Canaan in the second millenium bce

136 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

His wife, his sons and his belongings are pledged for the return of the loan.
Four witnesses are mentioned by name at the end of the tablet.

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

The Letter from Tyre

Letter EA 151:49-67 was recently discussed in detail by Rainey (1996:9-11)
and Lemche (1998). In a response to the request of the Pharaoh for informa-
tion from Canaan (“Write to me what you have heard from Canaan”), Abi-
Milki of Tyre reports news from Danuna, Ugarit, Ḫatti, the northern border
of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Qidšu’s and Amurru’s attack on Egyptian vassals)
and Sidon. The letter has been known for more than hundred years and there
are no problems about understanding its wording. Former students of EA 151:
49-67 made a clear distinction between the literal meaning of the Pharaoh’s
order and the way in which it was understood by Abi-Milki in his detailed re-
port to the Pharaoh (Astour 1965:4-5 is an exception). Lemche (1991:30-31,
39-40, 51-52; 1998), on the other hand, assumes that Abi-Milki’s reply is due
to a literal interpretation of the Pharaoh’s order, and Lemche equates the
land of Canaan with all the territories that Abi-Milki enumerates. From this
emerged Lemche’s “Great Canaan” hypothesis, which is supported only by
this text and never confirmed elsewhere.

Rainey (1996:9-11) suggested an attractive interpretation for the passage:
Abi-Milki understood the Pharaoh’s words as meaning news heard “from
within Canaan,” i.e., news that Abi-Milki had heard at his seat in Tyre. In sup-
port of his interpretation, he quoted three references from Taanach, Tyre and
Ugarit that refer to news heard from the place of the receiver (TT 1:15-18;
EA 149:54-57; KTU 2.10:15-19). Lemche (1998) responded by citing two letters
from Sidon (EA 145:23-26) and Tyre (EA 147:66-67), in which news requested
from certain places (Amurru, Egypt) was answered literally by the recipients
of the letters. In his opinion, it was the intention of the Pharaoh “that Abi-
Milki should report news from his homeland, which was according to the
Egyptians identical with Canaan” (Lemche 1998:21).

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan 137

As far as I am aware, no second millennium BCE text supports the assump-
tion that the term Canaan refers exclusively either to Tyre or to the Lebanese
coast. The territorially limited use of the term Canaan appears for the first
time in the Bible (Maisler 1930:54-74; de Vaux 1968:30; 1978:131; Weippert
1976-1980:354), and Lemche must have taken it from this late source.
Moreover, an Egyptian request for information about the small island of Tyre
is unlikely, because the Pharaoh and his officials in Egypt tried to avoid local
incidents and dealt mainly with problems that affected the administration of
part or all of the Egyptian province in Asia.

The question to be discussed is how Abi-Milki interpreted and answered
the Egyptian request for information “from Canaan.” To answer this question,
we must first analyze the political situation in Western Asia at that time.

Letter EA 151 was written in the late years of Akhenaten, when Aziru
of Amurru and Etakama of Qadesh conducted a war against the northern-
most districts of the Egyptian province in Asia (see e.g., Kitchen 1962:44-45;
Campbell 1964:72, 135; Helck 1971:177-179). At this late time, Mitanni, the
Egyptian former ally, was defeated and disappeared from the Syro-Canaanite
arena. Its territories and its military and political positions were taken by
Ḫatti, which soon became an enemy of Egypt and a threat to the northern
districts of the Egyptian province in Asia. A number of kingdoms near the
northern border of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Amurru, Qidšu, Ruḫizzi and
Lapana) took advantage of the situation and tried to expand their territo-
ries. In such a fluid situation, intelligence was of the utmost importance, and
Egyptian vassals and allies whose seats were located near the borders of the
Egyptian Empire frequently reported to Egypt on the current situation (e.g.,
EA 53-56, 59, 140, 173-176, 189, 196-197, 363).

It is against this background that we must analyze the text of EA 151:49-
67. Abi-Milki must have interpreted the words of the Pharaoh as a request for
information relevant to Canaan, i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia. He, thus,
reported what had happened in the coastal areas of the Hittite Empire (i.e.,
in Danuna and Ugarit), on the temporary absence of the Hittite troops, and
on the attack of Etakama of Qadesh and Aziru on the Egyptian northernmost
territories. As in many other letters (e.g., EA 147:66-69; 148:23-26, 38-45; 149:
54-70), Abi-Milki took advantage of this report to defame Zimredda, his arch-
enemy, by accusing him of cooperating with Aziru in the attack on his king-
dom.

We may conclude that a contextual approach is the best way to interpret
EA 151:49-67 and, furthermore, that a literal and rigid interpretation of texts
can sometimes lead scholars far from the historical reality.

138 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

The Letter of Alashiya

The beginning and the end of letter EA 36 are broken. In lines 5-7, the king
of Alashiya reports to the Pharaoh about the delivery of 120 talents of copper,
70 talents possibly in the forms of bars, each of which weighed 1 talent, and
50 talents of “colorful,” i.e., copper of inferior quality.3 This delivery and the
principle of reciprocity are discussed in the next passage (lines 8-13), which
ends with a request to send ships to carry the copper to Egypt (line 13).

Line 14 probably reads, “[As f]or me ([ia]-a-ti), just as [now?] I prepare cop-
per, they will p[repare??] grain [for me?].”

Next comes the controversial line 15. Approximately 18 signs appear in
each line of this letter, so that about third of the line (61⁄2 signs) has survived.
Knudtzon (1915:288) transcribed it [. . . p]i-ḫa-ti ša ki-na-ḫi [. . .]. There are no
fewer than four obstacles to this rendering: (a) the value /pi/ is rare in pe-
ripheral Akkadian; (b) pīhātu in the sense of “province” does not appear in
peripheral Akkadian; (c) the spelling Ki-na-ḫi (rather than Ki-na-aḫ-ḫi) is rare
and is known only from letter RS.20.182A+B from Ugarit;4 and (d) the prede-
terminative KUR is missing before the assumed geographical name (Na’aman
1975:2*, n. 19; Moran 1992:109-110, n. 1). Rainey (1996:7-8) has adopted
Knudtzon’s reading of the line and suggested explanations of each of these
difficulties (cf. Redford 1990:99 n. 253). Each explanation in itself is possible,
but the assumption that there are quite so many irregularities in a text of 61⁄2
signs is intriguing. Translating line 15 “[. . . p]rovince of Canaan [. . .]” is not
impossible, but should be accompanied by a big question mark.

Should we use the term “province of Canaan” to describe the Egyptian
Asiatic province? There has been a long scholarly debate on whether the
Egyptian Empire in Canaan was divided into districts. Some scholars sug-
gested a tripartite division (e.g., Helck 1960:5-8; 1971:248-252; Aharoni 1967:
146-153; de Vaux 1968:25-28); I have suggested a bipartite division (Na’aman
1975:166-172, 227; 1981:183-184); and Hachmann (1982) suggested a four-part
division. Redford (1990:32-35; 1992:201) correctly noted that we cannot speak
of “provinces” in the sense that is familiar from the Roman Empire. He as-

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

4. In the inventory of Egyptian gifts (EA 14:II, 26), the spelling KUR Ki-na-aḫ-ḫi appears
(contra Rainey 1996:8).

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan 139

serted, “when Egyptians alluded to the northern empire, they still spoke of
‘the land of Canaan (or Kharu, Djahi, etc.)’ and the cities therein each with
its own ‘territory’, never to the province so-and-so” (Redford 1992:201).
However, using the term “province of Canaan” to describe the Egyptian
Empire in Asia has become so common in scientific literature that there is no
point in giving it up, as long as we remember that the Egyptian administra-
tion of Canaan called it by other names.

Lemche (1998:23) dismissed the idea that Canaan was an Egyptian prov-
ince in the 14th century BCE. He draws a line between the time of the 18th
Dynasty and that of the 19th Dynasty, “when Canaan had been turned into an
administrative district with its center in Gaza, which could in itself be called
‘Canaan’.” The last statement should be qualified. Edel (1953; 1994, I:140-155;
II:219-229) combined two letters (KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 and KUB III 57), relat-
ing to the royal marriage between Ramesses II and a Hittite princess, and the
escorting of the princess to Egypt in the 34th year of Ramesses’ reign. The
latter assures the Hittite king that the princess will be properly received at
the border and that he has instructed the two Egyptian governors (šākin māti)
to escort the Hittite princess through their respective territories. The first
is Šuta, the governor of Upi, and the second is Ataḫ[maya], whose residence
is missing but should be located in Gaza (Edel 1953:50, 55-61; Singer 1983:18-
21, with earlier literature). In fact, this letter of the Ramesside period was
the point of departure for my suggestion that Canaan was divided into two
districts as early as the 18th Dynasty. Although Gaza was the main Egyptian
center of government under the Ramessides, there must have been a second
center in Upi, namely Kumidi, which was the seat of the second šākin māti
mentioned in the letter.

Lemche’s claim that Canaan became an Egyptian province only under
the 19th Dynasty is also unlikely. In support he cites Redford, who (so he as-
sumes) “simply doubts whether the concept of an Egyptian Empire in Asia
arranged in a number of provinces with stable provincial administration
and governors before the time of the Ramessides makes any sense at all”
(Lemche 1998:23). This is an inaccurate presentation of Redford’s position.
Redford (1990:202) actually writes: .” . . if the age of the great Amenophis III
had witnessed the inception of a regularized state department, the age of the
Ramessides (the 19th Dynasty) carried it to the logical stage of refinement.”
Neither Redford nor any other scholar doubts the emergence of an Egyptian
province (in the flexible sense defined above) in Asia during the 18th Dynasty.
Canaan had been an Egyptian province ever since its conquest by Thutmose
III, whereas the establishment of an Egyptian administrative apparatus and
the regularization of the levies and taxes developed gradually and reached its
zenith under the Ramessides.

140 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

The Letter from Ugarit

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

--------------------------------

4. [ša-ni-ta5? b]e-‘li aš-šum’ KASKAL-‘ni’ ša iṣ-ṣa-ba‘t?-ma?’
5. [KÙ.BABBARMEŠ š]a DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it
6. [x (x) mi-š]i-il DUMUMEŠ KUR Ki-na-ḫi
7. [ù ú-š]al-lim-šu 1 GÚ.UN 5 me-at KÙ.BABBAR[MEŠ]
8. [zi?-it?-t]i? DUMUMEŠ KUR Ki-na-ḫi
9. [KÙ.BABBAR]MEŠ ša DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it ša-li-i[m na??-ši??]
10. [ù mB]ur -ḫa-nu-wa a-kán-na iq-ta-bi-[(ma)]
11. [ma-a] ‘a5-na’ na-ḫa-sí-ia-mi KÙ.BABBARMEŠ ri-ḫa-ti [. . .]
12. [ša] ir-te-eḫ i-laq-qí-mi
13. [a-n]a UGU KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-ia-ma iṣ-ṣa-bat-ta-ni m’Bur -ḫa-nu-wa’
14. [K]Ù.BABBARMEŠ-ia-ma ù a-na-ku-ma ú-šal-lim-šu 5
15. [ù] KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-šu ú-[ša?-di?-n]a DUMUMEŠ KUR Ú-ga-ri-it ÌRMEŠ EN-ia

Translation:

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

Notes:

Line 6: the rendering [. . . mi-š]i-il (rather than [. . . a-k]i-il) was suggested
by Lackenbacher (1994).

Line 7: for the restoration, see line 14.
Line 8: for the tentative restoration [zi-it-t]i, see CAD Z 146.
Line 15: Lackenbacher and Van Soldt rendered it KÙ.BABBARMEŠ-šu-ú-[ma
a-n]a. However, the pronominal suffix —šu appears in lines 7 and 14 without

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan 141

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

Background of the Episode

A Canaanite caravan was seized in the kingdom of Ugarit. Details of the
seizure and the legal procedure that followed are missing, and we do not know
in which court the case was decided. The role of Pariḫnawa (Purḫanuwa), an
Egyptian envoy of Ramesses II who is mentioned in the texts of Ḫattusha
(Nougayrol 1968:112 n. 3; for references, see Edel 1994:II, 364), may indicate
that the king of Ḫatti was involved in the case. The indemnity payment due
to the sons of Canaan from the sons of Ugarit probably amounted to 2 talents
and 1000 shekels of silver. There must have been some delay in payment and
the Egyptian king, probably Ramesses II, intervened by sending Pariḫnawa,
his messenger, to deal with the matter and by writing a letter to the Ugaritic
authorities. The letter under discussion deals with an episode that was pre-
viously negotiated, possibly at length, between the Egyptian and Ugaritic (or
Hittite) courts.

Letter RS 20.182A+B is the Ugaritic court’s answer to the Egyptian king’s
letter. The author of the letter reports that he has delivered half of the sum, 1
talent and 500 shekels of silver, to Pariḫnawa, and that the other half will be
paid on Pariḫnawa’s return from Egypt.

The involvement of the Pharaoh and his envoy in the case is not excep-
tional. It was agreed among the members of the “Club of the Great Powers”
in the 14th-13th centuries BCE that each Great King was responsible for what
happened in his and his vassals’ territories (Liverani 1990). Canaan was the
territory of the Pharaoh, and it was his responsibility to protect his vassals in
the other Great Kings’ lands and to defend their rights in foreign countries
(for similar procedures, see the literature cited in Rainey 1996:5; Na’aman
1998:66-67).

The extant text does not give the exact origin of the seized caravan. It
only mentions the payment to the “sons of Canaan.” The reason for select-
ing a comprehensive term rather than the name of a particular city-state is
clear: The letter was addressed to the Egyptian king, who was internation-
ally recognized as lord of the land of Canaan and its inhabitants, the “sons
of Canaan” (EA 8:25-26 reads, “Canaan is your land and [its] king[s are your
servants]”). Lemche (1998:23) suggested that “in such a text the distinc-
tion made between two groups of people might be no more than the opin-
ion of the writer of the text, whose place of origin was undoubtedly Ugarit.”
However, RS 20.182A+B is a diplomatic letter exchanged between the courts

142 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

of Ugarit and Egypt, and the author of the letter accurately reports to the
Pharaoh about the execution of a legal matter. The letter deals with inter-
state affairs, and personal opinion has no place in this diplomatic correspon-
dence. Lemche’s suggestion, therefore, is obviously wrong.

