the inhabitants of those
parts of Canaan that had not been subjugated . . . or when the part in which
they lived was restricted to Phoenicia” (1968:30; 1978:131). At the same time,
“Canaan” also became a synonym for “trader” because trade occupied a cen-
tral role in the economy of the Phoenician coast, the “new Canaan.”

However, scholarly consensus was disrupted with the appearance of N.P.
Lemche’s The Canaanites and Their Land (1991). Lemche suggests that the use of
the name Canaan in second millennium BCE texts was imprecise and ambig-
uous and may have designated anything from a vast territory that includes
southeastern Anatolia to a small area in Lower Galilee. Nobody in Western

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

110

The Canaanites and Their Land 111

Asia regarded himself as Canaanite or defined his land as Canaan. Canaanite
was a name used by scribes to designate a person who did not belong to the
local society or kingdom, and Canaan was considered to be a country dif-
ferent from one’s own. However, in biblical historiography, Canaan some-
times refers to a geographical extent coterminous with the Land of Israel,
and Canaanites were the inhabitants of that land. Thus, argues Lemche, there
is no apparent connection between Canaan and Canaanites in second millen-
nium documents and their cognates in the Bible. Biblical historiographers
derived their ideas of Canaan and Canaanites from the reality of their own
time. They applied the terms to the entire Land of Israel and described the
Canaanites as the former inhabitants of the land whom their own ancestors
had defeated, dispossessed and inherited.

It is the purpose of this article to re-examine in detail the references to
Canaan and the Canaanites in second millennium BCE sources. Following this,
the extent of the biblical Promised Land and its relationship with the Canaan
of the Late Bronze documents will be examined. I will try to show that, in
many instances, Lemche’s analysis is inadequate or even entirely mistaken
and that his conclusions are not justified by the textual evidence.

II. The Second Millennium BCE Documents

1. The Mari Letters

The earliest published reference to the Canaanites is in a letter from Mari
dated to about the middle of the 18th century BCE. It was sent by Mutu-bisir
to Shamshi-Addu I on the occasion of the dispatch of troops from Mari to
help Ishḫi-Addu of Qatna suppress a rebellion that had erupted on his south-
ern border (Dossin 1973; Durand 1987:219–220; Charpin 1992:3). Mutu-bisir
was camped in Dubbâ, a town whose exact location is unknown, “over against
Rāḫiṣum.” After a broken passage, the letter continues with the words “It is in
Rāḫiṣum that the brigands (ḫabbātum) and the Canaanites (Kinaḫnum) are sit-
uated. We and they are watching one another.” (rev. lines 9’–11’).

The location of Rāḫiṣum is the key to understanding the territorial situa-
tion. Rainey (1979; 1982:343–344) and Durand (1987:219–220) have indepen-
dently identified Rāḫiṣum of the Mari letters with Rūḫiṣu of the Amarna let-
ters (see Moran 1992:391 s.v. Ruḫizzi). Rāḫiṣum/Rūḫiṣu was located on the
northeastern border of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia. In the Old
Babylonian period, it was a town near the southern border of Qatna where
brigands who fled southward found refuge. There are numerous examples
in the Amarna letters for groups of ‘Apiru bands staying in Canaanite cities
under the protection of local rulers (note in particular EA 185–186). Mutu-
bisir made the obvious distinction between Canaanites (Kinaḫnum), the

112 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

local inhabitants of the territory south of Qatna, and the outlaw refugees
(ḫabbātum) who fled there from the kingdom of Qatna.

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

2. The Texts from Alalakh

According to the inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, he left the city of
Emar, crossed the desert and arrived at the city of Ammiya, which is located
“in the land of Canaan.” There he met other refugees from his former king-
dom, became their leader and formed a band of ‘Apiru. Ammiya is mentioned
in the Amarna letters and is located not far from the northwestern border
of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia. Thus, whereas Rāḫiṣum is lo-
cated near the northeastern border of the future Egyptian province and out-
law refugees of northern origin (i.e., from Qatna) found shelter there in the
mid–18th century BCE, Ammiya is located near its northwestern border and
outlaw refugees of northern origin (i.e., from Ḫalab, Alalakh, Niya and Amae)
found shelter there in the 15th century BCE. The fact that the author of this
profoundly literary inscription chose to emphasize that Ammiya was located
“in the land of Canaan” may well indicate that he regarded the town as the
northernmost Canaanite center along the coast.

Four other documents from Alalakh mention Canaan, all referring to indi-
viduals from that land. One tablet (AT 154) is still unpublished. Tablet AT 181
is a list of ‘Apiru (Wiseman 1954:11; Greenberg 1955:21) in which the origin of
some is mentioned. All the specified places are towns, while the only “land”
(mātu) that is mentioned is Canaan. This indicates that Canaan was a well-
defined territorial-political entity that could serve to register the origin of
a person. Tablet AT 188 (Dietrich-Loretz 1970:101) has a list of muškēnu, with
the origin of three of them defined by land (mātu): Alashiya, Nuḫašše and
Canaan. Again, it is evident that Canaan was a well-defined territory, similar
to Alashiya (Cyprus) and Nuḫašše. Finally, tablet AT 48 is a contract in which
a hunter is called a “Canaanite.”

We may conclude that Canaan was regarded in Alalakh as a foreign land
whose name sufficed to define the origin of individuals either in a contract
or in lists of names.

The Canaanites and Their Land 113

3. The Amarna International Letters

In the discussion of the Amarna letters, first I will analyze those sent
by rulers of great powers and, afterwards, those exchanged between the
Pharaoh and his vassals.

(a) Letter EA 8 was written by Burnaburiash, king of Babylonia, to
Akhenaten. Burnaburiash relates that his merchants “were detained in
Canaan for business matters.” He complains that later they were robbed
and killed “in Ḫinnatūna of the land of Canaan” by the rulers of Acco and
Shamḫuna. He then continues (Moran 1992:16 lines 25–29):

Canaan is your country, and [its] kings [are your servants]. In your country I have been
despoiled. Bring [them] to account and make compensation for the money that they
took away. Put to death the men who put my servants to death, and so avenge their
blood. And if you do not put these men to death, they are going to kill again, be it a
caravan of mine or your own messenger, and so messengers between us will thereby
be cut off.

The words of the text are clear: What looks like a local event actually en-
dangers the relationship of the two great powers. The Pharaoh is the lord of
the land of Canaan and is responsible for everything that happens within its
confines. It is from this principle that his responsibility for punishing the evil-
doers and the compensation of the despoiled merchants are derived (compare
Klengel 1980). Thus, “Canaan” is used to refer to a particular territory under
the dominion of the Egyptian Pharaoh (contra Lemche 1991:33, 39).2

(b) Letter EA 9 was sent by Burnaburiash to Tutankhamun. The relevant
passage runs as follows (Moran 1992:18, lines 19–29):

In the time of Kurigalzu, my ancestor, all the Canaanites wrote here to him, saying,
“C[om]e to the border of the country so we can revolt and be allied [wi]th you.” My an-
cestor sent them this (reply), saying, “Forget about being allied with me. If you become
enemies of the king of Egypt, and are allied with anyone else, will I not then come and
plunder you? How can there be an alliance with me?”

