Canaan in the second millenium bce

186 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

city-states of Jerusalem in the north and Lachish in the west. Whether there
were other small city-states on its western border remains unknown.

The accurate delineation of the boundary between Debir and Jerusalem in
the LB II is problematic. Beth-zur is a key site near their border. It was a for-
tified, inhabited town in the MB II, located not far north from the center of
Hebron and most probably was one of its towns. Jerusalem’s boundary must
have passed somewhere north of it. Beth-zur was settled for only a short time
in the LB II, and it is impossible to establish whether it was included in the
territory of Jerusalem or Debir.

It was noted above that Ras Tawra was the main site of the Judean hills in
the EB III. It may have been the center of a small independent city-state lo-
cated near the border of the strong kingdom of Ai, the main center of the
central hill country in the EB II-III. This conclusion, however, must be treated
with caution. First, the leading role of Ai in the central hill country in the
third millennium BCE as indicated by archaeological excavations and surveys
is indeed remarkable, unlike the position of Jerusalem in the second millen-
nium. Second, the political formation of the land of Canaan in the third mil-
lennium is unknown. Schematic delineation of borders based exclusively
on the scope of sites and the pattern of settlement may be quite mislead-
ing without the aid of documentary evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to de-
cide whether Canaan was divided then among a few strong kingdoms that
dominated all other secondary places, or whether the political situation was
similar to that of the second millennium BCE, i.e., a network of kingdoms of
higher and lesser rank in which even the lesser city-states had, at least nom-
inally, an independent status. The relationship of Ai to Ras Tawra, thus, re-
mains unknown. The “long perspective” suggests that the assumption of a
small independent city-state dominating the Judean hills is the more proba-
ble, but who knows.

The place of Bethel within the border system of the kingdom of Jerusalem
should now be examined. As noted above, the city was strongly fortified in
the 17th–16th centuries BCE and was the center of a rural area densely inhab-
ited by small sites. Following its destruction, the site was deserted until the
14th century, when settlement was renewed. No small rural sites were dis-
covered in Bethel’s vicinity. Its close neighbors were Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad
(biblical Tappuah), ca. 20 km. north of the town, and Jerusalem, ca. 18 km.
south of it. LB II Bethel was an isolated town within a pastoral environment.
It seems quite unlikely that under such circumstances, the rulers of Shechem,
the major kingdom of the central hill country, would have been able to effec-
tively hold the place. According to the Amarna letters, the rulers of Shechem
were allies of Milkilu, ruler of Gezer, but in no place is there mention of an act
of hostility by Shechem against Jerusalem. The anti-Shechemite attitude of

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 187

‘Abdi-Ḫeba is explained well by the cooperation of Lab’ayu and his sons with
Gezer, Jerusalem’s bitter enemy in the Amarna period.

According to biblical tradition, there was a king at Bethel (Josh. 12:16) and
the city was conquered by the sons of Joseph (Judg. 1:22–26). The city was
included in Ephraim’s inheritance in the tribal boundaries. After the disso-
lution of the United Monarchy, Bethel became an important cult center of
the Northern Kingdom, and, following the Assyrian conquest, Bethel was in-
cluded in the province of Samaria. It was conquered by Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:15)
and was temporarily annexed to the kingdom of Judah (Josh. 18:22). Its loca-
tion in the southern outskirts of Mount Ephraim, high above the district of
Benjamin, explains well the city’s steady connections with the hill country on
its north and its segregation from Benjamin and the city of Jerusalem.

Bethel’s remoteness from Shechem, location between the territories of
Jerusalem and Shechem, and segregation from Jerusalem from the pre-mo-
narchial period onwards — these facts together may indicate that second mil-
lennium Bethel was a small independent city-state between the borders of
Shechem and Jerusalem. It was the center of a small rural area in the MB II
and was an isolated town in a mainly non-sedentary area in the LB II. It goes
without saying that Bethel played a minor role in the political and military
affairs of the hill country and was under the influence of its powerful north-
ern neighbor. I would like to emphasize, however, that whereas the evidence
for the existence of an independent city-state in the southern Judean hills is
quite conclusive, the case for the independence of Bethel is less strong and
rests mainly on an evaluation of the balance of evidence.

We are now in a position to draw the boundaries of Jerusalem in the LB II.
Its western border reached the foothills and touched the boundaries of Gezer
and Gath*. In the east, it probably reached the Jordan Valley, the town of Jericho
being included in its territory. In the north it encompassed the hill country of
Benjamin, and in the south it reached the area of Beth-zur and possibly the
line of Naḥal Elah. Most of these areas were uninhabited during the LB, and
Jerusalem’s effective control there was quite limited. It must be emphasized
that the delineation of borders as suggested here is only schematic, designed to
give a general idea of the scope of Jerusalem and its neighbors in this period.

The borders of MB II Jerusalem were roughly the same as in the LB II.
They included the area of Benjamin, which was densely inhabited (42 sites
have been discovered), and the area south of Jerusalem, which was relatively
empty at the time. The main problem is the position of the city of Jericho. It

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

188 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

6. The Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Amarna Period

Before proceeding with the discussion, I would like to summarize my
counter-claims to the suggestion that Jerusalem dominated the southern
Judean hill country in the second millennium BCE.

(a) An analysis of the Amarna letters made it clear that the archive was
only partly preserved and that various Canaanite city-states, including im-
portant entities, are not mentioned. The claim that the entire area of the cen-
tral hill country was divided among Shechem and Jerusalem, because no other
city-state is mentioned in the archive, is methodologically unacceptable.

(b) The array of Canaanite city-states included a network of tangent city-
states, large and small, their rulers corresponding with the Pharaoh and en-
joying, at least nominally, an independent status. Dividing the land only
among the large entities is misleading in light of the evidence of the Amarna
archive and the Egyptian sources.

(c) Jerusalem is mentioned only in the Amarna letters, but is absent from
the Egyptian sources of the second millennium BCE. The assumption that it
appears in both the early and late groups of Execration Texts is not supported
by the analysis of the texts.

(d) It is quite misleading to apply to Jerusalem what is known about the
scope, power and political influence of Canaanite Shechem. The two king-
doms differed one from the other in all these aspects and played different
roles in the inner affairs of Canaan in the second millennium BCE (for further
detail, see section 7 below).

(e) Archaeological evidence from the excavations of the sites of ancient
Jerusalem, Hebron and Debir neither supports nor cancels the assumption of
the domination of Jerusalem in the hill country of Judah in the second mil-
lennium. All three sites were severely damaged at a later time, and too little
is known to make any definitive statement about their relative urban or eco-
nomic strength. Archaeology proves, however, that fortified urban centers of
considerable scope and strength were situated in the southern Judean hills
both in the MB II and the LB II periods. The pattern of settlement of both pe-
riods further supports the assumption that there was an independent entity
in the southern Judean hills in the second millennium BCE.

(f) The 17th century cuneiform tablet discovered at Hebron proves that
it served as the center of an independent city-state at that time. By examin-
ing the history of the Judean hill country from the 12th century BCE until the

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 189

beginning of the Ottoman period, it is evident that Jerusalem and the area
of Hebron consistently belonged to two different political or administrative
units. Examination of the “longue durée” strongly supports the suggestion
that the city of Debir formed an independent city-state in the Late Bronze II.

(g) The book of Joshua cannot be treated as a reliable source for the recon-
struction of the network of Canaanite cities or their relative strength in the
Late Bronze Age. Neither the mention of kings at Jericho, Ai, Bethel, Hebron
and Debir, nor the presentation of Jerusalem as head of a Canaanite coalition
can be taken as evidence for reconstructing the reality in the Late Bronze
Age. One should not select evidence at random from the biblical source to
support a theory. Conclusions must be drawn only on the basis of the early
sources and the archaeological evidence.