A man of Canaan is mentioned in a second text from Ugarit (KTU 4.96).
This is a list of merchants assigned to three royal estates (Astour 1970:125;
1975:293-294; Rainey 1996:4). Seven merchants are assigned to the first es-
tate. Four of them are from towns in the kingdom of Ugarit, and three are
foreigners: an Ashdadite, an Egyptian and a Canaanite. I recently suggested
an identification of the city of Ashdad mentioned in the Ugaritic texts with
Enkomi, the important Cypriote port city, and disassociating it from the
Philistine city of Ashdod (Na’aman 1997:609-611). We may conclude that in
letter RS 20.182A+B, and in the administrative text KTU 4.96, Canaan is men-
tioned as a well-defined entity, similar to the kingdoms of Egypt and Ugarit,
the city of Ashdad and the four Ugaritic towns.

In sum, Canaan was the political-territorial name for the Egyptian prov-
ince in Asia in the Late Bronze Age. Some texts mention Canaan without spec-
ifying an exact location because their authors did not consider it necessary to
specify something that was so well-known. But there are enough texts that
give accurate details on the size of the land and the identity of its inhabitants,
and there is not a single text that defines the size of Canaan differently. The
phantom of the “Great Canaan” should disappear from the scholarly litera-
ture, along with the erroneous arguments that were brought to support it.

References

Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
AHW = von Soden, W. 1959-1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Astour, M.C. 1965. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on

Mycenaean Greece. Leiden.
Astour, M.C. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History

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

Orientalia 50). Rome: 249-369.
AT = Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.
CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Chicago.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É

= bītu – Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen
Schichtung von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88-123.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.
(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Canaan 143

Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II.: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17
und KUB III 57. In: Albright, W.F. et. al. Eds. Geschichte und Altes Testament. Festschrift für
A. Alt. (Beiträge zur Histotorischen Theologie 16). Tübingen: 29-63.

Edel, E. 1994. Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und
hethitischer Sprache I-II. (Abhändlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 77). Opladen.

Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven.
Hachmann, R. 1982. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in Syrien während der Amarnazeit. ZDPV

98: 17-49.
Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den Syrischen Besitzungen. Mitteilungen des

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

revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology.

(Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorder-

asiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
KTU = Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartin, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit.

(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Lackenbacher, S. 1994. Ugaritica V No 36. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Br�ves et Utilitaires 1994/

3: No. 58.
Lemche, N.P. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites. (Journal for

the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 110). Sheffield.
Lemche, N.P. 1996. Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na’aman. Ugarit-

Forschungen 28: 767-772.
Lemche, N.P. 1998. Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151: 49-

67. BASOR 310: 19-24.
Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100

B.C. Padova.
Maisler (Mazar), B. 1930. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und

Palästinas. Giessen.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according

to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172-

185.
Na’aman, N. 1994. The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 397-

418.
Na’aman, N. 1997. The Network of Canaanite Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. Ugarit-

Forschungen 29: 599-612.
Na’aman, N. 1998. The Closing Paragraphs of Letter KBo I 10. Altorientalische Forschungen

25: 61-67.
Nougayrol, J. 1968. Ugaritica V. Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives

et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris.
Rainey, A.F. 1996 Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence. BASOR 304: 1-15.
Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-Sheva 4). Beer-sheva.
Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.
Singer, I. 1982. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek.

Tel Aviv 10: 3-25.

144 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Stolz, F. 1988. Kanaan. In: Müller, G. ed. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 17. Berlin-New York:
539-556

TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften
der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4).
Vienna: 113-122.

Van Soldt, W.H. 1994. More on Ugaritica V no. 36. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et
Utilitaires 1994/4: No. 98.

de Vaux, R. 1968. Le pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23-30.
de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London.
Weippert, M. 1976-1980. Kanaan. RLA V: 352-355.
Wiseman, D.J. 1954. Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. JCS 8: 1-30.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze
Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod1

Previous Discussions

The attempt to establish the exact number and delineate the borders of
the Canaanite Late Bronze kingdoms is a relatively late branch of historical
topographical research. The first stage in the study of the toponyms men-
tioned in Late Bronze sources was marked by an effort to identify their names
and locate their sites. Clauss (1907), for example, examined all the toponyms
mentioned in the Amarna letters systematically. He compared their names
with places mentioned in earlier and later sources and in the Bible and sug-
gested identifications for their locations. Dhorme (1908, 1909) examined the
corpus of Late Bronze toponyms and suggested new identifications for some
names. With the publication of Knudtzon’s edition of the Amarna tablets
(1915), the transcription of the letters was finally established, and the way
was open for further investigation of the number and power of the Canaanite
kingdoms and their relationships with their Egyptian overlords.

Alt (1939; 1953) discussed at length the network of Canaanite kingdoms
in his work on the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine. He noticed the
difference of scope, strength and policy between the kingdoms situated in
the highlands (e.g., Hazor, Shechem and Jerusalem) and those located in the
lowlands, and he used the differences as a point of departure for the dis-
cussion of the emergence of Israel in the early Iron Age. In another work
(1950), he made the important distinction between Canaanite city-states and
Egyptian garrison cities (Stützpunkte), and he tried to reconstruct the system
of Egyptian centers (Stützpunktsystem) in Asia. In a third article (1944), he ob-
served the changes that took place in the Egyptian system of government
during the XIXth-XXth Dynasties. In other works, he discussed new sources
that were published in the 1920s–1940s (Alt 1924; 1936; 1941; 1954). Alt’s his-
torical and topographical contributions have had a considerable impact on
all subsequent studies of the Canaanite kingdoms in the Late Bronze Age.

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997), 599–626.

145

146 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Many studies on the identification of Canaanite toponyms and their sig-
nificance for the historical research were published in those years (e.g., Jirku
1937; Abel 1938; Gardiner 1947), but it is not necessary to survey them here.
In his monumental work on the relationship between Egypt and Western Asia
in the second millennium BCE, Helck (1962; rev. ed. 1971) discussed, in some
detail, the network of Canaanite kingdoms and Egyptian government centers
in the Late Bronze Age. He was the first scholar to publish detailed maps of
the systems of Syrian and Canaanite kingdoms (1971:188, 309), but the bor-
ders drawn in his maps are schematic and take into consideration neither the
topographical features nor the archaeological data. Aharoni summarized the
work of his predecessors in his comprehensive book on the geographical his-
tory in the “Land of the Bible” (1967), but he did not try to delineate the sys-
tem of Canaanite kingdoms.

In my doctoral dissertation (Na’aman 1975), I tried both to set criteria for
establishing the number of Canaanite city-states and Egyptian centers and
to define their scope and borders. The list of city-states was composed on
the basis of the Amarna letters, supplemented by other Late Bronze sources
and the Bible. An analysis of the Amarna letters and identification of border
towns and neighboring cities was the point of departure for border demarca-
tions. I have suggested that neighboring kingdoms did not control sparsely
inhabited areas effectively and that their boundaries should not be rigidly
outlined. The archaeological evidence was taken into consideration, in par-
ticular the size and number of sites in each region. Early and late border sys-
tems were also taken into account. In light of all these data, I suggested a
detailed reconstruction of the array of Canaanite kingdoms in the areas of
Palestine. In later years, I published other works elaborating on the earlier
one (Na’aman 1982, 1986a; 1988a; 1988b; 1992).

Bunimovitz (1989) discussed the array of Palestinian city-states in his
doctoral dissertation on the socio-cultural changes in Late Bronze Age
Palestine. He first analysed the results of the archaeological excavations in
Middle Bronze and Late Bronze sites and collected all the archaeological data
discovered in surveys. By integrating historical documents, archaeological
evidence and an analysis of the regional systems’ rank-size distributions, he
suggested a reconstruction of the political map in the Middle and Late Bronze
Age. Although Bunimovitz utilized methodology and distribution model not
used in my writings, his map of Late Bronze Canaanite kingdoms is quite sim-
ilar to the system that I suggested.

For most of the north and northeastern areas of the land of Canaan, there
is not enough archaeological data for accurate border demarcations. In a pi-
oneering study, Marfoe (1979) analyzed the area of the Beqa‘ of Lebanon. By
examining the natural data, surveying the area and comparing settlement

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 147

patterns from early and late periods, he was able to reconstruct the number
and size of the political units of the Beqa‘ in the Late Bronze Age.

Recently, Finkelstein (1996) suggested a new delineation for the array
of Canaanite kingdoms. According to his reconstruction, the entire area of
west Jordanian Palestine was shared among no more than 13–14 relatively
large kingdoms. These kingdoms effectively controlled all the areas — in-
habited and uninhabited — included in their territories. All other city-states,
including some that are explicitly mentioned in the Amarna letters (e.g.,
Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, etc.), are left out of his list of kingdoms.2 More details about
Finkelstein’s methodology and results appear in the discussion below.

It is the purpose of this article to re-examine the system of Canaanite
kingdoms located in the bounds of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. At the
beginning of the discussion, I suggest criteria for identifying city-states and
establishing borders and discuss the problem of drawing maps and making
demographic calculations. It seems to me that Finkelstein’s source analysis
should be revised and that the textual evidence does not justify his limited
system of kingdoms and his border delineations.

Criteria for Establishing the System of Canaanite Kingdoms

I start from a point of agreement with Finkelstein: Biblical data should
not be taken into account in drawing up the list of Canaanite kingdoms. The
Old Testament was written hundreds of years after the Late Bronze Age, at a
time when memories of the Canaanite city-state system were quite lost. Even
if some vague memories of that early period still persisted when the biblical
text was put in writing, they do not shed light on the system of Late Bronze
kingdoms.

In the past, I made ample use of biblical evidence for the establishment
of the borders of Canaanite kingdoms. In particular, I utilized the descrip-
tions of the inheritance of the twelve tribes for drawing the borders, assum-
ing a direct continuity between city-state borders and the tribal allotments
(Na’aman 1986a; 1988a: 21–26). In those years, many scholars believed that
historical writing began in Israel in the tenth century BCE (the time of the
United Monarchy). The composition of the tribal allotments was dated to the
tenth century BCE, about two centuries after the final collapse of the system
of Canaanite city-states (Alt 1927; Noth 1935; 1953; Aharoni 1967; Kallai 1986).
All areas of Palestine began to be settled in Iron Age I; thus, it was logical to

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

148 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

assume a measure of continuity between the systems of city-states and tribal
allotments. However, it is clear now that the descriptions of tribal allotments
is a late, non-historical composition and was written hundreds years after
the final collapse of the system of Canaanite kingdoms. I, therefore, withdraw
all my former reconstructions of boundaries of Canaanite kingdoms based on
the tribal allotments, as well as the identifications of towns as city-states on
the basis of the biblical text.

The list of Canaanite kingdoms should, first of all, be composed on the
basis of the Amarna letters, because only the rulers of these political units
were allowed to correspond with the Pharaoh. The Akkadian title used to de-
scribe the local rulers of Canaan is ḫazannu, “mayor,” which is the equiva-
lent of Egyptian ḫ3ty-‘, a mayor of an Egyptian town. The court administra-
tion treated them as Egyptian mayors in one important aspect: They had full
responsibility for everything that happened in the city (or rather city-state)
that the Pharaoh gave into their charge. Thus, each vassal was personally re-
sponsible to the Pharaoh for the territory the vassal held, and, in his letters,
he reported back to Egypt that he had fulfilled all the obligations imposed
on his domain. We may conclude that each person who wrote either to the
Pharaoh or to his officials was a city-state ruler, regardless of the scope of his
territory or his political power.

If the Amarna archive were complete, the task of making a list of city-
states would have been easy. Unfortunately, this is not the case. On the con-
trary, the archive is a unique collection, differing in its assemblage from all
other ancient Near Eastern archives. The earlier tablets discovered in the ar-
chive had been brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new capital,
Akhetaten (Amarna), when the royal court moved there. We may assume that
certain letters were taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment
(Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:35–36; Na’aman 1981:173–174). The number of
letters transferred on both occasions is unknown, and we do not know how
many tablets were totally destroyed between the time the archive was dis-
covered and before the importance of the tablets was recognized (Knudtzon
1915:1–15). An illustration of the incomplete nature of the archive are the
four Amarna tablets that comprise the second part of the original two-tablet
letter (EA 101, 113, 245, 251): In no case was the first tablet found. Evidently,
only a portion of the original archive has come down to us.

I would like to propose a method for estimating how much of the orig-
inal archive has survived. In Akhenaten’s late years, the Egyptians planned
a campaign to northern Canaan and sent verbal and written orders to their
vassals, commanding them to prepare for the arrival of the Egyptian archers
(Na’aman 1990, with earlier literature). Only on that occasion were Egyptian
messengers carrying royal letters sent to all quarters of the Egyptian prov-

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 149

ince in Asia. Answers to the royal letters arrived from southern Canaan (EA
65, 292, 324–325, 337), from northern Canaan (EA 55, 191, 193, 195, 201–206,
216–218, 227, and possibly 213), and from the coast of Lebanon (EA 141–142,
144, 147, 153, 362, and possibly 223 and 233). There are indications in the let-
ters that the Canaanite rulers believed that the Egyptian army would arrive
soon and were anxious to affirm their participation immediately (Na’aman
1990: 404–405). Moreover, in light of the formal character of these letters,
most of these kings gave not only their own names, but also the names of
their cities, unlike the routine correspondence in which city names were
sometimes omitted (particularly in north Palestinian and south Syrian let-
ters). I suggest that answers came from all quarters of Canaan and that the
number of missing places may help us estimate the gap of documentation.

If this criterion is valid, it indicates that a considerable part of the origi-
nal archive is missing. Among the Palestinian rulers, only those of Ashkelon,
Gezer, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi),3 Hazor, and a few others whose seat is unknown
(Ḫiziru, Bayawa and the authors of letters EA 217–218) are mentioned. This
supports the conclusion that only part of the original archive has come down
to us.

Not only is the archive incomplete, but the seat of many rulers remains
unknown. First, many tablets are broken and the names of their authors and
their towns are missing. Second, the city of many rulers whose names appear
on tablets is not mentioned. In many cases, even the region from which the
tablets were sent is not known. In his edition of the Amarna letters, Knudtzon
supplied important details about the clay of the tablet, the form of the signs
and the similarity between groups of tablets, all of which may help in locat-
ing the letters. However, the origin of many tablets, in particular those sent
from small city-states, is unknown.

It is clear that the unique composition of the archive and the gaps in the
extant list of towns and rulers call for caution in discussing the evidence. In
particular, we should be careful not to draw conclusions on the basis of neg-
ative evidence.