The Babylonian king, in an effort to break the growing ties between
Assyria and Egypt, mentions a past event in which one of his ancestors,

2. Lemche restricts the extent of Canaan mentioned in letter EA 8 to the area in which
the episode took place, hence, his conclusion (p. 33) that “the deplorable events which this
letter describes happened in Canaan, which in this case embraced Galilee.” The following
examples are sufficient to disprove his interpretation. Gen. 23:2 “And Sarah died at Kiriath-
arba (that is Hebron) in the land of Canaan.” Gen. 33:18 “And Jacob came safely to the city
of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. . . .” Gen. 35:6 “And Jacob came to Luz (that is
Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan. . . .” Canaan is neither the area around Hebron nor
the areas around Shechem or Bethel. It was a vast territory whose extent cannot be estab-
lished by the names of individual towns included therein.

114 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Kurigalzu, honored his alliance with Egypt and not only refused to join an
anti-Egyptian rebellion, but threatened to fight the rebellious Canaanite
kings. Now he is urging the Pharaoh to operate in the same spirit in dealing
with his own enemy, the king of Assyria. Burnaburiash claims that “all the
Canaanites” wrote to his ancestor; in saying this, he is asserting that all the
kings of Canaan, the vassals of Pharaoh in the province under his rule, sought
his ancestor’s aid. The historical background of the episode and the identity
of those who actually wrote to Kurigalzu are irrelevant to my discussion.

(c) Tablet EA 30 originally served as a kind of “passport” apparently
handed by Tushratta of Mitanni to one of his messengers. I will cite it in full
(Moran 1992:100):

To the kings of Canaan, servants of my brother: Thus the king. I herewith send Akiya,
my messenger, to speed posthaste to the king of Egypt, my brother. No one is to hold
him. Provide him with safe entry into Egypt and hand (him) over to the fortress com-
mander of Egypt. Let him go on immediately, and as far as his pre<sents> are con-
cerned, he is to owe nothing.

The addressees are the “kings of Canaan,” a collective reference to all the vas-
sals of Pharaoh in Canaan. No Canaanite king through whose territory the mes-
senger passes should detain him or exact any payment from him. On his way to
Egypt, the messenger is to have a free passage through the land of Canaan.

We may conclude that the kings of the “great powers” identified Canaan
with the area under Pharaoh’s rule and regarded it as the territory for whose
affairs he was responsible. Canaanites is a name for the inhabitants of this
area, the subjects of the king of Egypt.

4. The Amarna Letters from Byblos

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

The Canaanites and Their Land 115

(c) EA 131:59–61: “[If] he does not send [archers], they will take it (i.e.,
Byblos) and [all the (other) cities], and the lands of Canaan will not belong to
the king. [May the king ask] Yanḫamu about th[ese] ma<tt>ers.”

(d) EA 137:75–77: “If the king neglects the city (i.e., Byblos), of all the cities
of Canaan not one will be his. May the king not neglect this matter.”

The two letters display a characteristic that is typical of many other
Amarna letters: in an effort to gain the attention of the Pharaoh, the vassals
would describe local affairs as ominous for the entire Egyptian province in
Asia. The Pharaoh is urged to concern himself directly with what looks like a
local event because it harbors a threat to his control in the land (like a brick
whose removal may cause the whole building to collapse). In these two let-
ters, the fall of Byblos is portrayed as the first step leading to the capture of
all the cities under Pharaoh’s rule (= “all the cities of Canaan”) and the loss of
all the Egyptian territories (= “the lands of Canaan”). I would take issue with
Lemche’s suggestion (1991:38) that, on many occasions, Rib-Adda uses gen-
eral warnings but “is sometimes more specific when he mentions the cit-
ies of Canaan or the countries of Canaan.” The opposite is true: “the lands of
Canaan” and “the cities of Canaan” are all-inclusive designations and are no
more than literary variants of the common expression “all the lands of the
king.” The “kings of Canaan” in EA 109:46 is also a general designation and
does not refer solely to rulers in the area of Byblos (contra Lemche 1991:38).

5. Four Other Amarna Letters

(a) EA 367:8: Ḫan’i, the Egyptian envoy who was sent to Akshapa and
Amurru holds the title “overseer of the king’s stables in Canaan.” Service in
the prestigious chariot troops was a stage in the career of many Egyptian of-
ficials, but we are unable to identify Ḫanni with any known official of the
Amarna period (Redford 1990:13).

(b) EA 162:39–41: “So perform your service for the king, your lord, and you
will live. You yourself know that the king does not want (to go) against all of
Canaan when he rages.”

The background of this passage: Akhenaten has made extensive prepara-
tions for a campaign to Asia (Na’aman 1990). Aziru is warned to remain a loyal
servant, or otherwise he is due for capital punishment when the Pharaoh em-
barks enraged on his campaign against “all of Canaan.” The identification of
Canaan with the Egyptian province in Asia is self-evident.

The territorial and political relationship of Amurru to the land of Canaan
should be examined in brief. All scholars agree that Amurru was initially a small
rural state, governed by the Egyptians and, hence, situated within the boundar-
ies of Canaan. During the first half of the 14th century BCE, Amurru consolidated
into a well-defined geo-political unit, and, in the Amarna period, Amurru’s rul-

116 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

ers (‘Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru) conquered vast areas, partly located north of
Canaan. The result was that they dominated both Canaanite and non-Canaanite
areas. Current ambiguity concerning the place of Amurru in the boundary sys-
tems of the 14th–13th centuries BCE is the direct result of Amurru’s expansion
and the inclusion of variegated territories within its borders.

Letter EA 162 was written under the impression that Aziru was still an
Egyptian vassal. We may conclude that at that stage the Pharaoh regarded
Aziru’s kingdom as part of “all of Canaan.”3

(c) EA 148:43–47: “May the king be concerned about these treacherous fel-
lows. He has taken over the land of the king for the ‘Apiru. May the king ask
his commissioner, who is familiar with Canaan.”

The passage is another example of a local ruler (Abi-Milki of Tyre) who
warns the Pharaoh that the outcome of local affairs near his kingdom endan-
gers the Egyptian hold on the land. The “treacherous fellows” are the kings
of Sidon and Hazor. The commissioner “who is familiar with Canaan” is prob-
ably Yanḫamu (see above, EA 131:59–61). The designations “the land of the
king” (lines 39, 45) and “Canaan” (line 47) are clearly interchangeable, both
referring to the Asiatic areas under Egyptian rule (contra Lemche 1991:37,
39, 53).4

Up to this point, all the Amarna references to Canaan — including inter-
national and vassal letters — suggest a clear and coherent political and ter-
ritorial definition. However, a second letter of Abi-Milki of Tyre appears to
contradict this definition. It was this letter that served as a key reference
for Lemche’s re-evaluation of Canaan in the Late Bronze documents. Let us
closely examine the text of this letter.