The picture of the kingdom of Jerusalem that emerged from the Amarna
letters fits well its limited territorial scope and power as suggested above.
‘Abdi-Ḫeba refers, in his letters, to various episodes that are connected to the
activity of his opponents, Milkilu of Gezer and his allies. But ‘Abdi-Ḫeba is
mentioned only in two letters of Shuwardata, king of Gath*. He is first men-
tioned in a letter that deals with a war conducted by a league of four rulers
against the “‘Apiru” (EA 366) and second in a letter that accuses him of inter-
vening in the affairs of Keilah (EA 280). This is contrary to the frequent men-
tion of the rulers of Shechem and Gezer by city-state rulers located all over
the country. The power of Jerusalem was felt only in neighboring areas, and,
as far as we know, did not extend beyond these areas.

‘Abdi-Ḫeba tried to expand westward, toward the fertile easternmost
areas of the Shephelah governed by his neighbors, Gezer and Gath*. His ef-
forts on the western border are explained well by the lack of rural settle-
ments in his territory and the desire to command the small villages and in-
crease the settled population in his kingdom.6 His offensive in the Shephelah
started immediately after the death of Lab’ayu of Shechem. Soon afterwards,
a league was formed, composed of the rulers of Gezer, Gath* and Ginti-kirmil.
They repulsed his offensive and succeeded not only to take Keilah, but also to
bring Bīt-NINURTA, a former town of Jerusalem, to the victor’s side.

In the latest of the letters to be dispatched among six discovered at
Amarna (EA 288; see Na’aman 1975:93–95, 102–103), ‘Abdi-Ḫeba expresses his
despair by the words (lines 23–28) “The land of the king is lost. All of it is at-
tacking me! (see Moran 1987:515, 516, n. 5). There is hostility against me unto
(adi) the land(s) of Shēri and unto (adi) Ginti-kirmil. All the city-state rul-
ers enjoy peace while there is hostility against me!” The king of Ginti-kir-
mil, a city possibly located in the Lower Carmel area (see Na’aman 1986a:466,
479; Bunimovitz 1989:141–143), was the father-in-law of Milkilu of Gezer and
his close ally. No wonder that his city was selected to illustrate the maximal

190 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

scope of the league that was hostile to Jerusalem. The land(s) of Shēri is usu-
ally identified with biblical Mount Seir. However, the combination adi . . . adi
. . . is unique in Akkadian, reflecting the influence of the local Canaanite lan-
guage on the scribe. This prepositional construction presents two places, the
second of which lies beyond the first and should best be translated “unto GN1
and unto (i.e., as far as) GN2” (compare Josh. 10:10; 16:3; 1 Sam. 17:52; Neh. 3:
16, 24, 31) (see Ginsberg 1951a; 1951b; Dorsey 1980:185–186; Demsky 1990:78–
81). It is evident that the land(s) of Shēri and Ginti-kirmil were located in the
same direction, the latter being more remote from the former, and that the
land(s) of Shēri must be disassociated from biblical Mount Seir.

It seems to me that the name “land(s) of Shēri” is a descriptive designation
for the wooded, mountainous uninhabited areas west of Jerusalem (Na’aman
1986c:284, n. 25). Two biblical references may support this claim. The descrip-
tive names Mount Seir (“the shaggy mountain”) and Mount Jearim (“the for-
ested mountain”) appear in Josh. 15:10 and are located on the line between
Kiriath-jearim and Beth-shemesh, in the rugged and rocky terrain of western
Judah. After the assassination of Eglon, king of Moab, Ehud escaped to Seirah
in Mount Ephraim (Judg. 3:26). Also, one of the towns of Ugarit was called Šcrt/
Shartu, and, as is evident from the ideographic spelling uruSÍG, the meaning of
the name is “wool, fleece” (Astour 1975:331–332, 365). It is clear that all these
toponyms, including the mountainous region of Edom (Seir), were so named
because of the wooded (“shaggy”) appearance of their landscape.

It seems that ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, while complaining of isolation and the misdeeds
of his western neighbors, mentions hostile acts directed against him by up-
rooted and pastoral elements situated in the rugged, “shaggy” areas of his
kingdom (Seir), on the one hand, and by the league of city-states whose re-
motest associate ruled Ginti-kirmil, on the other hand. The description re-
flects well the situation of Jerusalem in the Amarna period — a major town
within a non-sedentary area — and the dangers involved with this setting.

7. The Kingdom of Shechem and its Southern Neighbors

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

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 191

nated the entire region, save possibly for small city-states (like Ras Tawra
and Tell el-Farcah) which may have enjoyed a semi-independent status vis-
à-vis their powerful neighbor. In the Iron Age, on the other hand, things de-
veloped differently. The urban center of the central hill country dominated
much larger areas on both sides of the Jordan; the districts of the new polit-
ical formation extended far beyond the scope of the political formations of
the third and second millennia BCE.

The development of only one major power in the central hill country is
borne out by the results of the surveys conducted in the area. 208 of the over-
all 248 sites of the Middle Bronze Age discovered in the surveys are located in
the lands of Manasseh and Ephraim (Finkelstein 1991:27–30). Moreover, ac-
cording to the calculation of Finkelstein (1993), 45% of the sites and 75% of
the estimated population lived in the area of Manasseh. About 25 of 29 of the
Late Bronze II sites discovered in the surveys are located in Manasseh and
Ephraim, and, according to Finkelstein’s estimation, two thirds of the sites
and the majority of the population lived in the area of Manasseh. The central-
ity of Shechem as indicated by documentary evidence finds its full support in
the data of the new surveys.

Two medium-size city-states developed in the areas of Benjamin and the
Judean hills in the Middle Bronze II and the Late Bronze II. The more impor-
tant of the two was Jerusalem, as is evident from both the Amarna letters
and the results of the surveys. 42 of the 50 Middle Bronze sites discovered
in the surveys of both areas were recorded in the hill country of Benjamin
(Finkelstein 1991:29). Only two major sites, Jerusalem and Debir, developed
in the area in the Late Bronze II. The relative strength of Jerusalem in rela-
tion to its southern neighbor is the direct result of the environmental condi-
tions of the two kingdoms. The area of Benjamin was suited for both agricul-
ture and animal husbandry and was densely settled in the MB II (and Iron Age
I as well). The Judean hills were more convenient for pastoral activity than
for agriculture and were sparsely inhabited by sedentary populations in the
second millennium (and Iron Age I as well) (Ofer 1990:196–202; Finkelstein
1991:23–30, 42–43). We may conclude that second millennium Jerusalem was
a city-state of small territory and limited power, being the dominant force
only in the Judean hills and trying to expand westward, toward the more fer-
tile and settled areas of the Shephelah. In the overall balance of power within
Canaan, Jerusalem had only local influence, unlike its northern neighbor,
the kingdom of Shechem, which held a central role in the affairs of Canaan
throughout the second millennium BCE.

192 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

References

Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145.
Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and

Leiden.
Albright, W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish with Some Remarks on

the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38.
Alt, A. 1913. Israels Gaue unter Salomo. In: Alt, A. et al. eds. Aletestamentliche Studien Rudolf

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

Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors 193

Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the
Second Millennium B.C.E. In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990,
Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement (Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990). Jerusalem: 110–131.

Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y. eds. 1993. Archaeological Survey in the Hill Country of Benjamin.
(Hebrew).

Funk, R.W. 1975. Beth-zur. In: Avi-Yonah M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land I. Jerusalem: 263-267.

Ginsberg, H.L. 1951a. A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geography. BASOR 122: 12–
14.

Ginsberg, H.L. 1951b. Postscript to Bulletin No. 122, pp. 12–14. BASOR 124: 29–30.
Gophna, R. and Beck, P. 1981. The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern on the Coastal

Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II. Tel Aviv 8: 45–80.
Gophna, R. and Portugali, J. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s

Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 269:11–28.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2nd

revised ed.). Wiesbaden.
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit Ninurta — Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of

Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).
Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavations of Bethel (1934–1960). (AASOR 39). New Haven.
Kempinski, A. 1986. Kabri and its Environment in the Middle Bronze II. In: Yadaya, M. ed.

The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 66–72. (Hebrew).
Kenyon, K.A. 1960–1983. Excavations at Jericho I-V. London.
Kenyon, K.A. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London.
Kenyon, K.A. 1976. Jericho. In: Avi-Yonah M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land II. Jerusalem: 561–564.
Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster.
Knapp, A.B. 1987. Pots, PIXE and Data Processing at Pella in Jordan. BASOR 266: 1–30.
Knudtzon, J.A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. (Vorderasiatische

Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea Samaria and the Golan.

Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 19–89. (Hebrew).
Kochavi, M. 1974. Khirbet Rabûd = Debir. Tel Aviv 1: 2–33.
Lipiński, E. 1985. Juda et tout Israel: analogies et contrastes. In: Lipiński, E. ed. The Land of

Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. Leuven: 93–112.
Mazar, A. 1990. Jerusalem and its Vicinity in the Iron I. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein,

I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel.
Jerusalem: 131–154. (Hebrew).
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1946. Lebo-hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan. BJPES 12:
91–102. (Hebrew). (Trans. 1986. The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Jerusalem:
189–202).
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1947. Palestine at the Time of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. Revue de
l’histoire juive en Egypte 1: 33–68.
Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization
in Southern Syria. BASOR 234:1–42.
Moran, W.L. 1987. Les letters d’EI-Amarna. (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13).
Paris.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according
to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University.

194 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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. 1986a. The Canaanite City States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances
of the Israelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463–488. (Hebrew).

Na’aman, N. 1986b. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. BASOR 261: 5–21.
Na’aman, N. 1986c. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary

Sphere. JNES 45: 271–288.
Na’aman, N. 1988. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets. Proceedings of

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

Yeno‘am1

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

Contrary to all these proposals, which would locate Yeno‘am west of the
Jordan, it is my opinion that this site should be sought in Transjordan, on the
periphery of the Bashan region. The following data support this suggestion:

In Amarna letter EA 197, Biryawaza, ruler of Damascus,3 complains be-
fore Pharaoh of the deeds of Biridashwa, in my opinion, the heir of Ayyab

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

195

196 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

on the throne of Ashtaroth.4 Biridashwa was accused of inciting the city of
Yeno‘am against Biryawaza, removing chariots from Ashtaroth to give them
to his ‘Apiru, and collaborating with the kings of Buṣruna and Ḫaluni (two cit-
ies in the Bashan) who tried to kill Biryawaza.5 Yeno‘am appears in this letter
alongside cities in the Bashan, contraindicating a town west of the Jordan.

In a topographical list from the days of Amenophis III published by
Edel (1966:11–13; Helck 1971:260), the following toponyms appear: Taḫshi,
Yeno‘am, Damascus, Edrei, Buṣruna, Qanu, a group belonging entirely to
Syria; a Cisjordanian city is, therefore, out of the question.

Finally, in topographical list from the days of Ramesses II, Yeno‘am ap-
pears after Qatna and Taḫshi and before an unidentified site called [Qm]hn
(Kitchen 1965:6 No. 18; see Helck 1971:192), again in a Syrian context.

stems from his political power in that region and not from his delegation as an Egyptian of-
ficial; see: Helck 1971:184, 251, 303; Kühne 1973:62 n. 301.

4. Scholars have generally been of the opinion that Biridashwa was the ruler of
Yeno‘am (Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1291; Greenberg 1955:44; Hachmann 1970:71; Helck
1971:179, 480). However, Biridashwa’s central position in the Bashan, as well as his mobili-
zation of chariots from the city of Ashtaroth, shows that Ashtaroth, rather than Yeno‘am,
was his capital. It is to be noted that Ayyab, ruler of Ashtaroth according to EA 256 and 364,
belongs to an earlier period, i.e., the time of the sons of Lab’ayu (Campbell 1964:116, 134;
Na’aman 1975:41–43, 52–53), and letters EA 196–197, which mention Biridashwa, belong
to the last period of the Amarna correspondence, when Aziru of Amurru and Aitakama of
Qadesh gathered strength and, with Hittite support, threatened the Egyptian holdings in
central Syria (Campbell 1964:124, 135; Redford 1967:218 ff.).

5. Important parts of EA 197 were translated (in addition to Knudtzon’s main edition)
by Greenberg (1955:43–44); see also Moran 1973:50, 53. The passage concerning us (lines
7–26) is divided into two distinct parts; in lines 7–12 Biridashwa is accused of stirring up
Yeno‘am against Biryawaza while the latter was entering the town, probably in his status
as the person responsible to the Egyptian authorities for the land of Upi. For lines 13–26,
which are somewhat damaged, we suggest the following translation:

“When the king of Buṣruna and the king of Ḫalunni saw (this deed) they conducted
war with Biridashwa against me saying: ‘Let us go and kill Biryawaza and not let him
go to [. . .]. But I escaped from them and took a stand in the [land of Api and] the city of
Damascus. When [they saw t]hat [I] am serving [the king my lord] they said: ‘[We are
servants of the king of Ha]tti.’ But I said: ‘I am servant of the king of Egypt.’”

Regarding line 19: it should be noted that Knudtzon’s restoration [māt tá]ḫ-še does not
fit the geographical context of the passage, which clearly deals with the Bashan region and
not with the district of Qadesh.

Regarding the remainder of EA 197: Knudtzon’s restoration of line 2 as uruA-[pi] is to be
rejected; Api (Upi) appears in the Amarna letters as a region and not as a name of a town.
Lines 41–42 might be restored “the kings of [the land of Taḫshi and k] in[g] s of the land of
Api” by comparison to EA 189 (rev. 12) and the general context of the passage.

Yeno‘am 197

These three documents strongly indicate that Yeno‘am was east of the
Jordan, roughly in the southern Bashan. In this very same region stands a tell
that corresponds perfectly with all the archaeological and topographical data
concerning Yeno‘am: Tell esh-Shihab, situated west of Edrei on the Yarmuk
River, controlling the main road to Ashtaroth and Damascus. The site is stra-
tegically located on a high mound, surrounded almost completely by the
Yarmuk gorge, with a waterfall in the vicinity (Smith 1901:344–345). This lo-
cation accords well with the portrayal of the conquest of Yeno‘am on a Karnak
relief of Seti I, where a bush-lined river surrounds the town (Wreszinski 1935:
Pl. 36). Moreover, a stele of Seti I was found on this very tell (Smith 1901:344–
350), showing that it is one of the sites conquered by Seti in the course of
his campaign to this region. A survey of the tell by Albright (1925:16–17) re-
vealed sherds representing all the Bronze Ages, and Iron Age pottery is miss-
ing, thus, corroborating the historical records concerning Yeno‘am, which is
mentioned in Late Bronze Age documents — but not thereafter.

Let us now examine the other texts where Yeno‘am is mentioned:
Thutmose III’s references to Yeno‘am will be dealt with at the end of this
article, because they are of no assistance in identifying the town. On the
other hand, the inscriptions of Seti I are very indicative (see: Albright 1926:
20; Alt 1926:115–117; Noth 1937:210–229; Aharoni 1964; Helck 1971:191–193).
In his stele from Beth-shean (Wilson 1969:253; Gardiner 1961:254), Seti de-
scribes the rebellion against Egypt during which Hamath (a city of the Beth-
shean Valley) conquered the Egyptian center at Beth-shean while collaborat-
ing with Piḫilu, its ally on the other side of the Jordan. In retaliation, Pharaoh
sent troops to Beth-shean, Hamath and Yeno‘am; the troops suppressed the
rebellion in a “single day.” Piḫilu is mentioned; thus, it is clear that the revolt
spread to both sides of the Jordan and that troops were also sent to Yeno‘am
(Tell esh-Shihab) situated on the main road leading towards the Bashan. The
conquest of Yeno‘am was depicted on the above-mentioned Karnak relief of
Seti I (Wreszinski 1935:Pl. 36), but unfortunately, the accompanying inscrip-
tion did not survive. After the conquest, Seti erected his stele at Yeno‘am
(Smith 1901:344–350), analogous to the one he erected in Beth-shean during
the same campaign.
In addition, we have a number of topographical lists of Seti I, all arranged
roughly in parallel order based on a single Vorlage (Noth 1937:212–215;
Aharoni 1957:57–63; Helck 1971:192–193). The first four names in this list,
Piḫilu, Hamath, Beth-shean and Yeno‘am, appeared also on the stele from
Beth-shean, clearly indicating that this was the first real military action dur-
ing the campaign of Seti. Of other events connected with this campaign we
know nothing and can appreciate its overall dimensions only by analyzing
the names mentioned in the topographical lists.