Finkelstein (1996: 224), on the other hand, suggests that “the material
at hand enables a full or almost full reconstruction of the territorial map
of Late Bronze Canaan.” In support of this conclusion, he claims that “most
Canaanite city-states known by name are mentioned in several letters.” He

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

150 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

also notes that “when mapped, the information provided by the archive does
not leave empty territories.” However, exactly the opposite of the latter state-
ment is true. The Amarna archive supplies very few data for establishing the
borders between neighboring kingdoms.4 For this reason, early scholars of
the Amarna tablets did not try to draw borders. Maps with borders appeared
only after enough archaeological data had been assembled, supplementing
the scanty textual data. If Finkelstein’s maps do not leave empty spaces, it is
only because he deliberately drew the borders in this manner. Drawing the
borders differently will leave ample space for the missing city-states.

The statement that most Canaanite kingdoms known by name are men-
tioned in several letters is also incorrect. A glance at the index of Moran’s
translations of the Amarna letters (1992:388–392) shows that many city-states
are mentioned only once. For example, all the cities either in the Beqa‘ of
Lebanon or in the Bashan are mentioned only once (Ashtaroth alone is men-
tioned twice). All Palestinian city-states mentioned in the archive and omit-
ted by Finkelstein for no obvious reason (e.g., Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, Na-x-ḫa-x,
[x-I]G-ma-te) are likewise mentioned only once, and their sites are unknown.
Even some major Canaanite kingdoms (e.g., Shechem, Hazor, Ashtaroth and
Damascus) are mentioned only a few times.

To illustrate the problem of preparing a list of city-states, let me give two
examples.

(a) Lab’ayu of Shechem and his sons are the best documented rulers in the
area of Palestine, and many details of their careers are known from the cor-
respondence. Yet, the name of their capital is not mentioned in Lab’ayu’s let-
ters, in the letters of other kings, or in Egyptian texts of the time of the New
Kingdom. Shechem (māt Šakmi) is mentioned once in a letter from Jerusalem
(EA 289:21–24), but the reference alone is not enough to identify the seat.
Fortunately, we are able to identify Lab’ayu’s and his sons’ capital thanks to
the many references to their offensive in the Amarna letters. Similar refer-
ences relating to many other rulers whose seats are not mentioned are miss-
ing, and the identities of their capitals remain unknown.

(b) Biryawaza held a central position in northern Canaan in the Amarna
period and acted on behalf of the Egyptian authorities in this area. His letters
do not name his city. Only with the help of the many references to his activ-
ity can we establish that Damascus was his capital (Na’aman 1988c, with ear-
lier literature).

4. Only the borders of Jerusalem with Gezer and Gath* are demarcated by concrete data
extracted from the Amarna letters. The northern border of Shechem may be delineated by
an analysis of letter EA 250 (see below). All other borders are drawn on the basis of envi-
ronmental and archaeological evidence.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 151

In conclusion, the Amarna archive as it came down to us is incom-
plete, and part of it is missing. Most of the names of important kingdoms in
Palestine are known and their sites identified, but the locations of less im-
portant city-states mentioned in the archive remain unknown. Moreover, the
names of some city-states may be missing from the archive, but can be found
in other Late Bronze sources.

The Egyptian Execration Texts of the late XIIth-early XIIIth Dynasties
mention only kingdoms, each governed by its local ruler(s). Egyptian top-
ographical lists, on the other hand, may not be used uncritically to draw up
the list of kingdoms, because they include city-states and towns situated in
their territories. Some Egyptian historical and administrative texts that refer
either to events in which Canaanite kings participated, or to representatives
of Canaanite rulers who visit the Egyptian court, help to complete the list of
Canaanite kingdoms.

Cuneiform tablets unearthed in Canaanite sites indicate that these places
were the administrative seats, either city-states or Egyptian centers of gov-
ernment. This is particularly true of administrative texts written by profes-
sional scribes for the local authorities. The number of such tablets discovered
so far in Canaan is small, indicating the limited use of writing, except for cor-
respondence with the Pharaoh. This shows the tablets’ importance for the
identification of Canaanite administrative centers.

The Amarna archive covers less than thirty years, from ca. the 30th year of
Amenophis III to Tutankhamun’s third year. How many kings may on the av-
erage have ruled in each place in the course of that quarter of a century? The
Phoenician coast is amply documented, and an analysis of its letters indicates
that the number of kings in each place (with the exception of Achshaph) was
two.5 In two south Canaanite cities, Gezer and Lachish, three successive kings
are known. On the other hand, only one ruler may have ruled in some cities
during the quarter of century of the archive. An average of two kings for each
place may safely be assumed.

Bunimovitz (1989) and Finkelstein (1996) collected all the available
Late Bronze archaeological data relevant for the discussion. It is clear that
the major Late Bronze sites (Finkelstein’s categories C-E) were centers of
Canaanite city-states. However, the number of sites of category C (1.1–5 hect-
ares) far exceeds the maximum possible number of city-states. Finkelstein

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

152 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

(1996: 226) noted that “from the demographical point of view, in order to be
able to execute large-scale building activities, the peer polities each needed
a minimal population of several thousands.” I very much doubt the correct-
ness of this statement. First, what may be true for large territorial king-
doms is not necessarily true for small city-states, which may have encom-
passed no more than a capital and a few villages. Second, unlike the cities of
the Middle Bronze, very few new fortifications were built in the Late Bronze
Age. As noted by Bunimovitz (1994a: 9): “The diminished population in Late
Bronze Age rendered impossible such large-scale building endeavors, and it
is doubtful if the cities could provide enough corvée labourers and craftsmen
to construct massive walls.” Indeed, the extent of public works in Late Bronze
Palestine was quite limited (Hazor is an exception), and some public buildings
were mainly rebuilding and enlargements of Middle Bronze edifices (e.g., the
temples at Shechem and Megiddo; the palace and gate at Megiddo). In light of
the limited scope of public works unearthed in Late Bronze Palestinian sites,
Bunimovitz (1994a) concluded that there was a shortage of manpower at that
time and that control of as much of the human resources as possible was a
major factor in the struggles among Canaanite kingdoms.

Third, territory should not be isolated from other resources of economic
revenues. A kingdom could control a relatively small territory, yet enjoy pros-
perity due to other economic resources and hire foreign workers for public
works. Thus, harbors (e.g., Ashkelon, Acco) or cities located on important
crossroads (e.g., Megiddo) might have controlled relatively small territories,
but profited from their location and used it for hiring manpower for work.

Fourth, the Egyptian Execration Texts (late XIIth-early XIIIth Dynasties)
mention four kingdoms (Acco, Achshaph, Mishal and probably Rehob; see
Kempinski 1986:70–72) that were then located in the Acco Valley. This density
of kingdoms in a relatively small territory shows the danger of making as-
sumptions of the size of territories based on calculated size factor and num-
bers of population for each unit.

Letter EA 249:5–18 sheds interesting light on the problem of manpower in
Palestinian city-states. Ba‘alu-UR.SAG complains before the Pharaoh thus:

May he (the Pharaoh) know that my m[en] are doing service in the day(s) of Mi[lkilu].
What have I done to Milkilu that he should treat my men (even) more unjustly than
his own servants? To Tagi, his father-in-law, he has handed over his own servants, and
what can they do? I am angry (ra-ub?) because I am a loyal servant of the king, and
[how] ([mi-na]-me) can the men serve you? [May] the king [rel]ease me. Who [forced
into servi]ce (ik-šu-u]š-mi) Milkilu and Lab’ayu, so that [ . . . ].6

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

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 153

It seems that the Egyptian authorities had ordered Ba‘alu-UR.SAG to send
his men for corvée. He complained that his men were serving Milkilu, king of
Gezer, replacing the men of Gezer who had been sent to help Tagi, Milkilu’s
father-in-law, and asked to be released from his obligations to Egypt. Thus, it
is evident that allied rulers might help each other, whereas subordinate rul-
ers were sometimes obliged to work for their stronger neighbors.

Many variables played part in the historical growth and development of
Late Bronze Canaanite kingdoms. We know very little about these variables
and should avoid generalizing about the size and population of each king-
dom. The number and scope of kingdoms in each area should be studied in
the light of all the available data (admittedly partial and incomplete), avoid-
ing rigid laws derived from the study of peer-polity systems in other parts of
the world.

Finally, the problem of drawing maps and calculating the areas of king-
doms should be discussed. Maps have the advantage of clarity, greatly simpli-
fying complex pictures. However, when the information of a given political
system is minimal, it is legitimate to ask to what extent a nice-looking map
is based on solid foundations. Such is the case of Palestinian Canaanite king-
doms, where there are very few anchor points for drawing the borders and
where all these points are located in inhabited areas. Demarcating all other
borders rest on uncertain ground. Moreover, the site of several city-states is
unknown, and there is no way to include them in the map.

However, the problem is even more complicated. Let us examine for a mo-
ment the two maps drawn by Finkelstein. The reality of borders that pass
through inhabited areas is clear. They define the territory where kingdoms
imposed taxes, levied soldiers for war and workers for the corvée. But what is
the reality of borders that pass through the sparsely inhabited areas, where
there were no permanent settlements? Large parts of Palestine were gener-
ally unsettled in the Late Bronze Age, including the Upper and Lower Galilee,
the Golan Heights, the central hill country, the Lower Jordan Valley and the
Negeb. Can borders drawn through such areas represent political or economic
reality? It goes without saying that some “invisible” (in the archaeological
sense) population groups lived in these areas. But their relationships with the
authorities of neighboring kingdoms are unknown. There is no evidence ei-
ther that kings effectively dominated these sparsely inhabited areas or that
the kings considered them parts of their kingdoms. On the contrary, the
Amarna letters indicate that all the conflicts between neighboring kingdoms
involved villages and towns. I, therefore, question the validity of maps that di-
vide, without any gaps, the entire area of Canaan and give the impression that
there was a stable network of borders in which each king knew what belonged
to him and what to his neighbors. I also question the significance of calculat-

154 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

ing the kingdoms’ territories on the basis of these artificial borders. It seems
to me that portions of the sparsely inhabited territories were a kind of “no-
man’s land” and should not be considered integral parts of the kingdoms.

When preparing maps of Late Bronze Palestine, I suggest that exact bor-
derlines should be delineated only in the inhabited areas, where the control
over the areas had either economic or military significance. In my opinion,
partly demarcated maps give a more reliable picture of the Late Bronze city-
state system than detailed maps that artificially divide the entire country
into accurately-defined political units.

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in South Palestine

The Amarna letters indicate that the most important kingdoms in south
Palestine were Ashkelon, Lachish, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) Gezer and Jerusalem.
Their rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh and are mentioned in their
neighbors’ letters. The strongest and most influential kingdom in south-
ern Canaan was Gezer, which controlled the international road leading from
north to south and the internal latitudinal routes leading to the hill country.
Other Canaanite kingdoms, whose rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh, but
who are not mentioned by other rulers, are Yurza (EA 314–316), Zuḫra (EA
334), Aḫtiashna (EA 319) and Na?-x-ḫa-x (EA 272). Yurza is sometimes located
at Tell Jemmeh, on Naḥal Besor, the southern border of Canaan. Another pos-
sible site is Tel Haror, on Naḥal Gerar (for recent discussion and literature, see
Finkelstein 1996: 231–232). The location of the other city-states is unknown.
Some large south Palestinian sites, though Finkelstein dismisses their iden-
tification as centers of city-states (e.g., Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton, Khirbet
Rabud7), may perhaps be identified with these city-states.

The location and status of the city of Zilû also needs clarification. ‘Abdi-
Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, wrote to the Pharaoh as follows (EA 288:39–47):

Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain
in the city gate of Zilû. The king did nothing. Behold, Zimredda of Lachish, servants
who became ‘Apiru smote him (ik-kí-ú-šu).8 Yaptiḫ-Hadda was slain in the city gate of
Zilû. The king did nothing. Why has he not called them to account?

7. It is possible that the Canaanite town situated at Khirbet Rabud in the Late Bronze
Age had a different name than the Iron Age town. For the suggestion that Khirbet Rabud
was the site of a small Canaanite city-state in the 14th–13th centuries, see Na’aman 1992.

8. I suggest deriving the verbal form from Canaanite nkh “to smite” (ik-kí-ú-šu = yikke’u-šu).
The verb appears, with exactly the same connotation, in many biblical descriptions that refer
to revolts and the smiting of Israelite and Judean kings.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 155

The death of the three mayors9 is described in letter EA 335:8–18 as fol-
lows (Na’aman 1979:627–28):

May [the kin]g, my lord, be in[formed] that the [. . . are . . .] and Tu[rbazu and] Yaptiḫ-
Hadda are slain, and that he (the rebel) smo[te the ruler? of L]achish (nu-k[i-mi? LÚ?
uruL]a-ki-ši).10 May, the king, my lord, be in[formed] that [the r]ebel has [taken] all my
best men and women. May the king, my lord, be informed that Lachish is h[os]tile and
Mu’rashti has been seized. Also [Jerusal]em? [is hos]tile.

Albright (1924; see Rainey 1978:106; Moran 1992:391) identified uruZi-lu-ú
with the Egyptian town of Silu, located at the border of eastern Delta. According
to his interpretation, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba complains that two Canaanite mayors were
slain on Egyptian soil, but the Pharaoh did nothing to restore order in the land.
However, locating Zilû on Egypt’s eastern border may perhaps fit the text of
EA 288, but is alien to the text of EA 335. What relevance has the slaying of two
Canaanite mayors in far-away Egypt to ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s complaints about re-
bellions and a growing state of insecurity near his borders? The fact that rul-
ers in two different regions connected the death of Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda
with the slaying of Zimredda indicates that Zilû and Lachish are neighboring
towns. Zilû must have been either a small city-state or a border town, where
the two mayors met and were killed.

The town of Mu’rashti was possibly located on ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s border
with Lachish. He complains that after the slaying of Zimredda, the rebel de-
spoiled one of his towns. The statement that “Lachish is hostile (nakirat) and
Mu’rashti has been taken (ṣabtat)” combines the rebellion and despoliation.
A similar structure and identical verbs appear in letter EA 256, where Mut-
Baḫlu reports that seven towns rebelled (nakru) against Ayyab of Ashtaroth,
his northern neighbor, and that two towns (Ḫayunu and Yabilima) had been
seized (ṣabtat). The latter towns must have been located in his territory,
near his northern border with the kingdom of Ashtaroth. Mu’rashti must be
sought near ‘Abdi-‘Ashtarti’s border with Lachish. Assuming that he ruled in
Gath* (see Na’aman 1979: 676–684), Mu’rashti may best be identified at Tell
Burnaṭ, near Naḥal Govrin, where Late Bronze pottery was found (Vargon
1990; Dagan 1992:154).