(d) EA 151:49–51 opens with a citation from the royal letter: “The king,
my lord, wrote to me, ‘Write to me what you have heard from Canaan’.” Abi-
Milki then describes what has happened in eastern Cilicia (Danuna), along
the northern coast of Syria (Ugarit), in central Syria (Qadesh, Amurru and
Damascus), and on the Phoenician coast (Sidon).

3. Lemche (1991:35) correctly notes that “the Egyptian administration must have in-
cluded Amurru among the Canaanite kingdoms.” But he misunderstands the signifi-
cance of Aziru’s territorial expansion for the ambiguity concerning the place of Amurru
in the border delineation. He erroneously concludes that “Canaan comprised a territory
of greater extent than the one allotted to Canaan in the letters from the Babylonian king.”
The Canaan to which letter EA 162 refers is identical to the Canaan to which letter EA 8 re-
fers. They both refer to the Asiatic province under Egyptian rule.

4. Lemche unwarrantedly restricts the extent of Canaan mentioned in letter EA 148 to
the area where the episode took place, hence, his conclusion (p. 37) that “Canaan was con-
sidered by the Tyrian king to embrace the territory of Galilee as well as the adjacent terri-
tories to the north. . . .” For criticism, see note 2 above.

The Canaanites and Their Land 117

Did Canaan really encompass southern Anatolia and Syria? If there were
no other letter that mentioned Canaan, we might legitimately draw such a
conclusion. But with all the other references to Canaan in mind, a different
interpretation suggests itself. Abi-Milki interpreted the words of the royal
letter as a general request for information. He did not restrict his news to
Canaan and added some bits of information about Danuna and Ugarit. Yet,
most of the news that he sent referred to the Egyptian Asiatic province (=
Canaan) and, in particular, to the dangers that threatened its safety at that
time (lines 58–63).

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the congruency of Canaan
and the “land of the king,” i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia, finds clear ex-
pression both in letters of foreign powers and in letters sent/received by
local Canaanite rulers.

6. The Texts from Ugarit

Canaan is mentioned in two Ugaritic texts, one written in alphabetic let-
ters and one in cuneiform signs.

(a) KTU 4.96: A list of traders assigned to three royal estates. The first es-
tate was administered by Bn-Tbšn and had seven traders assigned to it — four
Ugaritians and three foreigners: an Ashdadite, an Egyptian and a Canaanite
(Rainey 1963; Astour 1970:125; 1975:293–294). It is evident that Canaan was a
well-defined foreign territory, like Egypt and Ashdad, and that Ugarit was lo-
cated outside its borders.

(b) RS 20.182 (Ugaritica V 111–113, 389 no. 36): A copy? of a letter of the
king of Ugarit to a Pharaoh (apparently Ramesses II) concerning the 3500 sil-
ver shekels paid by the “sons of the land of Ugarit” to the “foreman (aklu) of
the sons of the land of Canaan.” The latter must have been a corporate or-
ganization in Ugarit headed by a foreman and indirectly protected by the
Pharaoh (Astour 1975:294). The juxtaposition of the two groups — the sons of
the lands of Ugarit and Canaan — unequivocally indicates that Ugarit was lo-
cated outside of the boundaries of Canaan.

It is evident that Canaan was regarded at Ugarit as a foreign land whose
name was enough to define the origin of individuals and groups of people.
The conclusions reached from analysis of the Alalakh and Ugaritic tablets are
the same, both confirming the conclusions drawn from the Amarna tablets
regarding the extent of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.

7. Tablets from Ashur and Ḫattusha

The “travel to Canaan” of an Assyrian official carrying clothes is men-
tioned once in a Middle Assyrian letter of the time of Shalmaneser I (1263–

118 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

1234 BCE) (Weidner 1959–69:38). Whether Canaan itself or Egypt was the
merchandise’s final destination is unknown.

Canaan is mentioned in five tablets from Ḫattusha: two of them are letters
exchanged between rulers, one fragmented tablet is a letter of a vassal to the
Hittite king and two are evocations (del Monte and Tischler 1978:208).

(a) An evocation contains an incantation to the “cedar Gods” in which
many foreign countries are enumerated (Goetze 1969:352). There is no clear
systematization in the text, although the first four countries may have been
regarded by the scribe as the most important (Klengel 1969:84). The scribe
evidently listed as many foreign countries as he was able to remember and
did not discriminate between large and small kingdoms. Thus, Nuḫašše is
mentioned together with small states that were included within its borders
(Ugulzit, Zunzurḫi), and Canaan is named along with small Canaanite states
(Sidon, Tyre and possibly Amurru, if the text was composed before its expan-
sion).

(b) In letter KBo XXVIII 1 sent by Ramesses II to Hattushili III (Edel 1960),
there is a plan for a meeting between the two kings. Ramesses suggested that
he would go to the land of Canaan to meet “his brother” and bring him to
Egypt.5

(c) Edel (1953a:32 line 12; 33 line 9; 50) suggests that Canaan was men-
tioned once in another letter (of which there are two copies: KUB III 37 + KBo
I 17; KUB III 57) sent by Ramesses II to Ḫattushili III. He restores the text thus:
“I wrote to Ataḫ[maya]?, the governor [in the city] of Ramesses-mai-Amun,
the city that is within the lan[d of Canaan]. . . .” His restoration is plausible,
but, unfortunately, the text of both copies of the letter is broken, and there
is no verification for it. On the basis of this reconstruction, Helck (1960:6–8;
1971:248–252) assumes that “Canaan” was the name of an Egyptian sub-prov-
ince. His assumption is accepted by some scholars (e.g., Aharoni 1967:146–
153; de Vaux 1968:27–28; Zobel 1984:231; Stolz 1988:541). However, there is no
evidence that the name “Canaan” in Late Bronze texts ever referred to a sub-
district within the Egyptian province in Asia (Na’aman 1975:7, 171). Canaan
was a name for the territory in its entirety, and all that the letter says (pro-
vided that Edel’s restoration is valid) is that Gaza (“the city of Ramesses-mai-
Amun”) is located within Canaan.

(d) Canaan is mentioned in another letter sent by Ramesses to Ḫattushili
(KBo I 15 + 19). According to Edel’s analysis (1950:206), the relevant passage
(lines 29–36) describes an Egyptian campaign conducted after the battle of

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

The Canaanites and Their Land 119

Qadesh but still during the reign of Muwatalli of Ḫatti. The Pharaoh arrived
“at the land of Canaan” (line 29), proceeding northward to Kinza (Qadesh)
and Ḫarita. That the Egyptian troops must have crossed Canaan, i.e., the
Egyptian province in Asia, on their way to Qadesh is self-evident.