198 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Three places, qdr qrt-‘nb and hḏr, appearing in the same order at the end of
the list, are important for our inquiry. Qdr is described also on a relief of Seti I,
and it might be connected with dgr (metathesis) mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi
I and with the Hellenistic city Gadara south of the Yarmuk (Helck 1971:193). Qrt-
‘nb also appears in Papyrus Anastasi I, as well as among the towns of the Land of
Gari (written Ḫeni-anabi) in an Amarna letter (EA 256, line 26). Albright (1943:
14 n. 41) suggested locating it at Nāb or near the neighboring spring ‘En Nāb,
situated about 10 km. north of the confluence of Wādi Raqad and the Yarmuk.
In the village of Nāb, only Roman-Byzantine pottery was found (Epstein and
Gutman 1972:285 No. 162), but a tel was discovered at Khirbet ‘En Ṭaruk, situ-
ated some 3 km. southeast of Nāb, with Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron
Age I pottery (Epstein and Gutman 1972:286 No. 177), and it is possible that here
is the site of Qrt-‘nb. Hḏr is, of course, Hazor of the Huleh Valley. It seems, there-
fore, that Geder and Qrt-‘nb were also conquered during the war conducted in
the vicinity of the Yarmuk on the way to Yeno‘am; the Egyptian army, after
completing its military actions in this area, turned back to the Jordan Valley,
continuing north to Hazor and then to the Phoenician coast.

Another document sometimes brought up by scholars in connection with
Yeno‘am is Papyrus Anastasi I (Wilson 1969:477; for detailed discussion, see
Aharoni 1957:123, 128–129). However, the toponym in the document, y‘n,
is not comparable with the Egyptian transcription of the name Yeno‘am.
Albright (1926:21) suggested rendering it as y‘m[u], but Egyptologists have
not followed suit (e.g., Wilson 1969:477; Helck 1971:316). In view of the uncer-
tainty concerning this name, it would best be dropped.

The latest source in which the name Yeno‘am appears is the Hymn of
Merneptah, where it follows Ashkelon and Gezer and precedes Israel (Wilson
1969:378; Helck 1971:224). Although this passage is of no assistance in iden-
tifying Yeno‘am, the above-suggested location of Yeno‘am may be an impor-
tant contribution in interpreting this text: Israel appears in the hymn just
after Yeno‘am and may refer to a confederacy of tribes sojourning at the time
in Transjordan and not necessarily to a Cisjordanian group of tribes, as schol-
ars have commonly held.

Finally, we must note the negative evidence: In the biblical descriptions
of the Israelite occupation and settlement, the absence of Yeno‘am is curious,
because the Merneptah stele proves that even at such a late date Yeno‘am was
still an important town. Its location in Transjordan solves the difficulty. It is
possible that Yeno‘am was one of the sixty cities of the Bashan “fortified with
high walls, gates and bars” that, according to the biblical tradition, were con-
quered by the Israelite tribes (Deut. 3:3–5).

Identifying Yeno‘am with Tell esh-Shihab enables us to resume the dis-
cussion of the two difficult passages of the annals of Thutmose III in which

Yeno‘am 199

Yeno‘am is mentioned. After the detailed list of booty taken from the city of
Megiddo appears the following: “List of what was carried off afterward by
the king from the household goods of that enemy (the king of Qadesh) which
were in Yeno‘am, ngs and ḥlnkr together with the property of these towns
which were in vassalage to him”; a list of the booty from the latter towns then
follows (Wilson 1969:237; Helck 1968–69:28). In a second inscription from the
temple of Karnak, Thutmose states that he presented the God Amon with
“three towns in upper Retenu — ngs the name of one, Yeno‘am the name of
another and ḥlnkr the name of another — taxed with annual dues for the di-
vine offerings of my father Amon” (Wilson 1969:237 n.42).

The main difficulty in interpreting these two passages stems from the in-
clusion of ngs. Gardiner (1947:168*–169*), who identified this ngs with the
northern Syrian kingdom of Nuḫašše, was forced to postulate that the three
towns were conquered only in the 34th year of Thutmose and that the two
passages were composed subsequently (see Noth 1938:63 n. 1). Helck, on the
other hand, accepted the commonly held opinion regarding the passage in
the annals as belonging to the Megiddo campaign of year 23 and accord-
ingly suggested dissociating this ngs from the kingdom Nuḫašše lying far
away in the north (Helck 1962:137). However, he later reversed his opinion,
arguing that ngs mentioned in our passage should indeed be identified with
the northern ngs = Nuḫašše, which appears in identical transcription in all
other Egyptian sources. He, therefore, suggested that these three towns, ngs,
Yeno‘am and ḥlnkr, were the respective capitals of the three principal dis-
tricts of the “empire” of Qadesh, with ngs Nuḫašše denoting the region north
of Qadesh, which Thutmose reached in the course of his first campaign (Helck
1968–69:28; 1971:133).

In another discussion (Na’aman 1974:270–271), I already rejected the
historical-geographical reconstruction suggested by Helck in the above-
mentioned article. Equally impossible is the hypothesis according to which
Thutmose reached Nuḫašše, north of Qadesh, during his first campaign.
Assuming that the two passages belong to the campaign of year 23, we
would be obliged to dissociate ngs of our passages from the northern king-
dom of Nuḫašše (the general consensus of scholars such as Breasted 1906:
187 n. 1 and Drower 1973:451). Moreover, the designation of Nuḫašše is
known from all written sources as the name of a kingdom but not as a city or
town (Klengel 1969:18–57), and ngs appears in the inscriptions of Thutmose
as a town. The location of the other two towns also suggests a southern lo-
cation for ngs: Yeno‘am is on the Yarmuk in Transjordan; Ḥlnkr (ḥa–l2-kú-
r, according to the transcription of Helck), probably to be identified with
ḥlkr appearing in the topographical list of Thutmose III (Albright 1926:19;
Jirku 1937:15 n. 7; Helck 1968–69:28; 1971:128), is located in the Bashan or in

200 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

southern Lebanon.6 Thutmose’s inscription refers to the three towns as sit-
uated in upper Retenu, a name denoting the mountainous region in north-
ern Canaan according to its use during the Middle Kingdom and onward
(Gardiner 1947:142*–143*; Helck 1971:266, 268). It would seem that while be-
sieging Megiddo, Pharaoh dispatched some of his troops to the north to sub-
due the Lebanon and the Bashan regions, resulting in the conquest of these
three towns.

Here we must deal with the problem of the special status of these three
towns, viz. ngs, Yeno‘am and ḥlkr, during the short period of Qadesh’s hege-
mony in southern Syria and Canaan. Thutmose’s annals distinguished be-
tween the property of the ruler of Qadesh in those three towns, which be-
longed to his private domain, and the property of other towns, which were
merely subject to him. There are numerous examples from the Mitanni em-
pire indicating that private ownership of territories situated in distant occu-
pied lands was commonly held by Mitanni. According to the Ishmeriga treaty,
nobles from Waššukanni (the capital of Mitanni) held estates in Ishmeriga
and Kizzuwatna (Kempinski and Košak 1970:215–216; Na’aman 1974:270). In a
letter from Nuzi (HSS IX No. 1), Sauštatar, king of Mitanni, granted estates to
his vassals in the distant kingdom of Arrapḫa, and it is clear that the trans-
ferred territories had belonged to him previously (Speiser 1929; Lewy 1942:
7–9, 33–34). With these examples in mind, we may assume that, after the con-
quest of Canaan by Mitanni and its main ally Qadesh (Na’aman 1974:268–272),
the king of Qadesh annexed the three towns to his own royal domain; after
the Egyptian re-conquest the ownership of these towns passed to the victor.