The seat of several south Canaanite rulers is unknown. In addition to
Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda (one of whom may have ruled Zilû), the list in-

9. That Turbazu and Yaptiḫ-Hadda were mayors is indicated by ‘Abdi-Ḫeba’s words:
“Not a single mayor remains to the king . . . all are lost.”

10. I suggest deriving the verbal form nu-k[i-mi] (line 10) from a D stem of nkh, “to
smite.” For the verbal form, compare EA 283:23 nu-di-ni (“has cast me”). The subject of the
verb (if it is a 3rd per. sg.) is the rebel (arnu) mentioned in line 12. Another possibility is to
restore nu-k[i-ú] and translate “they (the ‘Apiru) smote.”

156 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

The City of Ashdod in the Amarna Letters

The large prosperous Late Bronze city located at Tel Ashdod poses a spe-
cial problem for historical research. No city named Ashdod is mentioned ei-
ther in the Amarna letters or in any other Late Bronze Egyptian source.
Persons and products qualified as “Ashdadite(s)” are mentioned in the
Ugaritic and Akkadian tablets from Ugarit, and scholars have suggested that
they were merchants or goods named after the Canaanite town of Ashdod
(Cross and Freedman 1964; Astour 1970:123–126; 1975:255–258, 342, with ear-
lier literature).

Recently, Arnaud (1992) surveyed all the texts from Ugarit that mention
Canaanite port towns. The number of references to Sidon exceeds, by far, all
other Canaanite cities. It is clear that Sidon conducted extensive commer-
cial relations with Ugarit, far more than any other Canaanite city. Of the
Palestinian cities, only Acco and Ashkelon are mentioned, each one only
twice.12 Arnaud omitted (with no explanation) all the Ugaritic references to
the Ashdadites, suggesting that the city of Ashdod is mentioned once in an
Akkadian text. However, the separation of the Ugaritic from the Akkadian
references to the Ashdadites is unlikely, inter alia because Ashdadite clothes
are mentioned in both Akkadian (PRU VI 156) and Ugaritic (KTU 4.721) texts.
All references to the Ashdadites in Ugarit must be investigated as one group.

The most remarkable of these texts is KTU 4.635. At least 21 of the ex-
tant 62 persons named in this long list of names are called aḏddy (Ashdadite).
The rest are native Ugaritians designated by their residence, occupation, or
service. Astour (1970:125–126) suggested that all these persons were associ-

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

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 157

ated with the city of Ma’ḫadu, the harbor of Ugarit, and possibly lived there.
An analysis of the names of the Ashdadites in this text indicates that most of
them (16 or 17 out of 21) are West Semitic.

A second text (KTU 4.352) lists persons who purchased large quanti-
ties of oil from royal estates. Among them are people from the kingdom of
Ugarit and three foreigners: an Alashiyan, an Egyptian and an Ashdadite. This
last’s personal name is broken. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian and the
Alashiyan are called by West Semitic names.

A third text (KTU 4.96) lists merchants who purchased the produce
of royal estates. Some of them are from places in the kingdom of Ugarit,
and three are foreigners: an Egyptian, a Canaanite and an Ashdadite. The
Egyptian and Canaanite are called by West Semitic names, whereas the name
of the Ashdadite is non-Semitic (Aryn) (Gröndahl 1967:220).

One alphabetical text (KTU 4.721) and a cuneiform text (PRU VI 156)
mention garments of Ashdad. Astour (1970:124) noted that “in ancient Near
Eastern texts, the designation of merchandise by the place of origin almost
invariably points to the latter’s foreign location, and this is also true for
Ugarit.”

Finally, an Ugaritic text (KTU 4.709) records the purchase of “seven tal-
ents of wool according to the talent of Ashdad, and according to the talent of
Ugarit five talents 1800 (shekels).” Liverani (1972) clarified the relationship
between the two weight systems and its significance for the commercial rela-
tionship between Ugarit and Ashdad.

Among the personal names in the texts from Ugarit are mAšdudana and
fAšdada (Astour 1970:124 n. 1; 1975:255–256). It is a well-known phenomenon
that people who live in foreign countries have personal names derived from
gentilics. These names again indicate that people of Ashdadite origin lived in
the kingdom of Ugarit.

Where is the site of the foreign city of Ashdad that maintained such close
contacts with the kingdom of Ugarit? Identifying it with Ashdod, the south
Palestinian city, is unlikely in light of the above-mentioned distribution of
Canaanite cities in the texts from Ugarit. The names of important port towns
located along the Syrian and Lebanese coast in the Late Bronze Age are too
well known to insert another unidentified town. The many West Semitic
names among the Ashdadites preclude its identification with an Anatolian
city. With all due caution, I would suggest identifying Ashdad with the impor-
tant Cypriot port city of Enkomi.

Enkomi is the closest Cypriot harbor to Ugarit; their close relationship, as
indicated by the extensive archaeological excavations conducted on the two
sites, are too well known to require comment. Enkomi’s prosperity reached
its zenith in the 13th century, the time in which the Ashdadites are men-

158 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

tioned in the documents from Ugarit. The remarkable place of the Ashdadites
in the tablets from Ugarit, the different standard of weights and the export of
a special kind of garment — all fit Enkomi very well.

It is not clear whether the high percentage of West Semitic names among
the Ashdadites, as reflected in tablet KTU 4.635, represents either the gen-
eral population of the city or is typical only of the community that lived at
Ma’ḫadu. Either way, provided that the suggested identification of Ashdad
with Enkomi is acceptable, it indicates the migration of people of West
Semitic origin from the coast of Lebanon to Cyprus and the long preservation
of their cultural inheritance. The Late Bronze city of Enkomi may be com-
pared with Iron Age Kition, which for hundreds of years kept its Phoenician
cultural identity and was the main Cypriot port of trade with the Phoenician
cities (particularly Tyre) in the first millennium BCE.

The place name Ashdad is West Semitic. It is derived from the verb ŠDD
and is built according to the ’aqṭāl paradigm, like other second millennium
East Mediterranean harbors (e.g., Arwada, Achshaph, Akhlab, Ashkelon)
(Astour 1975:257).13 This is another indication that people who spoke a West
Semitic language founded the city.

A land called Alashiya is mentioned in various texts from East
Mediterranean second millennium kingdoms (Ḫatti, Mari, Alalakh, Ugarit
and Egypt) (see references in Knapp 1996). Letters sent from Alashiya ap-
pear in the Amarna and Ugarit archives. Alashiya is certainly identical with
Cyprus, all other suggestions being untenable (for discussions and literature,
see Muhly 1972; Catling 1975:197–203; Hellbing 1979; Knapp 1996a). It must
have been a name for a vast territory, most probably for the entire island of
Cyprus. Otherwise, its ruler would not have been considered a great king,
equal in international status to other members of the “club” of great powers.
Indeed, the name Alashiya usually appears with the KUR determinative, i.e.,
as a name for territory.

In a few texts, Alashiya appears with the URU determinative. It is well
known that scribes who worked in the peripheral kingdoms did not con-
sistently distinguish among determinatives, and sometimes used URU, or
KUR.URU, for KUR. An examination of all the references where Alashiya ap-
pears with the URU determinative reveals that no single text refers unequiv-
ocally to a city.14 A town named Alashiya is not borne out by the textual ev-

13. The suggestion of Lemche and Thompson (1994:13) that the name Ashdod is com-
posed of the element dwd is erroneous.

14. See Knapp 1996:4, with earlier literature. For the Mari references, see Sasson 1996;
for the Ugaritic text, see Walls 1996:40. It may be noted that the colophon in KTU 4.102 is

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 159

idence. We may conclude that Alashiya was a name either for the island of
Cyprus, or sometimes for a part of it, and that the claim that a certain city was
called Alashiya is yet to be confirmed.

Finally, there is new, as yet unpublished evidence (based on a petro-
graphic analysis of the Amarna tablets) that Enkomi is not identical with
Alashiya of the Amarna letters (in the meantime, see Artzy, Perlman and
Asaro 1976; Knapp 1996a:6). The new evidence suggests that Enkomi may
have been called by a name other than Alashiya. It fits my suggestion that the
city’s name was Ashdad in the 14th–13th centuries BCE.

What then was the name of the biblical Ashdod in the Late Bronze Age? As
noted above, no Late Bronze Egyptian source mentions Ashdod. Admittedly,
towns located on the Philistine coast rarely appear in Egyptian topographical
lists. Ashdod is mentioned for the first time in the Onomasticon of Amenope
from the reign of Ramesses XI (1099–1070), together with Gaza and Ashkelon.
M. Dothan (1992) suggested that during the New Kingdom, Ashdod was an
Egyptian center and the residence of an Egyptian governor (see Kitchen
1993). This may be true for the time of the XIXth-XXth Dynasties, when
Egypt greatly expanded its territory in Canaan, but is unlikely for the time
of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Moreover, all the Egyptian centers are mentioned in
the Amarna letters, but never Ashdod. Dothan’s suggestion does not solve
the problem.

Is it possible that the Late Bronze city was called by another name?
According to this hypothesis, a group that migrated from Enkomi in the 12th
century and settled in Tel Ashdod named it after their place of origin. I have
already noted that names of some Late Bronze city-states fell into obliv-
ion after the collapse of the system of Canaanite cities in the 12th century;
hence, the locations remain unknown. Moreover, many Canaanite cities that
are mentioned in Late Bronze Egyptian topographical lists are unidentified.
Some cities may have been renamed in late time and their old names fell into
oblivion.

Renaming a place when it has changed ownership is attested amply in the
Bible (Eissfeldt 1968). This must have been a well-known phenomenon, al-
though the scope of renaming is unknown. The assumption that Ashdod was
renamed in the early Iron Age at least has some parallels in other sources.

There is a great danger in drawing conclusions on the basis of lack of evi-
dence (i.e., the non-mention of Ashdod in the Amarna and Egyptian sources).

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

160 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Nevertheless, I believe that a case may be made for the suggestion that Iron
Age Ashdod was called by a different name in the Late Bronze Age.

A certain place called Tianna is mentioned in letters of the rulers of Gezer
(EA 298), Ashkelon (EA 306) and Gath* (EA 284). I have already suggested
(Na’aman 1979: 679–681) that the three letters were written at about the
same time and reflect a situation in which rebellions and disturbances spread
through the south Canaanite kingdoms (for details, see Na’aman 1975:69–72,
102–104, 205–206, 208). The three (unfortunately partly broken) passages in
which Tianna is mentioned run as follows:

(a) EA 298:20–30: “May the king, my lord, be informed that my younger
brother, having become enemy, entered Muḫḫazu and pledged himself to the
‘Apiru. And now [Ti]anna ([uruTi]-an-na[k]i) is at war with me. So govern (milik)
your land.”15

(b) EA 306:28–35: “And may you, my lord, know that they have set fire
to your cities and your places. [And no]w [Tia]nna ([uruTi-a]n-naki) [is at war?
against? you]r? [servant?].”16

(c) EA 284:30–32: “ . . . uruT[i]-i[a-n]a, and n[ow?] he/they at[tac]ked? it (im-
[g]u-[g]u-m[i]-ši).” For the verb magāgu, see Kottsieper 1988.

The three letters indicate that rebellion broke out in the city of Tianna
and spread to neighboring areas and that its outcome endangered the king-
doms of Gezer, Gath* and Ashkelon. Who the rebels were is not related in
the letters. Muḫḫazu is located south of Gezer’s border and was sometimes
identified at Tell es-Sulṭan, near Nebi Rubin (Alt 1925:17; M. Dothan 1952). It
seems to me that Beya, the son of Gulatu, whose misdeeds were the subject of
the bitter complaints of Ba‘lu-shipṭi of Gezer (EA 292:41–52) and of Ṣi-x-ib?-ni
(EA 294:16–26), was the leader of a band of ‘Apiru that stayed at Muḫḫazu.17
The armed band used to capture travelers and release them for a high ransom

15. Rainey’s objection (1989–90:72) to the restoration Tianna lacks concrete foun-
dations. An almost complete ki sign is clearly seen on the tablet (collated). For the verb
malāku in the Amarna letters, see Renger 1988; Zaccagnini 1993.

16. The end of the an sign is clearly seen on the tablet (collated). Rainey’s restoration
(1989–90:72) of a lu sign is erroneous.

17. Albright (1946:19 No 46; 1969:489 n. 22; 1975:104) suggested that Peya was a minor
Egyptian officer and bore an Egyptian name (see Helck 1971:255; Hess 1993:123). However,
the name Beya is known from the texts of Emar, Assyria, Ḫatti (Hess 1993:123), Ugarit
(Gröndahl 1967:305, 330) and Alalakh (AT 199:31). Beya is also the name of a high Egyptian
official of Canaanite origin in the late years of the Egyptian XIXth Dynasty (Freu 1988; de
Moor 1990:136–151). His mother, Gulatu, had a West Semitic name (Hess 1993:68). I very
much doubt the Egyptian origin of his name. Be that as it may, Beya, the son of Gulatu,
must have been a local leader of a band that operated in the southern coast of Canaan in
the Amarna period.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 161

(EA 292:47–51; 294:18–24). In a situation of internal disturbances (Tianna’s
rebellion), the rebellious prince sought the military support of the band of
‘Apiru in an effort to gain power and overthrow the elected king. Indeed,
Yapaḫu reigned for only a short time and was soon replaced by a Ba‘lu-shipṭi,
the author of letters EA 292–293 (Na’aman 1975:69–72).18

There is another source that refers to Tianna, not discussed until now in
scientific literature. In an Egyptian administrative text (Papyrus Petersburg
1116A) of the time of Amenophis II (1427–1401) (Redford 1965), there appear
two lists of “maryannu from Djahi” who received beer and corn from the ad-
ministrative authorities in Memphis (see Helck 1963:623 lines 67–77, 628 lines
183–190; 1971:166; Epstein 1963). The lists of Canaanite towns are almost
identical, although recorded in a different order. The names of the towns that
sent the envoys (designated by the honorary title maryannu) are as follows:
Megiddo, Chinnereth, Achshaph, Šmrn (i.e., Shamḫuna), Taanach, Mishal, Tnn
(Helck: tì-n-ni), Sharuna, Ashkelon, Hazor and “the small one from Htm.”19 An
envoy from Lachish is also mentioned in this text.