We may conclude that in his correspondence with the Hittites (KBo
XXVIII 1; KBo I 15 + 19) and with his vassals in Canaan (EA 162) the Pharaoh
uses the name Canaan in the same political-territorial sense as did the rulers
of the other great powers (Babylonia and Mitanni), namely, as a designation
for the Asiatic areas under his rule.

8. The Egyptian Texts

Canaan is mentioned in 16 Egyptian texts dated from the XVIIIth Dynasty
onward (Görg 1982; Ahituv 1984:83–84).

(a) The oldest texts are the inscriptions of Amenophis II (1427–1401 BCE)
(Edel 1953b:123–124, 132, 167–170; Wilson 1969a:246b). The Canaanites are
listed among prisoners captured in the course of the Egyptian campaign to
Asia. The list includes 550 — Mariannu; 240 — their wives; 640 — Canaanites;
232 — rulers’ sons; 323 — rulers’ daughters; 270 — concubines of the rulers of
all the foreign countries. The Canaanites are obviously individuals who are
not included in the other groups. The list enumerates only those belonging to
high classes; thus, these “Canaanites” must have been rich citizens or crafts-
men of various Canaanite cities.

(b) Canaan appears in three topographical lists together with rpwḥ (=
Raphia) and šrḥn (= Sharuhen) (Edel 1980:67–68). Scholars have suggested
identifying the Canaan of these lists with the city of Gaza (Edel 1980:76, with
earlier literature). However, the order of listing in the lists is so vague that
any construction remains uncertain.

(c) In the time of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties the city of Gaza is some-
times referred to as “the Canaan” (p3-kncn) (Gardiner 1920:100, 104; Uehlinger
1988:7–8, with earlier literature). Gaza was the most important Egyptian cen-
ter in Canaan and, therefore, was called “the Canaan.” But Canaan encom-
passed a territory much larger than southern Palestine.

(d) The route from Sile to Gaza was called in Papyrus Anastasi I 27,1 “the
[foreign countries] of the end of the land of Canaan” (Wilson 1969b:478b).
Gaza was regarded in the sources of the XIXth Dynasty as the southern
coastal city of Canaan. Thus, the destination of the main road leading to it
from Egypt is properly called “the end of the land of Canaan” (see Na’aman
1986:239–244).

(e) Canaan is further mentioned in the famous “Israel stela” of Merneptah
(for recent studies and literature, see Fecht 1983; Yurco 1986; Singer 1988a).
The relevant passage is part of a ten-“line” unit introduced and enclosed by

120 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

the name and titles of the Pharaoh. The central section of this passage spec-
ifies the achievements of the Pharaoh in Asia. It opens with the sentence
“Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe” and concludes with
the words “Ḫurru has become a widow because of Egypt.” It is evident that
Canaan, like Ḫurru, is a name for the Egyptian territory in Asia (for Ḫ3rw/
Ḫurru, see Gardiner 1947:180–184; Helck 1971:269–270; Vernus 1978).

Lemche (1991:48) questions the validity of this conclusion on two
grounds: (i) because the sentence “Ḫurru has become a widow for Egypt” is
“a kind of summary of the whole passage quoted”; (ii) on account of the lim-
ited geographical horizon of Merneptah’s campaign. However, the sentence
about Ḫurru can hardly be regarded as a summary of a passage in which Libya
and Ḫatti are mentioned. Moreover, Lemche’s second claim reflects a misun-
derstanding of the genre of royal inscriptions, where the description of spe-
cific achievements is accompanied by general statements that claim much
more than what was really achieved. It would be a serious mistake to make an
inference regarding the extent of Canaan from the list of conquered towns.
The author of the text deliberately creates the impression that the names of
the captured towns are details within the overall successful campaign. Ḫurru
and Canaan were included in the passage to convey the message that dur-
ing his Asiatic campaign Merneptah subjugated their territory up to its far-
thest limits.

(f) The names Canaan and Ḫurru are again brought together in two ref-
erences that mention “Canaanite slaves from Ḫurru” (Papyrus Anastasi IIIA
5–6; IV 16,4). We may conclude that in Egypt, as in other Western Asiatic
kingdoms, the inhabitants of the Egyptian Asiatic province were sometimes
designated by reference to their land of origin, namely Canaan.

9. Canaan in Second Millennium Documents

The analysis of all the references to Canaan in the second millennium BCE
sources makes it clear that the name is used consistently by scribes of dif-
ferent Western Asiatic kingdoms. Canaan’s extent in the north and south,
according to all Late Bronze Age sources, is congruent with the borders of
the Egyptian province in Asia. Not a single text uses the name Canaan to de-
scribe either areas located outside of it or only part of its territory. Scribes in
Alalakh and Ugarit referred to Canaan as a land located outside their king-
doms; the kings of Babylonia, Mitanni and Egypt identified it with the terri-
tory under Egyptian rule. The rulers of Byblos and Tyre considered Canaan to
be “the land of the king,” as did all the neighboring and remote kingdoms.

Lemche (1991:50) has concluded that there is a “correspondence between
the imprecise and ambiguous Egyptian use of the geographical name Canaan
and the likewise imprecise understanding of Canaan displayed by the inhab-

The Canaanites and Their Land 121

itants of Western Asia themselves.” He suggests (p. 52) that “to the scribe of
ancient Western Asia ‘Canaanite’ always designated a person who did not be-
long to the scribe’s own society or state, while Canaan was considered to be
a country different from his own.” When discussing the local Amarna let-
ters, he concludes (p. 39) that “evidently the inhabitants of the supposed
Canaanite territory in Western Asia had no clear idea of the actual size of this
Canaan, nor did they know exactly where Canaan was situated.” And again on
p. 152: “The Canaanites of the ancient Near East did not know that they were
themselves Canaanites.”

How does Lemche reach conclusions that are diametrically opposite to
the plain and straightforward sense of all the sources? A partial answer may
lie in the way that he treats letter EA 151. For him, this letter is the point of
departure and the anchor point for judging all other documents. It leads him
to the erroneous idea that Canaan was an enormous territory and, hence, to
the conclusion that Canaan was an imprecise geographical name. In every
historical discussion, the scholar must distinguish between pivotal and sec-
ondary sources. Lemche selects the most ambiguous and least significant
document as the key text for his discussion. As a result, he is led to dismiss
the plain meaning of texts in favor of the conclusions he draws from this let-
ter (pp. 30–31, 39, 51–52).

A second fundamental mistake is that Lemche interprets the sense of
Canaan differently for each text under discussion. It goes without saying that
in defining a term, scholars look for the minimal semantic range that will
provide a definition broad enough to cover all textual variants. Lemche’s pro-
cedure is the opposite, and it results in the utmost fragmentation of mean-
ing. He, therefore, fails to arrive at a coherent interpretation for the name in
the texts under discussion.