In view of this practice, one may ask: What was the status of Yeno‘am
after the Egyptian conquest? Was the town annexed into the Pharaonic do-
mains in Asia, or did she continue to exist as a Canaanite city, paying her
taxes to the temple of the god Amon, albeit not to the royal treasury? There is
no conclusive answer; we may only raise some arguments in order to clarify
the matter. First, it is to be remembered that no ruler of Yeno‘am is recalled

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

Yeno‘am 201

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

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

202 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

References

Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1964. The Canaanite Campaigns of Seti I. In: Liver, J. ed. The Military History of the

Land of Israel in Biblical Times. Tel Aviv: 40–46. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Albright, W.F. 1925. Bronze Age Mounds of Northern Palestine and Hauran. BASOR 19: 5–19.
Albright, W.F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 6. New Haven: 13–74.
Albright, W.F. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: The Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR

35: 1–14.
Albright, W.F. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. (American Oriental

Series 5). New Haven.
Albright, W.F. 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley.

BASOR 89: 7–17.
Alt, A. 1926. Zur Geschichte von Beth-sean 1500–1000 v. Chr. PJb 22: 108–120. (Reprint: 1953.

Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 246–255).
Alt, A. 1928. Das Institut im Jahre 1927. PJb 24: 5–74.
Breasted, J.H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents II. Chicago.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe and die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78.
Drower, M.S. 1973. Syria c. 1550–1440 B.C. In: The Cambridge Ancient History II/1. 3rd revised

ed. Cambridge: 417–525.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II. In: Albright, W.F. et

al. eds. Festschrift für Albrecht Alt. Tübingen: 29–63.
Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus der Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn.
Epstein, C. and Gutman, S. 1972. The Golan. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the

Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 244–298. (Hebrew).
Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford.
Gardiner, A.H. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford.
Garstang, J. 1931. The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua-Judges. Oxford.
Gauthier, H. 1925, 1926. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les texts hiéro-

glyphiques I, III. Cairo.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39) New Haven.
Hachmann, R. 1970. Kāmid el-Lōz — Kumidi. in Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz —

Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
7). Bonn: 63–94.

Yeno‘am 203

Helck, W. 1962. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. and 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.
Wiesbaden.

Helck, W. 1968–69. Zur Staatlichen Organisation Syriens im Beginn der 18. Dynastie. AfO
22: 27–29.

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

HSS IX = Pfeiffer, R.H. 1932. Excavations at Nuzi II, The Archives of Shilwateshub, Son of the King.
(Harvard Semitic Series IX). Cambridge, MA.

Jirku, A. 1937. Die ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift
und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig.

Kempinski, A. and Košak, S. 1970. Der Išmeriga Vertrag. WO 5: 191–217.
Kitchen, K.A. 1965. Theban Topographical Lists, Old and New. Orientalia 34: 1–9.
Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien,

Berlin.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorder-

asiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Kühne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna. (AOAT 17).

Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Lewy, H. 1942. The Nuzu-Feudal System. Orientalia 11: 1–40, 209–250, 297–349.
Moran, W.L. 1973 The Dual Personal Pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. BASOR 211:

50–53.
Na’aman, N. 1974. Syria at the Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle

Babylonian Period. Ugarit Forschungen 6: 265–274.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According

to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Noth, M. 1937. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. Die Ortsliste Sethos’

I. ZDPV 60: 183–239. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsästze zur biblischen Landes-und Altertumskunde 2.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: 22–44).
Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrian (cont.). Der Aufbau
der Palästinaliste Thutmoses III. ZDPV 61: 26–65. (Reprint: 1971. Aufsästze zur biblischen
Landes- und Altertumskunde 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 44–73).
Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies.
Toronto.
Rowe, A. 1930. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia.
Rowe, A. 1940. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. I: The Temples and Cult Objects.
Philadelphia.
Saarisalo, A. 1927. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali. Helsinki.
Schulman, A. R. 1964. Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom.
Berlin.
Smith, G. A. 1901. Notes of a Journey through Hauran, with Inscriptions Found by the Way.
PEQ 33: 340–361.
Speiser, E. A. 1929. A Letter of Saushshatar and the Date of the Kirkuk Tablets. JAOS 49:
269–275.
Weippert, M. 1973. Die Kämpfe des assyrischen Königs Assurbanipal gegen die Araber.
Redaktionskritische Untersuchung des Berichts in Prisma A. WO 7: 39–85.
Wreszinski, W. 1935. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte II. Leipzig.

Rubutu/Aruboth1

A city called Rbt/Rubutu is mentioned in Thutmose III’s and Shishak’s top-
ographical lists and in the Taanach and Amarna letters. From the early days
of modern research, scholars have suggested various locations for the city/
cities named in these sources. Sayce (1887/88:496) and Zimmern (1890:142)
suggested the identification of Rubutu of the Amarna letters (EA 289:13; 290:
11) with the town of Rabbah, which is mentioned in Josh. 15:60 beside Kiriath-
jearim (Tell Deir el-‘Azar in Abû Ghosh). Clauss (1907:49) accepted the equa-
tion of names and located it at Charbata, north of Beth ‘Ur. Müller (1907:28)
and Dhorme (1908:517) identified the Rubutu of the Amarna letters with the
Rbt (No.105) of Thutmose III’s topographical list, and Abel (1938:423) identi-
fied biblical Rabbah with the town mentioned in these sources.

Sellin (1904:98) suggested the identification of the Rubutu mentioned in
a letter from Taanach (TT 1:26) with the Issacharite town of Rabbith (Josh.
19:20), a suggestion that was accepted by Clauss (1907:49) and Weber (in
Knudtzon 1915:1342). Sellin (1904:98) considered the Rubutu of the Taanach
and Amarna letters as a single town, whereas Weber (in Knudtzon 1915:1342)
emphasized that they are two different towns. Müller (1907: 28 n. 2) identi-
fied the Rubutu of the Taanach letter with the Rbt (No.13) of Shishak’s topo-
graphical list. Finally, Abel (1938, 251) identified the Rubutu of the Taanach
letter with Aruboth, the center of Solomon’s third district (1 Kgs. 4:10).

In his discussion of the toponym Rbt (No. 105) in Thutmose III’s topo-
graphical list, Jirku (1937:16 n. 1) made the following observation:

Wohl das Rubute der Briefe von El-Amarna (EA, I, 289, 290), das auch in einem der zu
Ta‘anak gefundenen Keilschriftbriefe erscheint . . . In der Šošenq-Liste wird der Ort vor
Ta‘anak und Šunem genannt (vgl. XXV, 13).

The identification and location of the Rubutu of the Taanach letter was
discussed by Albright (1944:19 n. 36) in a long note. Due to the importance of
this note, I will cite it in full.

The town of Rubutu (so is the nominative) is mentioned twice in the letters of ‘Abdi-
Ḫeba of Jerusalem. Once (EA 289:13) Rubutu . . . is reported as having been occupied by

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 32 (2000), 373–383.

204

Rubutu/Aruboth 205

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

All scholars who later dealt with the identification of Rubutu disagreed
with Albright’s conclusions. They separated the Rubutu of the Taanach tab-
let from the Rubutu of the Amarna letters and located the latter town in the
northern Shephelah, not far away from the hill country of Judah.

Why was Albright’s suggestion so easily dismissed by other scholars?
The reason may be sought partly in B. Mazar’s analysis of the topographical
list of Shishak (1957:60–63). Mazar applied the principle of boustrophedon to
the first section of the list and obtained a sequence of Gaza (11), Gezer (12),
Rubutu (13), Aijalon (26), qdtm (25), Beth-horon (24), Gibeon (23) . . . Rehob
(17), Beth-shean (16), Shunem (15), Taanach (14), Megiddo (27). Tenth cen-
tury Rbt, which Mazar identified with the Rubutu of the Amarna letters, falls
within a group of northern Shephelah toponyms and, thus, was disassociated
from the Rubutu of the Taanach tablet.2

Mazar’s principle of boustrophedon was followed by some scholars (e.g.,
Aharoni 1967:285–288; 1969:137–141; Rainey 1976b:660–661; Giveon 1979:
135–137; Ahituv 1984: 21). It was criticized by Kitchen (1973:443–444) who
emphasized that the boustrophedon principle is not used in other Egyptian
topographical lists and that it cannot be carried through the first section
of the list. I also rejected the principle of boustrophedon and suggested in-
stead that Row II (Nos. 14–26) was mistakenly copied upside-down (Na’aman

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

206 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

1992a:79). However, even this “minimalist” approach is redundant. Row III,
which opens with Megiddo (No. 27), mainly enumerates toponyms located
along the main road leading from Megiddo to Socoh. It does not differ from
some other parts of Shishak’s topographical list, which are mainly (but not
always) organized in geographically-defined small groups of toponyms, the
direct result of the mode of multiple operations conducted simultaneously by
the Egyptian troops (Noth 1938: 283–289; Kitchen 1973:446–447). Mazar’s hy-
pothesis of the boustrophedon principle should best be abandoned.