Most of the cities enumerated are known to have corresponded with the
Pharaoh in the Amarna period. We may safely assume that each envoy rep-
resented a city-state and was sent to Egypt by his lord (a secondary town
within a city-state would never send envoys to Egypt!). Their mission must
have been either political or ceremonial (i.e., to bring the inw-contributions
for the New Year’s parade), and their expenditures were covered, at least par-
tially, by the Egyptian court.

Where was the Tnn mentioned in the list of city-states? Alt (1916) identi-
fied it with the ti-en-ni mentioned in letter EA 260, and other scholars agreed
(e.g., Epstein 1963:52–53; Ahituv 1984:188). The text of EA 260 (lines 11–16)
runs as follows:

May the Great King take cognizance of his servant, for I reside in É-ti4 ti-en-ni. So may
the Great King, my lord, take cognizance of his servant.

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

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

19. The statement referring to “the small one” is not clear. Helck (1971:166 n. 135) won-
dered if it had to do with the succession to the throne.

162 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

cept for Sharuna that is probably located in Bashan (see EA 241;20 Edel 1966:
13–14). Identifying the Tnn of the Egyptian text with the assumed toponym
mentioned in EA 260 expands the geographical scope of the list considerably.
Moreover, the reading Bit-tenni in letter EA 260 (as suggested by Moran 1992:
311) is not free of doubts. First, there is no URU sign before the assumed place
name. Second, the element bīt (“house of ”) is quite rare in second millen-
nium Syrian toponyms (for example, it does not appear among the toponyms
from Ugarit). Third, a toponym does not fit well the context of the passage, in
which the author (Balu-Mer) relates how dangerous his situation is.

Note, too, the similarity between the words in lines 13–14 and those of
‘Abdi-Ashirta’s letter:

EA 260:13–14: ù a-na-ku a-na É-tì ti-en-ni ú-ša-ab

EA 62: 17–18: šum-ma i-na a-šar É ni-iḫ aš-ba-ku (“Had I been staying in a place/house
which was calm”).

In light of the comparison, it would seem that the author of letter EA 260
made use of a descriptive expression (”For I reside in a . . . house/place”).
Akkadian tēnû means “substitute” (AHW 1347a) and is construed with bītu.
Did Balu-Mer compare his place to an adjoining house, not an integral part of
the main house where everyone else stayed? Or did he use a loan word to de-
scribe his place (compare EA 294:22 bīti šunūti)?

The identification of the Tnn of the Papyrus Petersburg with the city of
Tianna mentioned in the three Amarna letters is not fraught with difficulties.
Tianna is located near the borders of Gezer, Gath* and Ashkelon, and placing
it at Tel Ashdod, in between the three kingdoms, fits very well. With all due
caution, I suggest that Tianna was a south Canaanite city-state located in Tel
Ashdod. Muḫḫazu must have been a border town of Tianna, situated near its
northern border with the kingdom of Gezer.

Of the several south Canaanite rulers whose seat is unknown, Yaḫtiru,
who “guards the city gate of Gaza and the city gate of Joppa” (EA 296:31–33),
may have ruled Tianna (Tel Ashdod). Another candidate ruler for Tianna is Ṣi-
x-ib?-ni, the author of letter EA 294. This ruler complains that Beya, possibly
the leader of a band that stayed in Muḫḫazu (see above), captured the men
that he sent for service in Joppa. Placing his city south of Muḫḫazu, and as-

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

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 163

suming that his men were captured when they were on their way north to
Joppa, fits nicely with Tianna’s assumed location.

Tel Ashdod was destroyed in the early 12th century BCE, and among the
early settlers on the site there may have been people from Ashdad (Enkomi),
who renamed it after their town of origin.

I am fully aware of the uncertainty entailed in the two parts of my sug-
gestion, the identification of the city of Ashdad at Enkomi, and in particular
the identification of Tianna at Tel Ashdod. However, I believe that the argu-
ments given above are strong enough to encourage other scholars to enter
the discussion and either agree (at least partially) or suggest other solutions
for these complicated textual-archaeological problems.

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in North Palestine

The Amarna letters indicate that Shechem was the strongest kingdom
in central Palestine, whereas Megiddo, Acco, Achshaph and Hazor were the
most important kingdoms in the north. Their rulers corresponded with the
Pharaoh and are mentioned also in letters of their neighbors. Hazor was the
most important kingdom in Canaan, although its prominence is not enough
indicated by the Amarna letters. Other kingdoms that are mentioned in the
Amarna tablets are Gath-padalla, Gath-kirmil, Taanach, [x-I]G-ma-te (EA
257),21 and Shamḫuna.22

Establishing the number of city-states in north Palestine is more compli-
cated than in the south, as each ruler sent only a few letters, and many rul-
ers did not mention their city. Moreover, in several letters we cannot even
decide whether they were sent from northern Palestine, or from areas north/
northeast of it.

Among the possible north Palestinian rulers whose seat is unknown are
Dashru (EA 261–262), Bayadi (EA 237–238), Baduzana (EA 239), ‘Abdina (EA
229), Shipturiṣa (EA 226), Y/Wiktasu (EA 221–222), Aḫi-y[a . . .] (EA 217),23 and
Bayawa (EA 215–216).

21. Rainey’s suggestion (1989:570–571; 1989–1990:70) to transcribe [uruKIN-t]i ma-gal in
line 21 must be rejected on paleographic grounds. Both Knudtzon’s transcription and the
facsimile of Schroeder are at variance with his proposed text alterations.

22. There is no indication in the Amarna correspondence that Shamḫuna was an im-
portant Canaanite city. The city and its rulers are mentioned only in Shum-Adda’s let-
ters, in reference to the plundering of a Babylonian caravan (EA 8). The city and its ruler
are not mentioned even in the episode of Lab’ayu’s slaying, that probably took place in
Shamḫuna’s territory. The relative small size of Tel Shimron in the Late Bronze Age (see
Portugali 1982:185–187) accords well with the evidence of the Amarna tablets.

23. For West Semitic parallels to the name Aḫi-ya . . . (“The divine brother is . . . ”), see
Zadok 1977: 355b.

164 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Another ruler may possibly be mentioned in letter EA 238. Bayadi, the
author of letters EA 237–238, was an ally of Lab’ayu, king of Shechem, and
he complained that after his enemies (whose names are broken) captured
Lab’ayu, they attacked and conquered his towns. The passage EA 238:21–28 is
partly broken, but may tentatively be restored thus:

[They] hav[e attacked? Lab’ayu?] and the son of Ḫ[a]g[urru? (xxx)] and Ḫagurru (xx)],
and they have captured [Lab’ayu] and attacked m[e]. They have captured the cities of
the magnate, my lord.24

Ḫagurru, Lab’ayu’s ally, is another mayor whose seat is unknown.
Finkelstein questioned the status of Taanach as an independent city-state
in the Amarna letters. However, the archive of 13 cuneiform tablets discov-
ered on the site leaves no doubt that Taanach was a city-state in the late 15th
century. Its ruler (Rewashur) received letters from both neighboring kings
and from an Egyptian officer stationed at Gaza. The palace management
was administered partly in the Akkadian language. A messenger of Taanach
is mentioned in Papyrus Petersburg 1116A among the other Canaanite en-
voys. Excavations conducted on the site indicate that it was sparsely inhab-
ited in Late Bronze II (Glock 1993:1432). However, according to letter EA 248,
Taanach (Taḫn[ak]a) was the seat of an independent ruler (Yashdata), who
participated, with other rulers, in the pursuit after Lab’ayu (EA 245:11–18).
There can be no doubt that Taanach’s status as independent city-state was
maintained in spite of its (gradual?) downfall.
Maintaining the status of a city-state in spite of drastic downfall is il-
lustrated by the example of Ekron in the first millennium. During the early
Iron Age, Ekron was a large fortified city covering about 50 acres (Gitin and
Dothan 1987; T. Dothan 1989; Gitin 1989). Following its destruction in the
tenth century BCE, the city shrank, lost its fortifications, and covered only
the site’s summit. It was smaller and weaker than many fortified cities of
the neighboring kingdoms. Yet, Ekron remained a city-state, as indicated by
Amos 1:8 and by the recently discovered dedication inscription, which men-
tions the five ancestors of its early seventh century BCE ruler (Gitin, Dothan
and Naveh 1997). The prestigious status of Ekron in the early Iron Age did not
vanish even after the city’s utter decline.

24. The restoration of lines 21–22 is ad sensum. The restoration of line 25 is supported
by the text of EA 237. In line 23, Moran (1992) restored DUMU ms[à]-t[a-at-na]. However,
Surata, the father of Satatna, participated in the operation against Lab’ayu (EA 245), and
Satatna ascended the throne after Lab’ayu’s death. Moreover, Acco was an enemy, not an
ally, of Lab’ayu. I, therefore, restore in line 23 DUMU mḫ[a]-gu[r-ru (xxx)]. Like many princes
who participated in operations during their father’s reign, Ḫagurru’s son took part in the
operation side by side with his father.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 165

Other city-states, not mentioned in the Amarna archive, are attested in
Egyptian royal inscriptions. Amenophis II, in his campaign to Canaan, relates
that on his return he brought with him Qaqa, the prince (wr) of Geba‘-śmn,
and appointed another ruler (wr) in his place (Edel 1953:123 lines 116–118,
135, 157; Wilson 1969:247). Two towns named Geba‘ appear in the topo-
graphical list of Thutmose III. The second Geba‘ (No. 114) is mentioned after
Jokneam (No. 113), and is safely identified at Tell Abu Shusheh (Schmitt 1987:
23–41, with earlier literature). The first Geba‘ (No. 41) is written Geba‘-śmn
and is identical with the city-state mentioned by Amenophis II. The city ap-
pears in the group Mishal (39), Achshaph (40), Geba‘-śmn (41), Taanach (42)
and Yibleam (43). It is apparently located in the western or southern Jezreel
Valley and was identified with Tell el-‘Amr or Tell Harbaj (Rainey 1973:74–75;
Schmitt 1987:42–48, with earlier literature). Regardless of its exact location,
Geba‘-śmn was doubtless a Canaanite city-state.

Amenophis II further relates that he plundered the city of Anaharath and
enumerates the booty he took from the place (Edel 1953: 123 lines 112–115, 134–
135, 157; Wilson 1969:247). Enumerating in the booty list are six sons of rulers
(wrw), 17 maryannu, seven horses and seven chariots. It is unlikely that princes,
a military elite and chariots would have been captured in a secondary town. It is
clear that Anaharath was also a north Palestinian city-state. It is identified at Tel
Rekhesh, dominating the basalt plateaus of the eastern Lower Galilee.

The cities of Mishal and Chinnereth appear in the list of envoys who
traveled to Egypt on an official mission in the time of Amenophis II.
Chinnereth is identified at Khirbet el-‘Oreimeh, and a Late Bronze I settle-
ment has been found in the recently conducted excavations of the site (Fritz
1993:211–212). A scarab of Tiye, consort of Amenophis III, was discovered
there (Hübner 1986:258–259, 264), indicating that Chinnereth was still set-
tled in the first half of the 14th century. Like Taanach, it might have been
an independent city-state until its abandonment in the second half of the
14th century BCE.

Mishal was already a city-state in the Middle Bronze Age, as indicated by
its mention in the Execration Texts (Posener 1940:71–72). The city must have
kept its political status in the Late Bronze Age. It is located, possibly, in one of
the mounds of the Acco plain (Tell Kisan? Tell en-Naḥl?).

The city of Rehob is not mentioned in the Amarna letters, but was doubt-
less a city-state, as indicated by Seti I’s inscription from Beth-shean. In de-
scribing the rebellion initiated by the leader of Hamath, the Egyptian king
noted that “he does not permit the prince (wr) of Rehob to go outside”
(Wilson 1969:253). Rehob is also mentioned in a letter from Taanach (TT 2:22)
and is safely identified at the large mound of Tell eṣ-Ṣarem. It was the major
Canaanite city in the Beth-shean Valley. The case of Rehob shows how erro-

166 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

neous is the assumption that all the major Canaanite city-states are men-
tioned in the extant Amarna archive.

Finally, there are some sites that might have been seats of local rulers,
even though their names are missing from the Amarna letters. We may note
Tel Dor, which, in the first millennium, was always an independent district
(see Na’aman 1986b:184–186), Tel Jokneam and Tel Qarnei-Ḥiṭṭin.

The Amarna letters tell us very little about the scope of the north
Palestinian kingdoms. The clearest example is letter EA 250, in which Ba‘lu-
UR.SAG relates that Lab’ayu attacked Shunem, Burquna and Ḫarabu, seized
Gath-rimmunima and “cultivated the fields? of the king” (lines 41–47).
Burquna and Ḫarabu are identified in the Dothan Valley (see locations and
literature in Finkelstein 1996: 236). Hence, the entire Dothan Valley, or a con-
siderable part of it, was situated outside Lab’ayu’s kingdom (Na’aman 1975:
45; Bunimovitz 1989:142). The Dothan Valley may have been the seat of a local
king, who naturally was a vassal of the strong king of Shechem.

The territory of Beth-shean must have included the Pharaonic lands in
the Jezreel Valley (Na’aman 1988d). Finkelstein suggested that “Egyptian
centers did not possess large territories beyond their immediate surround-
ings,” and that “the local population was considered to be under the jurisdic-
tion of the nearest Canaanite city-state.” The latter statement is implausible,
because this would have allowed neighboring rulers freedom to intervene in
the internal affairs of the Egyptian centers. Moreover, in one of his letters (EA
102:22–24), Rib-Hadda describes the local authorities of Ṣumur as made of “a
magnate (lúrabû) and the lords of the city (amēlūti bēle āli).” In Canaanite city-
states, the lords of the city were the urban institution that represented the
citizens before the king. In the Egyptian centers, these lords represented the
citizens before the local Egyptian authorities. In another letter (EA 62), ‘Abdi-
Ashirta reports that he guards the Egyptian centers of Ṣumur and Ullasa, and
adds: “I also guard the barley harvest of Ṣumur and of all the lands of the
king” (lines 26–28). Like all other Canaanite cities, Ṣumur had tracts of ara-
ble land in its vicinity. Each Egyptian center was no doubt a territorial unit
encompassing enough territory for the maintenance of the local population.
Finkelstein’s maps, in which all Egyptian centers were included within the
territory of the nearby Canaanite cities, are evidently wrong.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the following five points:
1. In order to reconstruct territorial-political systems, it is necessary to
apply theoretical models and to take into account the geographical features
and archaeological data (i.e., settlement size and distribution, demography),
as well as the long-range perspectives. We may also apply a size factor for
the polity system and draw schematic boundaries between territories. Such

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 167

reconstruction works very well for illiterate societies, where there is no al-
ternative but to extract the data from non-documentary evidence. However,
scholars should never forget that reality may have been largely, or even en-
tirely, unlike the results of theoretical models, no matter how logical they
seem, because human activities do not follow any particular model. The de-
velopment of territorial-political systems involves many factors, and no
human mind is able to reconstruct them, unless detailed written sources
are available.