Finally, Lemche fails to discuss some valuable references to Canaan (AT
188; EA 30; KBo XXVIII 1) and overlooks some key scholarly investigations
(e.g., as a result of ignoring Rainey’s and Durand’s identification of Rāḫiṣum
with Late Bronze Rūḫiṣu, he is unable to interpret properly the important
reference to the Canaanites in the letter from Mari). The failure to take ade-
quate account of the contributions of other scholars is not restricted to this
part of the book, and I will return to it in the next part of the article.

The relatively small number of local texts mentioning Canaan is no in-
dication of the popularity of the name among its inhabitants. It must be re-
membered that each vassal would try to present his case in the best light and
to depict his enemies as adversaries of the Pharaoh. Thus, local events play a
major role in the correspondence, and problems of the Egyptian province as
a whole are never discussed between the Pharaoh and his vassals. It is for this
reason that the majority of references to Canaan appear in the texts of neigh-

122 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

boring countries; these treat the Egyptian province as a whole, in contrast to
the local character of the Amarna letters.

The antiquity of the land of Canaan remains unknown. The Mari tablets
make it clear that Canaan was already a well-known entity in the mid–18th
century BCE. This fits the hypothesis that the overall area represented by the
Asiatic toponyms of the Execration Texts from Saqqara (c. 1800 BCE) is ap-
proximately the same as Canaan of the Late Bronze Age (Maisler 1947:67–68;
Na’aman 1982:146–149). The name Canaan for the area that is roughly identi-
cal to the extent of the Egyptian Asiatic province in the Late Bronze Age may
date to the emergence of the Middle Bronze urban culture in the 19th cen-
tury BCE. Whether it is even older has not yet been established.

Lemche suggests that Canaan was “a geographical entity of some sort”
whose northern and eastern borders were never defined in any precise way.
“Canaan was never united under the rule of one king — except when it was
governed by the king of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, etc.” (p. 154). He attributes
the alleged lack of borders to this political situation.

The early history of the name Canaan is unknown, which leaves us in the
dark concerning the emergence of the name and its original extent. In any
case, there are a number of ancient Near Eastern examples of territorial-
political names for certain regions and their inhabitants that were never
united under one king. Three Syro-Palestinian examples will suffice to dem-
onstrate the point:

(a) From the very beginning, Philistia was divided among four/five king-
doms and was never united under one king. Yet, it was called “Philistia” and its
inhabitants “Philistines” in the Bible and in Assyrian and Babylonian texts.

(b) The area of northern and central Syria, divided among a number of
Neo-Hittite kingdoms, was called Ḫatti in the Assyrian texts of the 11th–9th
centuries BCE. Its inhabitants are called “Hittites” in the Assyrian texts and in
the Bible (Josh. 1:4; Judg. 1:26; 1 Kgs. 10:29; 11:1; 2 Kgs. 7:6).

(c) “Sidonians” designates in biblical historiography and in Homer
(Muhly 1970:27 and n. 50) the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast, an area
that was never united under one king. It may also have been a local name, as
may be inferred from Hiram’s title “king of the Sidonians” on the Limassol
bowl (KAI 31).

It goes without saying that there are historical explanations for each of
these names. In any event, these examples should warn us against positing
general rules about the assignment of names in the ancient Near East (as
Lemche does 1991:152–154).

It seems clear that the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a ter-
ritorial-political entity. The political connotation is emphasized in interna-
tional correspondence in which “Canaan” refers to the Egyptian province in

The Canaanites and Their Land 123

Asia and also in the letters of Byblos and Tyre, which refer to “the land of the
king.” Also it seems to me that the local inhabitants of Canaan must have used
the name in self-designation, along with the more common name of the king-
dom whose citizens they were. Nowhere is this stated directly, but it may be
inferred, because they are called “Canaanites” in regular documents written
in neighboring kingdoms (Ugarit, Alalakh, Egypt). Foreign scribes used the
name to denote the origin of these people, which suggests that the source
for the name assignment must have been the individuals who were so des-
ignated. Thus, contrary to Lemche’s conclusion that nobody ever used the
name Canaan as self-definition, it seems to me that, sometimes, people from
Canaan would indeed have defined themselves as Canaanites.

Lemche’s most recent article on the Canaanites (1993) is entirely depen-
dent on the conclusions of his 1991 book, but one of its passages makes a
novel suggestion and requires a short note. On p. 88, he suggests that “the
Canaanites were the representatives of the government of the city-states of
Syria and Palestine already in the Late Bronze Age, who were considered to
be foreign intruders by the members of the local societies, all of which were
family-organized. . . .” As far as I am aware, there is no text that supports the
assumption that “Canaanites” was a social term in second millennium BCE
documents. There is no evidence that the Canaanites were regarded as “for-
eign intruders” by anybody. Note, in particular, the references to “Canaanite
slaves from Ḫurru” (Papyrus Anastasi IIIA 5–6; IV 16,4), which contradicts the
suggestion that the Canaanites were “the representatives of the government
of the city-states.” Note also the Alalakh texts where a hunter, a muškēnu and
an ‘Apiru are registered as Canaanites. Just as the inhabitants of all other
countries in the ancient Near East were referred to by the name of their re-
spective countries, so also “Canaanites” was a name for the local inhabitants
of Canaan, with no distinction of social background.

III. The Maximal Borders of Canaan in the Old Testament

The aim of this part of the article is quite limited: to examine the northern
and eastern borders of Canaan as they are delineated in various biblical texts
and to analyze Lemche’s work in this light. The sources for the discussion are
Num. 13:21; 34:2–12a; Josh. 13:2–6; Eze. 47:13–21; 48:1. The texts are quoted
from RSV, with some minor changes indicated by an asterisk*.

(a) This will be your northern boundary: from the Great Sea you shall mark out your
line to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor you shall mark it out to Lebo-hamath*, and the end
of the boundary shall be at Zedad; then the boundary shall extend to Ziphron, and its
end shall be at Hazar-enan; this shall be your northern boundary. You shall mark out
your eastern boundary from Hazar-enan to Shepham; and the boundary shall go down

124 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain; and the boundary shall go down, and
reach to the side* of the sea of Chinnereth on the east; and the boundary shall go down
to the Jordan, and its end shall be at the Salt Sea (Num. 34:7–12a).

(b) So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near
Lebo-Hamath* (Num. 13:21).

(c) This shall be the boundary of the land: On the north side, from the Great Sea by way
of Hethlon to Lebo-hamath*, and on to Zedad, Berothah, Sibraim (which lies on the
border between Damascus and of Hamath), as far as Hazer hatticon, which is on the
border of Hauran. So the boundary shall run from the sea to Hazar-enon, which is on
the northern border of Damascus with the border of Hamath to the north. This shall
be the north side. On the east side, the boundary shall run from Hazar-enon between
Hauran and Damascus; along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel; to the
eastern sea as far as Tamar. This shall be the east side (Eze. 47:15–18).

(d) These are the names of the tribes: Beginning at the northern border, from the sea
by way of Hethlon to Lebo-hamath*, as far as Hazar-enon (which is on the northern
border of Damascus over against Hamath) . . . (Eze. 48:1).