Whereas Mazar’s principle of boustrophedon was sometimes criticized, his
conclusion that the Rbt of Shishak’s list is part of a well-defined group of top-
onyms all located in the northern Shephelah and that it is identical with the
Rubutu of the Amarna letters was accepted by all scholars (see e.g., Aharoni
1959:229–230; 1967:286–287; Kallai and Tadmor 1969:143–144; Kitchen 1973:
434–435; Rainey 1976b; Ahituv 1984:165–167; Na’aman 1992a:79–80; 1992b:
277). Locating Rubutu in the northern Shephelah became a scholarly consen-
sus and was accepted in the two recent editions of the Amarna letters (Moran
1992: 391; Liverani 1998:90 n. 2, 468).

Aharoni (1969:137–141) suggested the identification of Rubutu at Khirbet
Bir el-Ḥilû (Khirbet Ḥamideh), a site near Laṭrun, where Late Bronze II and
Iron I-II pottery was found. Aharoni adopted the old equation of Rubutu with
the Rabbah of Josh. 15:60, thereby extending the district in which Rabbah is
included to the northern Shephelah (Aharoni 1959:229–230; 1967:299; 1969:
141). Although his suggestion was accepted by some scholars (e.g., Rainey
1976b; 1983:4; Ahituv 1984:166–167), Rabbah is clearly located in the hill
country of Judah, near Kiriath-jearim, and its placement in the northern
Shephelah is untenable.

Is it necessary to look for the Rubutu of the Amarna letters and for the
Rbt of Shishak’s topographical list in the northern Shephelah and disassoci-
ate it from the Rubutu of the Taanach letter? Let us re-examine the textual
evidence.

(1) ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, accused his adversaries, Milkilu, king
of Gezer, and his allies, Tagi of Ginti-kirmil and Shuwardata of Gath (Tell eṣ-
Ṣâfi), of conquering Rubutu (EA 289:11–13; 290:11–15). According to his re-
port, the troops that participated in the attack of Rubutu arrived from Gezer,
Ginti(-kirmil) and Keilah (EA 290: 11–15, 25–28) (Na’aman 1979:682–683).
However, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba does not state that Rubutu was one of his towns. This
is not accidental. In his letters he keeps complaining of “misdeeds” in places
located outside — sometimes far away — from his borders (e.g., Zilu, Lachish,
Beth-shean). Moreover, his accusations of the capture of Rubutu in EA 289:
11–13 are followed by the complaint of the service of the men of Ginti-kir-
mil at Beth-shean (lines 18–20). Finally, Milkilu was involved in the efforts to

Rubutu/Aruboth 207

bring the sons of Lab’ayu into Piḫilu (EA 250:35–39; see Na’aman 1999), a city-
state located in northern Gilead, a plan that the allies were able to imple-
ment (see EA 255:12–21). I, therefore, suggest that the Rubutu mentioned in
the two letters was located not far from Ginti-kirmil, Tagi’s capital. Milkilu,
who was Tagi’s son-in-law (EA 249:8–9), and Shuwardata (assuming that
‘Abdi-Ḫeba’s accusations against him has some ground) must have helped
Tagi in conquering a town located near the borders of his kingdom. The con-
quest of Rubutu was part of the large-scale offensive of the Shechemite-
Gezerite coalition which, with the help of their allies, operated then in both
northern and southern Palestine.

Ginti-kirmil should be identified at the large mound of the village of Jett, lo-
cated in the eastern end of the plain of Sharon, as first suggested by Alt (1925:
48, n. 3) and accepted by Jirku (1930:143) and Helck (1971:185 n. 115; contra
Rainey 1968). The name of the modern village preserves the component Ginti
in the city’s old name. The petrographic and textual evidence for the location of
Ginti-kirmil at Jett will be discussed in detail by Y. Goren, I. Finkelstein and this
author in a forthcoming publication of our project on the Amarna tablets (see
now Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2002). We may conclude that the Rubutu
of the Amarna letters must be sought not far from Ginti-kirmil’s borders.

(2) Like the topographical list of Shishak, the towns in Thutmose III’s
topographical list are mainly grouped according to geographical regions
(Aharoni 1967: 144–145; for a different opinion, see Redford 1982). The list is
not systematically organized according to regions, and towns located in the
same area are sometimes enumerated in different groups of toponyms. The
following regions may be defined: the southern Lebanese Beqa‘ (Nos. 3–9),
the Anti Lebanon and Hauran regions (Nos. 10–20), the Bashan (Nos. 21–30),
the northern Jordan Valley (Nos. 31–34), the Jezreel and Acco plains (Nos. 35–
47), the southern coastal plain and the Sharon (Nos. 60–72),3 the Taḫshi re-
gion (Nos. 73–85), the Yarmuk River and its tributaries (Nos. 87–96),4 and the
Carmel slopes (Nos. 112–117).

3. There is a marked similarity between toponyms Nos. 66–72 of Thutmose III’s list and
Amenophis II’s inscriptions that relate his campaign to Canaan in his ninth year. Thutmose
III’s list enumerates Aphek (66), Socoh (67), Yaḥam (68), Ḫbḏn (69), Gintu (70), Mktl (71) and
’ptn (72). Amenophis II’s inscription mentions Aphek, Socoh, Yaḥam, Mpśn, Ḫtsn, [Gintu?],
’trn and Mktlyn. It is tempting to identify Ḫbḏn and ’ptn of Thutmose’s list with the Ḫtsn
and Mpśn of the inscription of Amenophis and to regard them as inaccurate variant ren-
derings of the two toponyms. In this light, I suggest that Nos. 71–72 are part of the Sharon’s
group of toponyms.

4. Rḥb (No. 87) is the Canaanite city of Rehob, mentioned in a letter of Taanach (TT 2:
22) and in Seti I’s inscription and located at Tell eṣ-Ṣārem in the Beth-shean plain (contra
Ahituv 1984:164). ’qr is possibly the land of Gari mentioned in an Amarna letter (EA 256:

208 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

In this light, we may re-examine toponyms Nos. 104–111. Qḏr (No. 104) is,
no doubt, the city of Gezer. Rbt (No. 105) is the city of Rubutu. The place of
Mqr/lt (No. 106) is unknown. ‘mq (No. 107) is probably the Jezreel Valley, which
is mentioned for a second time in Shishak’s topographical list (No. 65 p3‘mq).
Śrt (No. 108) is probably the town of Sarid, located on the southern border of
Zebulun’s allotment (Josh 19:10, 12) (Barthélemy 1982:52).5 B’rt (No. 109) may
possibly be identified with the city of Berath/Beēroth, which appears in the
LXX text of Josh 19:19 among the towns of Issachar (Albright 1926: 229; Görg
1974:55). No. 110 is the city of Beth-shean. Btnt (No. 111) may be identified
with the city of Beten (Josh. 19:25), mentioned in the town list of Asher beside
Helkath, Hali and Achshaph. Its name might be rendered Betenath, i.e., Beten
+ the fem. suf. –at. No. 112 is the city of Helkath, No. 113 is Jokneam, and No.
114 is Geba‘ (Tell Abū Shūsheh; see Giveon 1981:33–35; Schmitt 1987:23–41).

Thus, it is evident that toponyms Nos. 107–117 are located in a well-de-
fined area, covering the Beth-shean and Jezreel plains up to the margins of
the Acco plain and the Carmel slopes. Rbt (No. 105) and Mqr/lt (No. 106) well
may be combined with this group, whereas Gezer either is an isolated top-
onym or forms, with No. 103 (Qpt = Gibethon?; Ahituv 1984:101), a small
northern Shephelah group (see next section).