When documentary evidence is available, it must be taken into account
as a point of departure for the territorial discussion. The main problem with
Finkelstein’s reconstruction is his effort to force the evidence into a rigid
scheme that he made on the basis of theoretical considerations. He some-
times ignored unequivocal evidence that did not fit into his preconceived
territorial scheme and interpreted all other evidence in an effort to fit it into
his model. His maps, in which 13–14 relatively large kingdoms divide the en-
tire territory of Palestine, neither do justice to the complexity of the system
of Canaanite city-states and Egyptian centers, nor take into account the large
uninhabited parts of the country, which were not effectively controlled by
neighboring kingdoms.

2. The major Canaanite kingdoms along the coast of Palestine were Acco
and Ashkelon. Gezer, Gath* and Lachish were the most important kingdoms
in southern Palestine. Shechem was the major kingdom in the central hill
country, and Hazor dominated the area of Galilee. Megiddo and possibly
Rehob and Achshaph were the major city-states in the northern plains. Many
other kingdoms are attested as well, some of which cannot be located. In the
south were Yurza, Aḫtiashna, Zuḫra, Na-x-ḫa-x, and, possibly, Tianna and
Zilû. In central Palestine were Gath-padalla and, possibly, Gath-kirmil. In the
north were Taanach, Geba‘-śmn, Mishal, Shamḫuna, [x-I]G-ma-te, Anaharath
and, possibly, Chinnereth. Sites like Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton, Khirbet Rabud,
Dor, Tel Jokneam and Tel Qarnei Ḥiṭṭin may have been the seats of city-state
rulers. It is possible, of course, that some of the mayors whose seats are un-
known ruled in these places or that some cities were called by old names
whose identity remains unknown.

3. The overall number of city-states in Palestine was at least 25, proba-
bly more. The network of Canaanite kingdoms was composed of kingdoms of
higher and lesser rank. To a certain extent, the political affairs were dictated
by the major kingdoms, and some of the lesser city-states were dependent on
their stronger neighbors. The latter were able to dictate policy and intervene
in internal affairs. However, we must not forget that Egypt governed Canaan
and that real power was in the hand of the Egyptians. Egypt intervened when
internal developments endangered its interests, curbing and restraining the

168 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

power of ambitious rulers and, thereby, helping to maintain the delicate in-
ternal balance in its Asiatic province.

4. Only some internal borders — namely, those that passed through in-
habited areas — should be precisely demarcated. Remarkable features in the
settlement pattern of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age are the westward ad-
vance of the frontier (see Bunimovitz 1994b) and the growth of large un-
inhabited areas in the highlands, the Lower Jordan Valley and the Negeb.
Drawing a map that divides the entire land among territorial entities blurs
the territorial reality of the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, we should avoid
drawing boundary lines in unsettled areas. I would also suggest avoiding
exact calculations of the areas of kingdoms, unless located in inhabited re-
gions. Demographic calculations of vast areas can be made on the basis of the
number and size of settlements, but these calculations are highly uncertain
when applied to the assumed areas of individual kingdoms.

Ironically, it is easier to draw maps and make calculations for periods for
which there is no written evidence than for partly documented periods. For
the former, the selected model and the theoretical assumptions dictate the
results, to a certain extent. For the latter, there is no alternative but to work
with all the data and live with uncertainty. Better uncertainty and blanks that
may be filled by future discoveries than theories and models that produce
neat, but scientifically inaccurate, pictures.

5. Bunimovitz (1994) discussed in great detail the problem of human re-
sources in second millennium Canaan. He emphasized that the diminished
population in the Late Bronze Age rendered impossible such large-scale
building endeavors as the earth- and stoneworks constructed in the Middle
Bronze Age. The large number of Palestinian city-states and their relative
small size further aggravated the problem of manpower. It must have been
difficult for the small-scale kingdoms to mobilize enough people for public
works. Their size and the shortage of manpower may partly explain the rel-
ative poverty of important Canaanite centers during in the Late Bronze II,
as indicated in the archaeological excavations (e.g., Shechem, Jerusalem,25
Lachish, Gezer, Chinnereth and Taanach).

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

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

References

Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris.
Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.
AHW = von Soden, W. 1956–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Albright, W.F. 1924. The Town of Selle (Zaru) in the ‘Amarna Tablets. JEA 10: 6–8.
Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography. JNES 5: 7–25.
Albright, W.F. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490.
Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/

2. Cambridge: 98–116.
Alt, A. 1916. Tenni. ZDPV 39: 264–265.
Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. Reprint:

Alt 1959: 158–175).
Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58.
Alt, A. 1927. Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buch Josua. In: Albright, W.F. et al. eds.

Sellin Festschrift: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas. Leipzig: 13–
24. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 193–202).
Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Palästinas. PJb 32: 3–33.
Alt, A. 1939. Erwägungen über die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. PJb 35: 8–63.
(Reprint: Alt 1953a: 126–175).
Alt, A. 1941. Herren und Herrensitze Palästinas im Anfang des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.
ZDPV 64: 21–39. (Reprint: Alt 1959: 57–71).
Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 1–
20. (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 216–230).
Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im
syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt 1959: 107–140).
Alt, A. 1953. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. In: Alt 1953a: 89–125. (Original
publication: 1925. Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig).
Alt, A. 1953a. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München.
Alt, A. 1954. Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches nach
Palästina. ZDPV 70: 33–75.
Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München.
Arnaud, D. 1992. Les ports de la “Phénicie” à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV-XIII siècles)
d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30: 179–194.
Artzi, P. 1968. Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318). JNES 27: 163–
171.
Artzy, M. Perlman, I and Asaro, F. 1976. Alašiya of the Amarna Letters. JNES 35: 171–182.
Astour, M. 1970. Ma’ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 13: 113–127.
Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II. (Analecta
Orientalia 50). Rome: 249–369.
AT = Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.
Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural
Change in a Complex Society. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Bunimovitz, S. 1994a. The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze and its Socio-
Economic Implications. UF 26: 1–20.

170 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Bunimovitz, S. 1994b. Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the
Late Bronze-Iron I Transition. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to
Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 179–202.

Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Catling, H.W. 1975. Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2.

Cambridge: 188–216.
Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78.
Cross, F.M. and Freedman, D.N. 1964. The name of Ashdod. BASOR 175: 42–47.
Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological

Excavations and Survey. (MA Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Dhorme, E. 1908. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 5: 500–519.
Dhorme, E. 1909. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 6: 50–73, 368–385.
Dothan, M. 1952. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Rubin River. IEJ 2: 104–117.
Dothan, M. 1992. Why was Ashdod not Mentioned in the New Kingdom Sources. Eretz Israel

23: 51–54. (Hebrew).
Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age

Canaan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age
Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 1–14.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.
(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Edel, E. 1953. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem Bericht über die
asiatischen Feldzüge des Königs. ZDPV 69: 97–176.
Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn.
Eissfeldt, O. 1968. Renaming in the Old Testament. In: Ackroyd, P.R. and Lindars, B. eds.
Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to D. Winton Thomas. Cambridge: 69–79.
Epstein, C. 1963. A New Appraisal of some Lines from a Long-Known Papyrus. JEA 49: 49–
56.
Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the
Second Millennium B.C.E. In: A. Biran and J. Aviram. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990,
Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement (Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990). Jerusalem: 119–131.
Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.
Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 221–255.
Freu, J. 1988. La tablette RS 86.2230 et la phase finale du royaume d’Ugarit. Syria 85: 395–
398.
Fritz, V. 1993. Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-‘Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot) 1982–1985 Seasons. Tel
Aviv 20: 187–215.
Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-II. Oxford.
Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II
Period. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age
Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 23–58.
Gitin, S. and Dothan, T. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. Biblical
Archaeologist 50: 197–222.
Gitin, S. Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47:
1–16.
Glock, A.E. 1993. Taanach. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land IV.
Jerusalem: 1428–1433.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome.
Helck, W. 1963. Materialen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches IV. Wiesbaden.

The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 171

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

Hellbing, L. 1979. Alasia Problems. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57). Göteborg.
Hess, R.S. 1993. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake.
Hübner, U. 1986. Aegyptiaca vom Tell el-‘Orēme. Liber Annus 36: 253–264.
Jirku, A. 1937. Die ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift

und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig.
Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and

Leiden.
Kempinski, A. 1986. Kabri and its Environment in the Middle Bronze II. In: Yadaya, M. ed.

The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 66–72. (Hebrew).
Kitchen, K.A. 1993. A “Funbearer on the King’s Right Hand” from Ashdod. Ashdod V.

Excavation of Area G. (‘Atiqot 23). Jerusalem: 109–110.
Knapp, A.B. ed. 1996. Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC.

(Sources for the History of Cyprus II). Albany.
Knapp, A.B. 1996a. Introduction. In: Knapp 1996: 1–13.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Kottsieper, I. 1988. MGG – “Krieg führen, kämpfen.” Eine bisher übersehne

nordwestsemitische Wurzel. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 125–133.
KTU = Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit.

(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of

Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 3–22.
Liverani, M. 1972. Il talento di Ashdod. Oriens Antiquus 11: 193–199.
Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in

Southern Syria. BASOR 234: 1–42.
De Moor, J.C. 1990. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. (Bibliotheca

Ephemeridium Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91). Leuven.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Muhly, J.D. 1972. The Land of Alashiya. References to Alashiya in the Texts of the Second

Millennium BC and the History of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In: Karageorghis, V.
ed. Acts of the First International Cyprological Congress. Nicosia: 201–219.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According
to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. Ugarit-
Forschungen 11: 673–684.
Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–
185.
Na’aman, N. 1982. Political History of Eretz Israel in the Time of the XIXth and XXth
Dynasties. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. The Early Periods. Jerusalem: 129–
256. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1986a. The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances
of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463–488. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical
Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem.
Na’aman, N. 1988a. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets. Proceedings of
the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions Biblical Studies and Ancient Near
East. Jerusalem: 17–26.

172 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Na’aman, N. 1988b. The Southern Shephelah during the Late Bronze Age according to
the Cuneiform Documents. In: Stern, E. and Urman, D. eds. Man and Environment in the
Southern Shephelah. Beer-sheba: 93–98. (Hebrew).

Na’aman, N. 1988c. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters.
Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193.

Na’aman, N. 1988d. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In:
Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–
1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–186.

Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to
Canaan. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering Over Words.
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: 397–405.

Na’aman, N. 1992. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the
Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291.

Noth, M. 1935. Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.
ZDPV 58: 185–255. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde
I. Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: 229–280).

Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7).
Tübingen.

Portugali, Y. 1982. A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Jezreel Valley
Survey, 1981). Tel Aviv 9: 170–188.

Posener, G. 1940. Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles.
PRU VI = Nougayrol, J. 1970. Le palais royal d’Ugarit VI. (Mission de Ras Shamra 12). Paris.
Rainey, A.F. 1973. Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi. The Journal of the American Research

Center in Egypt 10: 71–75.
Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets: 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon Die El-Amarna Tablets.

2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Rainey, A.F. 1989. Review of W.L. Moran, Les lettres d’El-Amarna. Correspondence

diplomatique du pharaon, Paris 1987. Biblica 70: 566–572.
Rainey A.F. 1989–90. A New Translation of the Amarna Letters – after 100 Years. AfO 36–

37: 56–75.
Redford, D.B. 1965. The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II. JEA 51: 107–122.
Renger, J. 1988. Zur Wurzel MLK in akkadischen Texten aus Syrien und Palästina. In: Archi,

A. ed. Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving. Rome: 165–172.
Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis IV. OLZ 42: 145–148.
Schmitt, G. 1987. Geba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103: 22–48.
Sasson, J.M. 1996. Akkadian Documents from Mari and Babylonia (Old Babylonian Period).

In: Knapp 1996: 17–19.
TT = Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften

der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4).
Vienna: 113–122.
Vargon, S. 1990. El-Amarna Mu’rast and Biblical Moreshet. In: Klein, J. and Skaist, A. eds.
Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology. Ramat Gan: 205–212.
Walls, N. 1996. Ugaritic Documents from Ugarit. In: Knapp 1996: 36–40.
Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264.
Zaccagnini, C. 1993. Notes on the Pazarcik Stela. State Archives of Assyria, Bulletin 7: 53–72.
Zadok, R. 1977. West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. An
Onomastic Study. Jerusalem.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country
Neighbors in the Second Millennium BCE1

Introduction

The boundaries of the kingdom of Jerusalem and its northern and south-
ern neighbors in the second millennium BCE have been discussed by only
a few scholars. This is hardly surprising, as detailed territorial discussions
are dependent on written sources as well as reliable archaeological data.
However, for the history of the hill country of Judah and Benjamin in the sec-
ond millennium BCE, there is only one source — the Amarna archive — that
covers about a quarter of a century and is too incomplete for the delinea-
tion of a border system. Detailed archaeological data of the distribution of
settlements in the highlands of Judah was first published in the early 1970s
(Kochavi 1972), and much more data on the territory of Benjamin, the area
of Jerusalem, and the Judean hill country have recently been published in
preliminary reports and summary discussions (e.g., Mazar 1990; Ofer 1990;
see Finkelstein and Magen 1993). The new data, which were not available to
scholars in the past, can now be evaluated to obtain a better picture of the
border system of the central hill country in the second millennium BCE.

Alt (1925:5–6, 12–13; 1953:107–108) suggested that Late Bronze Jerusalem
was a small hill-country kingdom, about the same size as many other
Shephelah and northern plain kingdoms. He reached this conclusion by an
analysis of the Amarna letters and, to a certain extent, of later developments
in the area in the pre-monarchial and monarchial periods. Kallai and Tadmor
(1969:143–145), on the other hand, suggested that the boundaries of Jerusalem
encompassed the entire Judean hills and that the ruler of Jerusalem was one of
the important Canaanite kings of the Amarna period. They compared the sta-
tus of Jerusalem’s ruler to that of the rulers of Shechem who dominated an ex-
tensive territory and who extended their political influence on remote territo-
ries. Their conclusions are founded on an analysis of the Amarna letters and on
the biblical description of the king of Jerusalem as head of the Canaanite league
that fought Joshua near Gibeon (Josh. 10). I have suggested that Alt’s analysis

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992), 257–291.