(e) This is the land that yet remains: . . . all the land of the Canaanites <from>* Mearah
which belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites, and the
land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad below
Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath*, all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon
to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians (Josh. 13:2a, 4–6a).

The fundamental study of the boundaries of Canaan in these texts was
written by Elliger (1936). His analysis of the toponyms and his discussion of
the history of these borders in older and later periods have been followed
by the majority of scholars (e.g., Maisler 1946; Simons 1959:98–103; Aharoni
1967:65–68, 215–217; de Vaux 1968:29–30; Saebø 1974:22–32; Kallai 1975;
Zimmerli 1983:528–532, 537; Na’aman 1986:39–60; for the history of research,
see North 1970–71).

The key identifications along the northern border are: (a) Hethlon =
Ḥeitela, northeast of Tripoli, about four km. south of Nahr el-Kebir; (b) “the
land of the Gebalites” is included in “the land that yet remains,” hence, the
border of Canaan is located north of it (Na’aman 1986:53–54); (c) Lebo-ha-
math = Lb’i of the Egyptian sources = Lab’u of the Assyrian texts = Libo/Lybo
of the Roman period = modern Lebwe (Elliger 1936:40–45; Maisler 1946; re-
cently Weippert 1992:59, n. 100); (d) Sibraim and Hazar-enon are both located
on the border between the provinces of Damascus and Hamath; (e) Zedad =
the village Sadad east of the Anti-Lebanon (Elliger 1936:38–40). The five bib-
lical texts cited above supply a unified and coherent border line. We may
safely conclude that the northern boundary of Canaan as delineated by these
sources passed along the line of Nahr el-Kebir — north of Mount Lebanon —

The Canaanites and Their Land 125

modern Lebwe and the old border between Damascus and Hamath — north of
the Anti-Lebanon — modern Sadad.

The eastern boundary of Canaan ran along the border between Hauran
and Damascus, in a line that is impossible to delineate. It reached the east-
ern side (“shoulder”) of the sea of Chinnereth, possibly running along the
Yarmuk River. From there the border ran southward along the Jordan River
“between Gilead and the land of Israel.” As has been noted by all scholars,
Transjordan is excluded from the limits of Canaan.

With these data in mind, let us examine Lemche’s discussion of Canaan’s
northern border. To introduce the discussion, he cites the text of Num. 34:2–
12, but does not discuss any of the toponyms enumerated along the borders.
Instead, he states that there are two solutions for the problem of Canaan’s
northern border — a “maximal” and a “minimal” — and he opts for the lat-
ter (pp. 79–81). This kind of “scientific” approach, by which one selects as
a matter of convenience and with no discussion the solution that fits one’s
own theory, is unacceptable. Moreover, Lemche selects an old solution (Van
Kasteren 1895; 1912; Noth 1935:235–248; 1953:75–77; 1966:215–216; North
1970–71), which was dismissed by scholars long ago (note in particular: Saebø
1974:24–26; Kallai 1986:230–231) and does not deal with any of the problems
entailed by the “minimal” solution.6 Further, he entirely ignores the descrip-
tion of “the land that yet remains” (Josh. 13:2–6). It is commonly accepted
by scholars that the “remaining land” describes the gap between the land of
Canaan and the borders of the twelve tribes (Aharoni 1967:215–217; Na’aman
1986:39–73, with earlier literature on p. 40 n. 2) and that the land of Canaan is
larger than the twelve tribes system. The description of the “remaining land”
stands in marked contrast to the “minimal” solution, according to which the
two boundary systems are identical.

Lemche also ignores the description of Canaan’s borders in Eze. 47:13–
18; 48:1. He does not try to explain how the border between Damascus and
Hamath (47:16, 17; 48:1) and the border between Damascus and Hauran (47:
18) fit the northern boundary of the twelve tribes. As for the location of the
tribe of Dan on Canaan’s northern border (Eze. 48:1), it was observed long ago
that the disposition of the tribes in Eze. 48:1–8 is entirely different from that
of the system of the twelve tribes (see the map in Zimmerli 1983:537; Kallai

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

126 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

IV. Second Millennium Canaan and The Biblical Promised Land

Let us now compare the extent of Late Bronze Age Canaan and the borders
of the biblical Promised Land.

The area of Nahr el-Kebir was the northern limit of the Egyptian prov-
ince in Asia in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Ṣumur (today Tell Kazel), lo-
cated near the Mediterranean coast north of the river, was an Egyptian gar-
rison city and the center of Egyptian government of the nearby coastal area
(Helck 1960:6; Klengel 1984; Gubel 1990). In Papyrus Anastasi I, the town is
called “Ṣumur of Sessi (i.e., Ramesses II)” (Wilson 1969b:477a). The name in-
dicates that an Egyptian garrison was stationed there as late as the time of
the XIXth Dynasty. The northern border of Byblos in the first millennium BCE
was located south of Nahr el-Kebir, hence, near the border of the Promised
Land (Josh. 13:5; see above). The similarity of the limits of Bronze Age Canaan
and the biblical Promised Land of Canaan on the Phoenician coast is self- ev-
ident.

The border of the Egyptian province in central Syria passed south of
the kingdom of Qadesh. Qadesh on the Orontes (Tell Nebi Mind) supported
Mitanni in its struggle with Egypt and headed the coalition that fought
Thutmose III at Megiddo in 1457 BCE. When the armed struggle between
Egypt and Mitanni came to an end and the two powers became allies, the
frontier between their respective spheres of influence was fixed between the
Taḫshi region (the area around Qadesh) and the region of ‘Amqi (the Beqa‘).
This border between the two great powers, Egypt and Mitanni, continued to
exist in the early Amarna Age (Na’aman 1975:14–18; contra Helck 1960:3–4;
Klengel 1969:160).

When Shuppiluliuma conducted his campaigns against Mitanni and broke
its power, the latter’s vassals asked the Egyptian ruler (Akhenaten) for mil-
itary support and, in their letters, represented themselves as Egyptian vas-
sals (Nuḫašše — EA 51; Qatna — EA 52–55; Tunip — EA 59) (Na’aman 1975:
16–17). Aitakama of Qadesh, after attacking the Egyptian territories of ‘Amqi
and Upi, was afraid of an Egyptian counterattack and portrayed himself as a
loyal Egyptian vassal and as the victim of an attack (EA 189). All these king-
doms were conquered by Shuppiluliuma and became his vassals. That Qadesh
(Kinza) was formerly a Mitannian vassal is evident from Shuppiluliuma’s

The Canaanites and Their Land 127

words to Ḫani, the Egyptian envoy: “. . . but you suddenly did me evil. You
[came?] and attacked the man of Kinza whom I had [taken away?] from the
king of the Ḫurri-land” (Güterbock 1956:97 lines 1–4; 1960:58).