(3) The toponyms in the topographical list of Shishak appear in the fol-
lowing order: G[xx] (11), M[xx(x)] (12), Rbt (13), Taanach (14), Shunem (15),
Beth-shean (16), Rehob (17), Hapharaim (18). The town of Rbt (13) safely may
be combined with the towns that follow it, all located in the Jezreel and Beth-
shean valleys. Its identification with the Rubutu of the Taanach letter (TT 1:
26) is self-evident.

As for the identity of the two broken toponyms that precede Rbt (Nos. 11–
12), toponym No. 11 was usually restored G[ḏt], i.e., Gaza (e.g., Kitchen 1973:
435; Ahituv 1984:98, n. 197). However, Shishak’s list of toponyms does not in-
dicate that he conquered Philistine towns. On the contrary, the Philistine cit-

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

5. Sarid is mentioned possibly one more time in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:13); see
Na’aman 1990: 424–425.

Rubutu/Aruboth 209

ies probably cooperated with the Egyptian troops who operated against their
rivals in central and northern Palestine as well as in the Beer-sheba Valley
and the Negeb Highlands. I suggested restoring No. 11 as G[ḏr], i.e., Gezer,
which was a border town of the northern Israelite kingdom and the natu-
ral first target of the Egyptian campaign (Na’aman 1992a:79–80). The detach-
ment of Gezer from some other towns of the northern Shephelah (Nos. 25–
26 – Aijalon and Gittaim6) is not exceptional in Shishak’s list. For example,
Mahanaim (No. 22) is detached from the other towns located near the Jabbok
River (Nos. 53–56); Gibeon (No. 23) and Zemaraim (No. 57) appear in different
rows. Some topographical lists indeed recorded the toponyms in groups ac-
cording to geographical regions, but the listing is not always systematic and
some isolated toponyms are also registered. This well may be true of the reg-
istration of Gezer (No. 104) in Thutmose III’s list (see above).

Whether the next town (M[xx(x)], No. 12) is the same as the Mqr/lt that ap-
pears after Rbt in Thutmose III’s list remains unknown.

(4) Rubutu is mentioned in Taanach tablet No. 1 (TT 1), which was sent by
Eḫli-Teshub, a neighboring ruler. Lines 24–30 of the letter run as follows (see
Glock 1983:60; Rainey 1999:156*):

And send back word concerning the servant girl, Kan[. . .], who is in the town of
Rubutu, concerning her welfare, and if it is acceptable, [s]ell /[I will s]ell her ([t]a-da-
an-ši or [a-n]a-da-an-ši) either for the ransom or to a master.7

Rewashur, ruler of Taanach, holds the slave girl in Rubutu. Hence, the
town was located within his kingdom. Unfortunately, the letter does not give
any clue for its exact location. The background for the enslavement of the girl
is unknown. Either she was captured by force and was being held until ran-
som was paid, or she was working in Rewashur’s household until a debt was
paid. Eḫli-Teshub suggests either giving her for ransom or selling her for ser-
vitude.

(5) The city of Aruboth was the center of the Solomonic third district (1
Kgs. 4:10). The district is described thus: “The son of Hesed in Aruboth; to
him belonged Socoh and all the land of Hepher.” Socoh was located in the
eastern plain of Sharon (Khirbet Shuweiket er-Râs), on the main road lead-

6. For the rendering of No. 25 (qdtm = Gittaim), see Na’aman 1992a: 80, with earlier lit-
erature.

7. For the translation of line 29, see CAD I 172b; CAD N/1 44a. Rainey’s rendering of the
verb in line 29 ([n]a-da-an-ši) and his translation of lines 28–30 (“and whether he is willing
to sell her for redemption money or to a husband”) is unlikely. First, he brings in to the text
someone (“he”) who is not mentioned elsewhere. Second, the alternative of selling for ran-
som or marriage looks odd. The obvious alternative is between receiving payment for ran-
som and selling the servant girl for money.

210 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

ing from the Shephelah to the plain of Jezreel. The land of Hepher proba-
bly encompassed the territory of the five districts of Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah,
Milcah and Tirzah, which are referred to in the biblical text as “daughters”
of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher. It extended between Wadi el-Far‘ah (Naḥal
Tirzah) and the city of Samaria to the south, the plain of Jezreel to the north,
and the plain of Sharon to the west. The southern limit of the Solomonic
third district (i.e., the southern limit of the land of Hepher) is congruent with
the northern border of the first district (i.e., the northern limit of Mount
Ephraim) (Lemaire 1972; 1977:59–65, 287–289; Zertal 1984:65–78; Na’aman
1986:158–162). The third district included the mountainous areas called the
land of Hepher and a strip of the plain of Sharon marked by the city of Socoh
(for similar geographical conclusions, see Albright 1925:29; Wright 1967:62*–
64*; Mettinger 1971:113–116).

The analysis of all the available sources indicates that there is no compel-
ling evidence for the commonly held assumption of two different towns, des-
ignated by the same name, Rubutu, in southern and northern Palestine. On
the contrary, all references of Rubutu/Aruboth may be attributed to a single
site, probably located in the northern Samaria area, east of Ginti-kirmil (Jett)
and south of Taanach.

Rubutu must have been an important town, as it appears in all the major
extra-biblical geographical-historical sources that we have for the Late
Bronze Age and early Iron Age II (i.e., the topographical lists of Thutmose III
and Shishak and the Taanach and Amarna letters). It was a secondary town
within the Late Bronze kingdom of Taanach, as indicated by letter TT 1. It is
listed before the Jezreel Valley (No. 107 — ‘mq) in the topographical list of
Thutmose III, and before the city of Taanach (No. 14) in Shishak’s list. The at-
tack of Milkilu of Gezer, and his allies, Tagi and Shuwardata, on Rubutu (EA
289:11–13; 290:11–15) might indicate that it was located not far from Ginti-
kirmil’s eastern border. The conquest of Rubutu was part of the attack of
Shechem, Gezer and their allies on Yashdata, ruler of Taanach. The attack
brought about the capture of his towns (EA 250:41–47 — Burquna, Ḫarabu
and Ginti-rimûnima; for site identifications, see Rainey 1968: 7 notes 34–35,
37; Zertal 1992c: 68, 97–98) and his exile from his city (EA 248; see EA 245:1–
18). The kingdom of Taanach did not recover from the attack and soon after-
ward declined as evident from the archaeological excavations conducted on
the site (Glock 1993:1432, with earlier literature).

The identity of Canaanite Rubutu and biblical Aruboth (as suggested
by Abel and Albright) is self-evident, the omission of the initial vowel has
many parallels in Palestinian and ancient Near Eastern onomasticon (for ref-
erences, see Zadok 1978:164–165; 1982:124). The town was a district’s cen-
ter in the time of the Israelite monarchy. Albright (1925:28) linked the name

Rubutu/Aruboth 211

Aruboth with the present-day village of ‘Arrābeh, on the southeast corner
of the Dothan plain; both Mettinger (1971:114) and Lemaire (1972:16; 1977:
62) accepted his suggestion. However, the linkage of names is quite uncer-
tain, and my search for the site of Rubutu is not dependent on the similarity
of the two names.8

The name Aruboth is sometimes linked with the district of Arbatta/
Narbata/Nabrachta of the Second Temple and Roman periods (Möller and
Schmitt 1976:147–148, with earlier literature; Zertal 1992a; Tsafrir, Di Segni
and Green 1994:193, with earlier literature). However, most scholars have
placed the district of Narbata in the Sharon plain and have sought the city
of Aruboth in this area (Klein 1930; Alt 1932:31–34; Weippert 1966:288–291,
with earlier literature; Möller and Schmitt 1976:147–148, with earlier liter-
ature). Other scholars rejected the identification of Arbatta/Narbata with
Nabrachta, locating the first district in the plain of Sharon and searching
for the latter in the northern Samaria area (Grintz 1969:11–31; Safrai 1980:
48–51, 155–157). Although it is linguistically possible that the old name
Rubutu/Aruboth developed into the late form Arbatta/Narbata (Alt 1932:
32; Weippert 1966:289 n. 92), the relationship between the Canaanite and
Israelite town of Rubutu/Aruboth and the Second Temple city and district
of Narbata is highly uncertain. In light of this uncertainty, the two toponyms
should be discussed separately until new data, if found, changes the present
documentary evidence.