173

174 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

is better founded and that the combination of the source material with the re-
sults of the archaeological surveys (not yet published when Kallai and Tadmor
wrote their article) indicates that the territory of the kingdom of Jerusalem in
the Late Bronze Age was fairly modest and the political influence of its king
quite restricted (Na’aman 1975:104–114; 1986a:470–472; 1988:19–20). Recently,
Finkelstein (1993:122–123) supported Kallai and Tadmor, suggesting that in
the second millennium BCE, Jerusalem dominated the entire area between the
Beer-sheba Valley in the south and Bethel in the north.

My discussion will start with an analysis of the Amarna letters, our main
written source for the problem. Subsequently, I will analyze the archaeolog-
ical and documentary evidence of the second millennium BCE, and, finally, I
will present data concerning the political and administrative relationship of
Jerusalem with the southern Judean hill country in various historical periods.
It seems to me that the new archaeological data, when combined with the
documentary evidence and the analysis of the “longue durée,” may enable us
to reach a definite conclusion about the place of Canaanite Jerusalem within
the system of Canaanite kingdoms in the second millennium BCE.

1. An Analysis of the Amarna Letters

The six letters sent from the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh (EA 285–
290) are our main source for Jerusalem in the Amarna period. Numerous let-
ters sent to Egypt by the rulers of Gezer, Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi)2 and others shed
further light on the scope and political relationship of the king of Jerusalem
vis à vis his western neighbors in the Shephelah.

Although the Amarna archive covers only about a quarter of a century, it
accurately reflects various aspects that either did not change at all for hun-
dreds of years or were transformed slowly in the course of time, i.e., the rel-
ative political and economic strength of the city-states, their scope, the
Egyptian system of garrison cities and administration, the relationship be-
tween the Canaanite rulers and the Egyptian Pharaoh, etc. Hence, the archive
is essential for establishing the position, strength and territorial scope of the
kingdom of Jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age.

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

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 175

For my discussion, it is important to note that the Amarna archive is
a unique collection. It includes letters brought from the previous capital,
Thebes, to the new capital, Akhetaten (Amarna), at the time when the royal
court moved there, but lacks those letters taken from Akhetaten at the time
of its abandonment. The latter letters were apparently written at a relatively
late stage and were taken for further correspondence to the new seat of the
Pharaoh (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:35–36; Na’aman 1981:173–174). The
number of letters transferred in both cases is unknown, and we do not know
how many tablets were totally destroyed when the archive was discovered
and before the importance of the tablets was recognized (Knudtzon 1915:1–
15; Campbell 1964:32–35). An illuminating example of the incomplete nature
of the archive is the four Amarna tablets that comprise the second of origi-
nally two-tablet letter (EA 101, 113, 245, 251): In no case was the first tablet
found! It is evident that only a portion of the original Amarna archive came
down to us, and this must be taken into account in the historical discussion.

The Amarna letters reflect well the balance of powers within the land of
Canaan and the system of Canaanite kingdoms. Yet, the list of Canaanite city-
states isrepresented only partially. Not only is the archive incomplete, but the
seat of various rulers remains unknown. In southern Canaan alone, the seats
of Shubandu (EA 301–306), Yaḫzib-Adda (EA 275–276) and Ḫiziru (EA 336–337)
are unknown, and the locations of the city-states of Zuḫra (EA 334), Aḫtiashna
(EA 319) and possibly also Zilu (EA 288, 335) are yet to be found. Moreover, nu-
merous kingdoms mentioned in the Egyptian royal inscriptions (e.g., Rehob
in the Beth-shean Valley, Anaharath in southern Lower Galilee and Geba‘-śmn
in the Jezreel Valley [see Rainey 1973:74–75]) are absent from the archive.
However, one should be cautious in drawing conclusions on the basis of neg-
ative evidence. The unique composition of the archive and its polemical-ten-
dentious character require a careful and well-balanced discussion to properly
extract information from the letters.

The most important city-states located in the Shephelah were Gezer,
Gath* (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) and Lachish, the kingdom of Jerusalem having a common
border with the first two kingdoms. The town of Keilah, located on the bor-
der of Gath* and Jerusalem, was apparently a former subject of Gath*. This
is indicated by the continuity of letters EA 279 and 280. EA 279:11–13: “Shall
I move (and) advance to the town of Keilah, against the re[bels]?” (for the
translation, see Moran 1987:501). EA 280:9–15: “The king, my lord, sent me to
make war against Keilah. I have made war; everything is all right with me; my
town has been returned to me.” In the Amarna period, the sons of Keilah took
advantage of the struggles of neighboring kingdoms to maneuver and gain
independence. Jerusalem’s border passed northeast of Keilah, somewhere on
the margins of the Judean hill country.

176 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Two other towns, Aijalon and Zorah, located near the western margins of
the hill country, were included in the territory of Gezer (EA 273). Manḫatu
(EA 292:26–40) was likewise a town of the kingdom of Gezer; its exact location
remains unknown (Albright 1942:36, n. 29; Kallai and Tadmor 1969:143). The
kingdom of Gezer’s eastern border passed near the foothills and Jerusalem
was its eastern neighbor.

The location of Rubutu is disputed among scholars (see Aharoni 1969:
137–141; Ahituv 1984:165–167, with earlier literature). ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, king of
Jerusalem, complains that his adversaries (the king of Gezer and his allies, the
rulers of Ginti-kirmil and Gath*) conquered Rubutu (EA 289:11–13; 290:11–15;
possibly also EA 287:4–11), but he does not state that Rubutu was one of his
towns. This is not accidental: In his letters ‘Abdi-Ḫeba keeps complaining of
“misdeeds” in places located outside — sometimes even far away — from his
borders (e.g., Zilu, Lachish, Beth-shean).

Rubutu is mentioned neither in the town list of Solomon’s second dis-
trict (1 Kgs. 4:9) nor the inheritance of Dan (Josh. 19:40–46) and must have
been located outside of these areas. It is mentioned in Shishak’s topograph-
ical list, which may be reconstructed thus: (11) Ge[zer]; (12) Ma[. . .?]; (13)
Rubutu; (26) Aijalon; (25) Gittaim; (24) Beth-horon (for the reconstruction,
see Kitchen 1973:435; Na’aman 1992:79–80, with earlier literature in notes 8–
10). This group of toponyms opens the list of conquered towns. All were lo-
cated within the territory of Israel, north of the border of Judah, near the
main road leading from the northern Shephelah to the ascent of Beth-horon
(Na’aman 1986b:6–7; 1992:81). It is clear that Rubutu should be sought on the
northern or northeastern border of the kingdom of Gezer. Like Keilah it must
have been a semi-independent town under the patronage of Gezer, the stron-
gest kingdom in the area, and for unknown reasons (did a group of ‘Apiru
find shelter in the town?) was conquered at that time by the king of Gezer
and his allies.

According to EA 290:14–18: “a town of Jerusalem, Bit-dNIN.URTA is its
name . . . has deserted after/with the men of Keilah.” The identity of the
Canaanite god whose name was written by the ideogram dNIN.URTA is dis-
puted among scholars, and various identifications with sites located in the
area of Jerusalem (e.g., Bethlehem, Beth-shemesh, Beth-horon etc.) have been
offered (see Kallai and Tadmor 1969:138–141, with earlier literature; Lipiński
1985:101). However, none of the suggested decipherments of the name of the
Canaanite god hidden under the “veil” of the Mesopotamian god Ninurta is
convincing (see Na’aman 1990:252–254), and the proposed identifications of
the site cannot be verified. Until further evidence for the decipherment of
dNIN.URTA, the place (possibly located somewhere between Jerusalem and
Keilah) should be left out of the discussion of Jerusalem’s boundaries.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 177

In summary, Jerusalem’s western border passed near the margins of the
hill country, and none of the places located in the Shephelah were included
in its territory.

The other borders of the kingdom of Jerusalem cannot be established
with the help of the Amarna letters. According to biblical tradition, there
were two Canaanite centers south of Jerusalem: Hebron and Debir (Josh. 10:
3,5,36–39; 12:10,13). However, the book of Joshua is not a reliable source for
either a historical or a territorial discussion of the Late Bronze Age, and its
evidence must be disregarded (see below, section 6).

As was mentioned in the introduction, some scholars have suggested
that the lack of mention of any Canaanite city-state south of Jerusalem in-
dicates that Jerusalem dominated the entire Judean hills. However, the ev-
idence for such a claim is inconclusive. It was pointed out that even cen-
tral Canaanite kingdoms located in the Valley of Beth-shean (Rehob) and
in southern Lower Galilee (Anaharath) are missing from the Amarna corre-
spondence and that the cities of numerous petty kings who ruled in south-
ern Canaan are unknown. One may further add the evidence from the Beqa‘
of Lebanon: Some twelve territorial units, each located in the center of a fer-
tile agricultural area, have been detected in the course of the detailed survey
conducted in the area (Marfoe 1979:12–14). However, only six city-states lo-
cated in the Beqa‘ (Guddashuna, Tubiḫu, Ḫasi, Tushulti, Enishazi, Kumidi) are
mentioned in the Amarna archive (Weippert 1970). The use of negative evi-
dence, which is always uncertain, is particularly hazardous in the context of
the Amarna archive. The problem of the territorial affinity of the southern
Judean hill country to the kingdom of Jerusalem must be examined in light
of the archaeological evidence and the relationship of the two areas as is evi-
dent from earlier and later sources.

2. Was Jerusalem Mentioned in the Execration Texts?

Not much is known of Canaanite Jerusalem, in spite of the extensive exca-
vations conducted at the site. This is due to the intensive building on the site
in later periods, each strata contributing to the destruction of its predeces-
sors. The Middle Bronze II city was fortified by a strong stone wall that was in
use until the end of the Late Bronze Age. Supporting walls and fills have been
discovered near the stone wall and at the top of the site (Kenyon 1974:88–97;
Shiloh 1984:26). The findings from the MB II and LB are quite poor and un-
impressive and do not add anything substantial to the discussion. The exca-
vations conducted in Jerusalem did not clarify the problem of the scope and
strength of the kingdom in the second millennium BCE.

It is commonly accepted by scholars that Jerusalem is mentioned in the
Egyptian Execration Texts. The ostensible mention of the city among the im-

178 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

portant Canaanite centers at the time of the XIIth Dynasty is the main basis
for the assumption that Jerusalem held an important place in the central hill
country from the 19th century BCE onward.

The early group of Execration Texts is inscribed upon bowls that were
smashed and buried. It includes fourteen place-names or regions in Canaan
and is dated to about the mid–19th century BCE (Sethe 1926; Posener 1966:
277–287; Helck 1971:44–50; Posener, Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:541, 548). Most
of the places are unknown from post-MB sources and represent either towns
that did not survive in later periods or names of tribes by which these regions
were called. Only five/six towns were identified: Byblos, Arqat and Ullasa on
the Lebanese coast and Ashkelon, Rehob (possibly Tel Kabri; see Kempinski
1986:70–72) and, seemingly, Jerusalem (rwš3mm) in Palestine. For each top-
onym there are names of several (usually three) rulers, which is typical to
tribal society.

The second group of texts is inscribed upon figurines in the form of pris-
oners; these figurines were smashed and buried. The text includes about sixty-
four names of towns or regions in Canaan and is dated to the late 19th or
early 18th century BCE (Posener 1940; Mazar 1947; Helck 1971:50–63; Posener,
Bottéro and Kenyon 1971:548, 557–558). Unlike the early group, most of the
towns in this group are well-known, as they appear in later sources. Of the
names of the early group, fourteen out of eighteen appear in the second group,
and among them is rwš3mm. For each place, we find one ruler (sometimes two).
The difference between the two groups reflects well the drastic change in
urban life that had taken place in Canaan since the early group of Execration
Texts was inscribed: Many new towns had been founded, and dynasties headed
by a single king had been established in most of the territorial units.

The distribution of the Palestinian towns in this group is significant: al-
most all are located in the coast, the Shephelah and the northern plains. Only
Shechem and, seemingly, Jerusalem are located in the central hill country.
This fits nicely the results of the archaeological excavations and surveys con-
ducted in Palestine, according to which, urban life in the Middle Bronze Age
began in the coastal areas and the northern plains and only slowly and grad-
ually spread to the other regions. Only in the 18th century BCE did the wave
of settlement in the hill country begin, reaching its zenith in the 17th century
when the highlands were extensively settled and held central place in the
country’s political and urban life (Gophna and Beck 1981; Broshi and Gophna
1986; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Bunimovitz 1989; Finkelstein 1988–89:140–
144; 1991:20–30, with earlier literature in p. 20, n. 6; Finkelstein 1993).

This is the background against which the ostensible mention of Jerusalem
in the Execration Texts must be examined. First, it is noteworthy that the
city’s name in all other sources has consistently contained an initial conso-

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 179

nant of waw/yod, unlike the rwš3mm of the Execration Texts. Second, only a
few important coastal cities are inscribed in the early group of the Execration
Texts. No single identifiable town located in the Shephelah, the northern
plains or the Jordan Valley is recorded. The mention of a marginal hill coun-
try city within this group of toponyms, therefore, is quite unlikely. Third, in
the Late Bronze Age, when Egypt ruled Canaan, Egypt’s main concern was
in the lowlands. For this reason, no hill country Palestinian town except for
Shechem is ever mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions of the XVIIIth-XIXth
Dynasties. The distribution of toponyms in the Execration Texts fits this pat-
tern. On the other hand, the seeming appearance of Jerusalem within the
two groups of Execration Texts hardly conforms with this consistent second
millennium Egyptian pattern of interest. Fourth, it is not at all clear that the
city of Jerusalem had been built in the mid–19th century BCE (see Kenyon
1974:88–97; Shiloh 1984:26). Admittedly, the strata of second millennium
Jerusalem were preserved only in fragmentation. On the other hand, excava-
tions have been performed on a very large scale at the site of the Canaanite
city. The least that one can say is that no positive evidence for a 19th cen-
tury city was discovered in the excavations, and there is no corroborative
evidence even for the possibility that Jerusalem was mentioned in the early
group of the Execration Texts.