The place of Qadesh within the Hittite empire did not change in the time
of the XIXth Dynasty. The campaigns of Seti I and Ramesses II in central Syria
ended with no significant results. On his way northward to Qadesh in his fifth
year (1275 BCE), Ramesses and his army crossed the forest of Lb’i, on the wa-
tershed between the Liṭani and the Orontes Rivers (Rainey 1971:145–146,
149). Lb’i (biblical Lebo-hamath) was located in the time of the XIXth Dynasty
on the border zone between the territories of Egypt and Ḫatti.

The border between the kingdoms of Damascus and Hamath in the first
millennium roughly followed the old second millennium boundary between
Taḫshi (Qadesh) and ‘Amqi (the Beqa‘). Subsequent to the Assyrian conquest
and annexation of the two kingdoms, the boundary between the Assyrian
provinces in central Syria was marked along the same line. The provincial sys-
tem of the Assyrians was later adopted by the Babylonian and Persian empires;
hence, the biblical delineations of Canaan reflect the reality of the 6th–5th
century boundary system (for the territorial developments in this area, see
Elliger 1936:45–59). We may conclude that the borders of the Promised Land in
central Syria, whose anchor point is Lebo-hamath and which passed along the
border between Damascus and Hamath (Eze 47:16, 17), roughly followed the
northern limits of the Egyptian province in Asia in the Late Bronze Age.

The kingdom of Rūḫiṣu marked the northeastern limits of the Late Bronze
Egyptian province. Its exact location remains unknown. The Egyptian ter-
ritory was bounded in the Damascus area by the desert fringes on he east
and included all of Bashan. The toponyms along the border of the Promised
Land in the Damascus and Bashan areas (Ziphron, Hazar-enan/on, Shepham,
Riblah, ‘Ain) are unidentified, but since the border passed “between Hauran
and Damascus,” the Bashan was included in that land. With all due caution
we may conclude that there is a general correspondence between the extent
of the Egyptian province in the area east of the Anti-Lebanon and the bibli-
cal Promised Land.

Piḫilu, located south of the Yarmuk River, is the only Transjordanian city
that is mentioned in the Amarna letters. Transjordanian toponyms are rare
in the Egyptian topographical lists of the XVIIIth-XIXth Dynasties.7 It is ev-

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

128 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

ident that Transjordan (except for the area around Piḫilu) was a peripheral
area of little importance for Egypt in the Late Bronze Age.

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

V. The Transfer of the Names Canaan and Canaanites
to the Historiographical Sphere

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

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

The Canaanites and Their Land 129

Not only the country’s name, but some other isolated memories of Late
Bronze Canaan have survived in the Old Testament (Na’aman 1992:179).
These include:

(a) The division of the land into many entities, each headed by a king.
(b) The exceptional position of Hazor among the Canaanite kingdoms
(Josh 11:10).
(c) The description of certain entities as composed of a major city and its
villages (Josh. 15:45–47; 17:11, 16; Judg. 1:27).
(d) The coalition of kingdoms as a means of gaining strength.
(e) The chariots (though described anachronistically as built of iron) as
the main basis of Canaanite military power (Josh. 11:4, 6, 9; 17:16; Judg. 1:19;
4:3, 13).
The Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) is regarded by many scholars as the oldest
text contained in the Bible. Two distinctive features of Late Bronze Canaanite
society, namely the division of the land into entities and the coalition of kings
as a means of gaining power, are reflected in the song (Judg. 5:19): “The kings
came, they fought; then fought the kings of Canaan; at Taanach, by the wa-
ters of Megiddo, they got no spoils of silver.” Rainey (1981:64*) pointed out
that v. 19b refers to the distribution of spoils and awards in the military camp
ground after the battle. It was assumed that the forces under Sisera would
enjoy a division of the spoils (Judg. 5:30), but they suffered defeat and “got no
spoils of silver.” V. 19 reflects a genuine old memory of the actual situation in
the land in the pre-monarchial period.
Judg. 5:19 obviously contradicts Lemche’s conclusions about the Canaanites
in pre-monarchial time. Thus, he first (pp. 93–94) tries show that the early date
of the text is quite uncertain. Second, he proposes (p. 95) that “the mention
of the kings of Canaan in Judg. 5:19 owes its existence to a redactional note
in Judges 5, which was added to the text of the poem as part of its incorpora-
tion into the greater Deuteronomistic narrative in the Book of Judges.” Lemche
provides no textual analysis to support his assumption. So convinced is he of
the correctness of his thesis about the Canaanites that he apparently expects
any evidence that contradicts it to simply evaporate. It goes without saying
that the assumption is arbitrary and that v. 19 is an integral part of the origi-
nal Song of Deborah.
How can we account for the old memories of Canaan and the Canaanites
in the Old Testament and, in particular, for the close similarity between the
boundaries of the Late Bronze Egyptian province in Asia and those of the bib-
lical Promised Land? In a chapter that I submitted in March 1987 to a book
that has never been published, I suggested the following:

It should be emphasized that Canaanite elements remained in the land during the mo-
narchial period. These autochthonous elements retained many political and cultural

130 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

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

References

Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.
Astour, M. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of

the Orient 13: 113–127.
Astour, M. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II. (Analecta Orientalia

50). Rome: 249–369.
Baldi, D. 1950–51. La Terra Promessa nel programma di Giosue. Studii Biblici Franciscani

Liber Annuus 1: 87–106.
Charpin, D. 1992. Mari entre l’est et l’ouest: politique, culture, religion. Akkadica 78: 1–10.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É= bītu

– Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung
von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88–123.
Dossin, G. 1973. Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari. Syria 50: 277–282.
Durand, J.-M. 1987. Villes fantômes de Syrie et autres lieux. Mari, Annales de Recherches
Interdisciplinaire 5. Paris: 199–234.
Edel, E. 1950. KBo I 15+19, ein Brief Ramses’ II. mit einer Schilderung der Ḳadešschlacht.
ZA 49: 195–212.
Edel, E. 1953a. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II: KUB III 37 + KBo I
17 und KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift
für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29–63.
Edel, E. 1953b. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über
die asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97–176.
Edel, E. 1960. Der geplante Besuch Hattušiliš III. in Ägypten. Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 92: 15–20.

The Canaanites and Their Land 131

Edel, E. 1980. Die Ortsnamenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan.
Biblische Notizen 11: 63–79.

Elliger, K. 1936. Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids. PJb 32: 34–73.
Fecht, G. 1983. Die Israelstele, Gestalt und Aussage. In: Görg, M. ed. Fontes atque Pontes. Eine

Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 106–138.
Gardiner, A.H. 1920. The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine. JEA 6: 99–116.
Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-II. Oxford.
Goetze, A. 1969. Hittite Rituals, Incantations, and Description of Festivals. In: Pritchard,

J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 346–361.
Görg, M. 1982. Der Name “Kanaan” in Ägyptischer Wiedergabe. Biblische Notizen 18: 26–27.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven.
Gubel, E. 1990. Tell Kazel (Ṣumur/Simyra) a l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 2: 37–50.
Güterbock, H.G. 1956. The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son Mursili II. JCS 10: 41–

68, 75–98, 107–130.
Güterbock, H.G. 1960. Mursili’s Accounts of Suppiluliuma’s Dealings with Egypt. Revue

Hittite et Asianique 66: 57–63.
Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den Syrischen Besitzungen. Mitteilungen der

Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 92: 1–13.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Kallai, Z. 1975. The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible. Eretz Israel 12:

27–34 (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1983. The Reality of the Land and the Bible. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in

biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 76–90.
Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and

Leiden.
Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien,

Berlin.
Klengel, H. 1980. Mord und Bussleistung im spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien. In: Alster, B. ed.

Death in Mesopotamia. (Mesopotamia 8). Copenhagen: 189–197.
Klengel, H. 1984. Ṣumur/Simyra und die Eleutheros-Ebene in der Geschichte Syriens. Klio

66: 5–18.
Knauf, E.A. 1988. Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende

des 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden.
Lambdin, T.O. 1953. The Miši-People of the Byblian Amarna Tablets. JCS 7: 75–77.
Lemche, N.P. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites (Journal for

the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 110). Sheffield.
Lemche, N.P. 1993. City-Dwellers or Administrators. Further Light on the Canaanites. In:

Lemaire, A. and Otzen, B. eds. History and Traditions of Early Israel. Studies Presented to
Eduard Nielsen. Leiden, New York and Köln: 76–89.
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1930. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und
Palästinas. Giessen.
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1946. Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan. BJPES 12:
91–102. (Hebrew). (English translation: 1986. The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies.
Jerusalem: 189–202).
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1947. Palestine at the Time of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. Revue de
l’histoire juive en Égypte 1: 33–68.

132 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

del Monte, G.F. and Tischler, J. 1978. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. 6.
Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der hethitischen Texte. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des
Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 7/6). Wiesbaden.

Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Muhly, J.D. 1970. Homer and the Phoenicians. Berytus 19: 19–64.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According

to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1982. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and the Late Bronze Age.

In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. Jerusalem: 129–256. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical

Geographical Lists (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem.
Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to

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

The Canaanites and Their Land 133

Van Kasteren, J.P. 1895. La frontiere septentrionale de la Terre Promise. RB 4: 23–36.
Van Kasteren, J. 1912. Chanaan (Pays de). Dictionaire de la Bible II/1. Paris: 533–538.
de Vaux, R. 1968. Le pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23–30.
de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. 1978 (originally published 1971).
Vernus, P. 1978. L’apport des sources égyptiennes au problème hourrite. Revue Hittite et

Asianique 36: 189–197.
Weidner, E. 1959–60. Der Kanzler Salmanassars I. AfO 19: 33–39.
Weinfeld, M. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land — the Status of Transjordan. In:

Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 59–75.
Weippert, M. 1976–80. Kanaan. RLA V: 352–355.
Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadnararis III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf,

Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67.
Wilson, J.A. 1969a. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern

Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264.
Wilson, J.A. 1969b. An Egyptian Letter. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 475–479.
Wiseman, D.J. 1954. Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. JCS 8: 1–30.
Yurco, F.J. 1986. Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign. Journal of the American Research Center

in Egypt 23: 189–215.
Zimmerli, W. 1983. Ezekiel 2. (Hermeneia). Philadelphia (originally published 1969).
Zobel, H-J. 1984. Kn‘n. In: Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H. and Fabry, H.J. eds. Theologisches

Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament IV: 224–243.

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan1

The debate over the size of the land of Canaan in second millennium BCE.
documents was revived in 1991 with the publication of Lemche’s work on
the Canaanites and their land. Lemche disagreed with the former scholarly
consensus, according to which Canaan in Late Bronze texts covered the en-
tire area of the Egyptian province in Asia (de Vaux 1968:25-28; 1978:127-128;
Weippert 1976-1980; Stolz 1988:539-545). On the basis of EA 151:49-67, a let-
ter from Abi-Milki of Tyre to the Pharaoh, Lemche proposed that the term
Canaan was used in an imprecise manner in second millennium Near Eastern
texts. When discussing other vassal letters, he noted (p. 39) that “evidently
the inhabitants of the supposed Canaanite territory in Western Asia had no
clear idea of the actual size of this Canaan, nor did they know exactly where
Canaan was situated.” In his opinion, this ambiguity is reflected in some other
Late Bronze texts that mention Canaan. He, therefore, concluded that there
is a “correspondence between the imprecise and ambiguous Egyptian use
of the geographical name Canaan and the likewise imprecise understand-
ing of Canaan displayed by the inhabitants of Western Asia themselves”
(Lemche 1991:50). He further suggested (p. 52) that “to the scribe of ancient
Western Asia ‘Canaanite’ always designated a person who did not belong to
the scribe’s own society or state, while Canaan was considered to be a coun-
try different from his own.”

These far-fetched conclusions did not remain unanswered. Rainey (1996)
correctly noted that the writer and recipient or user of the texts knew the
geographical and ethnic entities mentioned, and there was no need for them
to go into detailed definitions; hence, some texts do not give detailed infor-
mation on the size of Canaan and its inhabitants. However, there are consid-
erable numbers of texts from all over the ancient Near East that do give an ac-
curate picture of a geographical entity known to the ancients as Canaan and
of a people known to the ancients and to themselves as Canaanites. I have an-
alyzed previously, in detail, all references to Canaan in second millennium
BCE sources, showing how inadequate and sometimes faulty was Lemche’s
discussion of these sources (Na’aman 1994). My conclusions were as follows:

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

134

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan 135

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

Lemche responded in two articles (1996; 1998) in which he defended the
conclusions of his book. Let me cite his recent conclusions (1996:771):

Canaan is used in an ambiguous manner in the ANE texts from the 2nd millennium. If it
ever had a more precise meaning, this “Canaan” may have embraced the coastal plain
in Palestine south of the Carmel range, the Esdraelon plain and the Phoenician coast.
There is no evidence that it was ever used as the name of a specific state or area with
fixed and definable borders.

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

The Alalakh Legal and Administrative Texts

Canaan is mentioned in four documents from Stratum IV at Alalakh, all
of which refer to individuals from that land. One tablet (AT 154) is still un-
published. AT 181 is a list of ‘Apiru (Wiseman 1954:11; Greenberg 1955:21)
and AT 188 (Dietrich-Loretz 1970:101) is a list of muškēnu. All the places of
origin of the individuals mentioned in the two tablets are either towns or
well-defined lands (Alashiya and Nuḫašše). Hence, Canaan was likewise a
well-defined entity.

Tablet AT 48 is a legal document signed with the royal seal. A hunter
(LÚbāiru)2 from Canaan borrowed 24 shekels of silver from a local citizen of
Alalakh. He must repay an interest of 200 birds at the beginning of next year.

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