It seems, therefore, that a big question mark remains as to the identifica-
tion of Jerusalem with the rwš3mm of the Execration Texts. As is well known,
there are several ways to decipher words written in Egyptian transcription.
The first part of the name (rwš) may reflect West Semitic r’š (“head”); the
omission of the aleph is due to prononciation. It has excellent parallels in
the transcription of the toponym rwšqdš (Rosh-qidshi) in the Topographical
List of Thutmose III and in the Canaanite gloss ru-šu-nu (“our head”) in an
Amarna letter (EA 264:18) (see Helck 1971:126, 541; Rainey 1982:343, 352). The
second part may stand for Semitic rmm, “be exalted.” The name Rôsh-ramem
(“the exalted Head”) may semantically be compared with the toponym Rosh-
qidshi (“the holy Head”; see Ahituv 1984:162–163). It must be emphasized,
however, that my discussion is in no way dependent on the etymology of the
name. After all, we do not know the etymology of most of the toponyms men-
tioned in the Execration Texts. Rôsh-ramem? joins the majority of toponyms
in the early group that re-appear in the late group of Execration Texts, but
are not mentioned in any other post-Middle Bronze Age source, and whose
location or identity (i.e., whether they are towns or names of regions) remain
unknown.

We may conclude that Shechem is the only city located in the central hill
country that appears in the Execration Texts. This fits well the mention of
the “land of Shechem” in the stele of Khu-sebekh of the late 19th century BCE

180 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

3. The Settlement in the Hill Country of Judah and Benjamin in the Second
Millennium BCE

In the area of Benjamin, 42 sites of the MB and not a single LB site have
been discovered (Finkelstein 1991:29). Only eight MB settlement sites have
been discovered in the hill country of Judah (Ofer 1990:196; Finkelstein 1991:
29). Of the three LB sites that have been discovered in this area, one is cen-
tral (Kh. Rabûd = Debir) and the other two are small and short-lived (Beth-zur
and Kh. Fuqeiqis) (Bunimovitz 1989:196–198; Ofer 1990:196–198). The entire
rural area between Bethel in the north and Debir in the south was unset-
tled throughout the Late Bronze Age, the city of Jerusalem being an isolated
urban enclave within this large uninhabited area.

The main urban center in the hill country south of Jerusalem in the MB II
was Hebron (Tell er-Rumeideh) (Ofer 1989; 1990:190–194). The city was for-
tified by a massive wall and covered about 24 to 30 dunams. The date of its
foundation is still unclear. It flourished in the 17th–16th centuries and then
was destroyed and remained deserted throughout the Late Bronze Age. A sec-
ond MB city existed at Beth-zur (Funk 1975:263–267, with earlier literature).
It was surrounded by a wall and covered between 8 and 15 dunams. Its history
of settlement was quite similar to that of Hebron.

The main urban center of southern Judah in the LB II was Debir (Kh.
Rabûd) (Kochavi 1974). It covered an area of about 50 dunams and was pos-
sibly surrounded by a stone wall. Admittedly, the contact between the for-
tifications and the LB II walls was destroyed by later buildings, but they en-
close the internal walls and no ancient remains were detected beyond them
(Kochavi 1974:10).3 Four LB strata have been detected in the course of ex-
cavation and were dated by the excavator to the 14th–13th centuries BCE
(Kochavi 1974:10, 19–22).

There is a similarity between the location of Hebron in the hill country
south of Jerusalem in the MB II and that of Debir in the LB II. The two towns
were situated in the center of a sparsely inhabited area. The discovery of burial

3. For a different interpretation of the results of the excavations at Debir, see
Bunimovitz 1989:135; 1990:272, n. 67.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 181

grounds with no settlement in their vicinity indicates the presence of a non-
sedentary component in the population (Ofer 1990:196–199; Finkelstein 1991:
29). Several MB II settlements were discovered in the area between Bethlehem
and Hebron, but no LB II settlement (save for Beth-zur for a short time) was
found. The two towns may each be described as a central city within a (par-
tial or entire) pastoral environment, an urban phenomenon well known from
different regions and periods all over Western Asia (Rowton 1973; 1976). The
question posed about the relationship of Jerusalem to the south Judean hill
country in the LB II is equally true for its position in the MB II.

The distribution of settlements in the hill country in the Early Bronze Age
may also be relevant for the discussion. The major city in the EB II-III was Ai
(Kh. et-Tell), which covered about 110 dunams. Many small settlements of
only a few dunams in size have been discovered to the north and south of
Ai (Broshi and Gophna 1984:46–47; Finkelstein 1991:21–23, with earlier liter-
ature). The major site of the Judean hills in the EB III was Ras Tawra, north-
east of Hebron (Ofer 1990:196). This fortified site, which covered about 60 du-
nams, was the center of a non-settled area. The pattern of a single central
town located within a pastoral environment is repeated threefold in the third
and second millennium BCE. The problem of the relation of Ras Tawra to Ai
in the EB III may be compared with the problem of the relationship of Hebron
in the MB II and Debir in the LB II to Jerusalem. There is, however, one impor-
tant reservation for the analogy. The primacy and outstanding position of Ai
in the hill country as indicated by archaeological finds may be compared with
that of Shechem in the second millennium, but was quite different from that
of Jerusalem (see section seven below). Thus, despite the similarity in the pat-
tern of settlement in the Judean hills in all three periods, the political posi-
tion of Ras Tawra vis à vis the central city of Ai may have been quite different
from that of Hebron and Debir vis à vis the second-rate city of Jerusalem.

The city of Bethel is located north of Jerusalem, on the outskirts of the
hill country of Ephraim. Bethel was surrounded by a strong wall in the MB,
possibly in the 17th–16th centuries, and then destroyed (Kelso 1968; Dever
1971:462–471). It was rebuilt and fortified in the LB II, possibly in the 14th
century (Kelso 1968:28–31). Admittedly, not many 14th century vessels have
been published in the excavation report. However, because most of the pot-
tery found in a destruction level belongs to a site’s final phase, the paucity of
14th century pottery is understandable.4

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

182 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

4. The Territorial Relationship of Jerusalem to Mount Hebron in the Course of
History

For further clarification of the position of Jerusalem within the high-
lands of Judah, we must examine their relationship in the “longue durée.”
In his seminal study of the Israelite settlement in Palestine, Alt (1953:90–
92) emphasized the continuity of territorial frameworks and boundaries
and demonstrated the importance of a long-range perspective for bridging
the gaps of written sources (see also: Alt 1919:9–16; 1929:229–237; 1935:94–
111). Other scholars have followed his methodological approach and ap-
plied it within their works (e.g., Elliger 1936:45–59; Mazar 1946; Na’aman
1986a; Bunimovitz 1989:146–150, with earlier literature on p. 4). Preference
for the historical long-range perspective on short-term events is particu-
larly important for the “Territorialgeschichte,” because “throughout his-
tory territorial divisions, ultimately dependent on the lie of the land, are
extremely persistent; even changes of population hardly ever overthrow
them completely, but bring about at most, minor alterations.” (Alt 1953:
90). The history of the relationship of the southern Judean hill country to
Jerusalem from the Middle Bronze II onward will be examined to discern
whether there is a similar pattern of relations in different historical peri-
ods.

A cuneiform tablet was discovered during the recent excavations con-
ducted at Tell er-Rumeideh (Hebron) (Ofer 1989:91–93). It was found within a
fill of bones, sherds and ashes and was dated to the 17th century BCE (Anbar
and Na’aman 1986–1987). The left side of the tablet and its lower edge are
missing, which makes it difficult to understand fully. It is an account tablet
summarizing the number of sheep delivered to different people in the course
of an unknown span of time. The summary at the end of the tablet shows that
the sheep — partly or entirely — served for sacrifice. The frequent mention
of the word “king” indicates that it originally belonged to the royal archive.

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 183

In later times the tablet was thrown into a fill and, therefore, was discovered
out of its original context.

The fact that a cuneiform tablet written in the course of the daily life of
the palace was unearthed at Hebron is meaningful. Middle Bronze II cunei-
form tablets have been discovered only at Hazor, Shechem, Gezer and Peḫel
(Anbar and Na’aman 1986–1987:7–12, with earlier literature; Knapp 1987:4,
24). All these places were important Canaanite centers. The diffuse of cunei-
form writing in the daily life of MB II Canaan was quite limited and confined
only to capital cities. The Hebron tablet clearly indicates that the site was
the center of an independent kingdom and that the king mentioned therein
was the king of Hebron. The assumption that Hebron was a secondary town
of the kingdom of Jerusalem and that the tablet was written for the court of
the latter kingdom is highly unlikely, in light of what is known of the distri-
bution of cuneiform writing in second millennium Canaan. The excavations
conducted at Hebron, in which a strongly fortified MB II city — no less im-
pressive than the MB II city of Jerusalem — was unearthed (Ofer 1989; 1990:
190–194), supports and corroborates the evidence of the tablet. We may con-
clude that Hebron was a neighboring kingdom of Jerusalem in the MB II and
was governed by its own king.

When analyzing the biblical evidence of the pre-monarchial period,
we again find the same segregation of the areas of Jerusalem and Hebron.
According to biblical tradition, the Josephites settled in the areas of
Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin, whereas the tribe of Judah occupied the
land of Judah. Remarkable is the fact that Jerusalem was considered a town of
Benjamin and not of Judah (Josh 15:8; 18:16, 28). Following the destruction of
the Canaanite city, Jerusalem became a Jebusite town governing a small dis-
trict in its vicinity. An independent cluster of settlements developed at this
time in the southern Judean hill country. The most important sub-tribe that
settled in this area was Caleb, whose center was at Hebron, and another im-
portant clan was Othniel, which settled in Debir. Following the death of Saul,
the areas of the Judean hills and the Negeb were united under the leadership
of David, whose center was at Hebron. This entity apparently endured for
several years, until David transferred his capital to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 2:1–4; 5:
1–5). We may conclude that both in biblical traditions of the early history of
Israel and during the early Iron Age, Jerusalem (Jebus) is consistently sepa-
rate from the hill country of Judah and is connected with the area located on
its northern side.

David’s conquest of Jebus and its establishment as capital city of Israel
drastically changed the city’s history. Jerusalem became capital of the United
Monarchy and later the capital of the Kingdom of Judah. It must be em-
phasized that from David’s time until the Babylonian captivity, the city of

184 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Jerusalem was the center of a kingdom that encompassed vast territory,
much larger than the Judean hills. However, in the kingdom’s administra-
tive framework, Jerusalem was the center of a small district (described as
sbyby/sbybwt yrwšlym), whereas the hill country of Judah was a large sepa-
rate district (called hhr) (Na’aman 1991:13–16). It is possible that the king-
dom of Judah was divided into four districts called by the names of towns
(Hebron, Ziph, Socoh and Mmšt) in the course of Hezekiah’s preparations for
war and siege on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah (Yadin 1961:6–
11; Aharoni 1967:344–346; Na’aman 1986b:14–17). In this administrative di-
vision, Jerusalem was included in the northern district of Mmšt, whereas the
hill country of Judah was included in the districts of Hebron and Ziph. We
may conclude that Jerusalem was consistently separated from the hill coun-
try of Judah both in the settlement and early monarchial periods and in the
administrative divisions of the monarchial period.

After the Babylonian conquest and annexation, the hill country of Hebron
was removed from the province of Yehud and became a separate entity called
Idumea. Its northern limits bordered the province of Yehud south of Beth-zur,
and the Beer-sheba Valley and the Shephelah were included in its territory.
This border system survived throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic pe-
riods. Only in the time of John Hyrcanus (134–105 BCE), about 450 years after
its foundation, was Idumea conquered and annexed to the Hasmonean king-
dom as a separate administrative district. This administrative division re-
mained in power until the destruction of the Second Temple and apparently
continued even afterward. Septimus Severus turned Beth-gubrin into a Roman
colony in 200 A.D., naming it Eleutheropolis (its full title was Colonia Lucia
Septimia Severia Eleutheropolis) and annexed to its territory the entire district
of Idumea and one of the districts of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem). In the admin-
istrative reform of Diocletian (284–305), the district of Eleutheropolis was left
unchanged, save for minor alterations. We may conclude that for more than a
thousand years — from the destruction of the First Temple and until the end of
the Byzantine period — Jerusalem and the southern Judean hill country were
included in separate administrative districts. Even the Hasmonean and Roman
conquests did not change the place of this area within the overall administra-
tive division of the Palestinian hill country and the Shephelah.

The administrative detachment of Jerusalem and the area of Hebron re-
mained intact until the early Ottoman period. The data concerning the post-
Byzantine periods will be presented only in the utmost brevity. In the early
Arabic period, Jerusalem and Beth-gubrin were sub-districts within the terri-
tory of Jund Philastine. In the time of the Crusades, Hebron was the center of a
seigniory. Jerusalem and Hebron were separate sub-districts (camaliya) within
the large district of Damascus in the Mamluk period. A change took place in

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 185

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

5. The Boundaries of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period

Our historical survey has demonstrated that throughout history,
Jerusalem and Hebron were included in different political or administra-
tive entities. This is clear for the second millennium BCE when Hebron and
Jerusalem were independent city-states in the Middle Bronze II. Following
the destruction of the Canaanite cities in the late 13th-early 12th century, the
areas of Jerusalem and southern Judah developed independently. In the time
of the Israelite and Judean Monarchies, and under the Babylonian, Persian,
Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman empires, the areas of Jerusalem and the
southern Judean hill country formed parts of different administrative dis-
tricts. It was only under the Ottoman empire, about three millennia after
the Amarna period, that Hebron became a sub-district within the district
of Jerusalem. Examination of the “longue durée” clearly indicates that for
thousands of years, in various historical situations and under different polit-
ical powers, Jerusalem and Hebron were part of different — first political and
later administrative — entities.

The detailed archaeological surveys conducted in the Judean hills indicate
that the area between the cities of Jerusalem and Debir (about 40 km.) was en-
tirely uninhabited in the LB II. The two towns were territorially disconnected
one from the other. The location of Debir in the southern Judean hill coun-
try in the LB II is similar to that of Hebron in the MB II: a major city within a
partly or entirely non-sedentary area. Thus, it is clear that just as Hebron was
an independent city-state in the MB II, so was Debir in the LB II. We may con-
clude that all written and archaeological data indicate that the independent
city-state of Debir dominated the southern hills of Judah in the LB II.

The territories of the kingdoms of MB II Hebron and LB II Debir must have
encompassed the Beer-sheba Valley. It is suggested that the sites of Tel Masos
and Tel Malḥata in the south and Beth-zur in the north were secondary towns
within the MB II kingdom of Hebron. The territory of Debir, on the other hand,
was almost entirely uninhabited. Its economy was based on agriculture and
animal husbandry, and it kept close relationships with the pastoral groups lo-
cated in its highland and Negebite territories. Its close neighbors were the