Rubutu/Aruboth should best be sought in the Dothan plain; its exact lo-
cation requires some consideration. Wright (1967:63*) looked for Aruboth in
the Dothan plain and mentioned Tell el-ḥafar or Tell el-Masallah as possible
candidates. Zertal (1984:72–76; 1992a) suggested locating Aruboth at Khirbet
el-Ḥamam, in the hilly area southwest of the plain of Dothan. However, no
Late Bronze pottery has been found in Zertal’s excavations of the site, and his
suggested identification is untenable.

There are six Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II sites in the plain of Dothan:
Burqîn, Tell el-Muḥafar, el-Khirab and er-Rujam on its northern side and
Tell Dothan and el-Meshattah on its south (Zertal 1984:154–156; 1992c:51–
52). Burqîn is doubtless the site of Canaanite Burquna, and Tell Dothan is the
place of biblical Dothan (Gen. 37:17; 2 Kgs. 6:13). Of the remaining sites, Tell
Muḥafar is the largest and most suitable for the location of Rubutu/Aruboth.

8. In another article, Albright (1944:19 n. 36) abandoned the identification of Aruboth
with ‘Arrābeh and followed Dhorme (1908:518) in identifying ‘Arrābeh with the town of
Ḫarabu (EA 250:44). Rainey (1968:7 n. 34) accepted this identification, whereas Zertal (1984:
61, 101; 1992:68) identified Ḫarabu with el-Khirab, located on the northwestern side of the
Dothan plain.

212 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Zertal (1992b) equated it with biblical Hepher. However, a city named Hepher
is mentioned neither among the hundreds of toponyms that appear in sec-
ond millennium sources nor in post-biblical sources. Even in the Bible it ap-
pears only in the list of conquered Canaanite cities (Josh 12:17). Therefore,
I agree with Lemaire (1972:14–16; 1977:61–62) that Hepher was not a city’s
name, but rather the name of a vast region (1 Kgs. 4:10) whose five districts
are personified by the names of Hepher’s five granddaughters (Num. 26:32–
33; 27:1; Josh 17:2–3). Its essence as a district’s name explains why it sur-
vived in four places in the Dothan plain: Tell el-Muḥafar, Khirbet al-Muḥafar,
Khirbet Ḥafireh and Bīr el-Ḥafireh. The regional name Hepher was selected
by the author of Joshua 12 to represent the northern Samarian hill country,
which is not included in the conquest tradition of the Book of Joshua.9

In sum, combination of all the evidence points to the plain of Dothan as
the most likely location of Rubutu/Aruboth. In light of the importance of
Rubutu/Aruboth in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II, I suggest locating it
at Tell el-Muḥafar, the largest mound in the plain of Dothan. The archaeolog-
ical survey conducted at the site indicates that it was settled from the Early
Bronze Age until the Roman period (Zertal 1984:98–99, Pls. 13–15; 1992c:108–
111). One hopes that the site will be excavated in the future, so that its ar-
chaeological data will join the historical information presented in this article
and amplify our outlook of this interesting Canaanite and Israelite city.

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

Rubutu/Aruboth 213

References

Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris.
Aharoni, Y. 1959. The Province List of Judah. VT 9: 225–246.
Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145.
Ahituv, S. 1981. The Lebanon, Galilee and Bashan in a Topographical List of Amenophis III.

Eretz Israel 15: 129–136. (Hebrew).
Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.
Albright, W.F. 1925. The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah. JPOS 5: 17–54.
Albright, W.F. 1926. The Topography of the Tribe of Issachar. ZAW 44: 225–236.
Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27.
Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58.
Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth,

Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orienralis 50/1).
Fribourg and Göttingen.
Clauss, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1–78.
Deutsch, R. 1997. Messages from the Past. Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Josiah through
the Destruction of the First Temple. Tel Aviv.
Dhorme, P. 1908. Les pays bibliques au temps d’el-Amarna. RB 5: 500–519.
Edel, E. 1966. Der Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn.
Giveon, R. 1979. Remarks on Some Egyptian Toponym Lists concerning Canaan. In: Görg,
M., and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg:
135–141.
Giveon, R. 1981. Geba‘ (Urk. IV, 786, 114). Göttinger Miszellen 49: 33–36.
Glock, A.E. 1983. Texts and Archaeology at Tell Ta‘annek. Berytus 31: 57–66.
Glock, A.E. 1993. Taanach. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land 4. Jerusalem: 1428–1433.
Goren, I., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2002. The Seat of three Disputed Canaanite Rulers
according to Petrograpic Investigation of the Amarna Tablets. Tel Aviv 29: 221-237.
Görg, M. 1974. Untersuchungen zur Hieroglyphischen Wiedergabe Palästinischer Orts-
namen. Bonn.
Görg, M. 1979. Identifikation von Fremdnamen. Das methodische Problem am Beispiel
einer Palimpsestschreibung aus dem Totentempel Amenophis III. In: Görg, M. ed.
Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 152–173.
Grintz, M.Y. 1969. Chapters in the History of the Second Temple Times. Jerusalem.
(Hebrew).
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.
2nd revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Heltzer, M. 2000. Some Questions Concerning the Economic Policy of Josiah, King of Judah.
IEJ 50: 105–108.
Hrozný, F. 1904. Keischrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. Wien: 113–122.
Jirku, A. 1930. Durch Palästina und Syrien. Bericht über eine Forschungsreise in Frühjahr
1929. ZDPV 53: 136–166.
Jirku, A. 1937. Die Ägyptischen Listen palästinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift
und mit historisch-archäologischem Kommentar herausgegeben. (Klio, Beiheft 38). Leipzig.
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).

214 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster.
Klein, S. 1930. Narbatta und die jüdischen Siedlungen westlich von Samaria. Monatschrift

für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 74: 369–380.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorder-

asiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Lemaire, A. 1972. Le “Pays de Hépher” et les “filles de Zelophehad” à la lumière des ostraca

de Samarie. Semitica 22: 13–20.
Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. I. Les ostraca. Paris.
Lenzen, C.J. and Knauf, E.A. 1987. Notes on Syrian Toponyms in Egyptian Sources I.

Göttinger Miszellen 96: 59–64.
Liverani, M. 1998. Le lettere di el-Amarna I-II. ( Testi del Vicino Oriente antico). Brescia.
Mazar, B. 1957. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Supplement to VT 4: 57–66.
Mettinger, T.N.D. 1971. Solomonic State Officials. A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the

Israelite Monarchy. (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Serie 5). Lund.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Möller, C. and Schmitt, G. 1976. Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus. (Beihefte

zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] Nr. 14).
Tübingen.
Müller, W.M. 1907. Die Palästinaliste Thutmosis III. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft Eingetragener Verien 12. Berlin: 1–40.
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. Ugarit-
Forschungen 11: 673–684.
Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical
Geographical Lists. Jerusalem.
Na’aman, N. 1990. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IV-
V). VT 40: 423–436.
Na’aman, N. 1992a. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93.
Na’aman, N. 1992b. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the
Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291.
Na’aman, N. 1999. Milkilu’s Messenger and the Sons of Lab’ayu (EA 250: 28–34). Nouvelles
Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1999/1: No. 27.
Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege des Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. IV Die Schoschenk-
liste. ZDPV 61: 277–304.
Rainey, A.F. 1968. Gath-padalla. IEJ 18: 1–14.
Rainey, A.F. 1976a. Rabbah, ha-Rabbah. Enc. Miqr. VII: 314–315. (Hebrew).
Rainey, A.F. 1976b. Shishak, Shoshak. Enc. Miqr. VII: 655–661. (Hebrew).
Rainey, A.F. 1983. The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. BASOR 251: 1–22.
Rainey, A.F. 1999. Taanach Letters. Eretz Israel 23: 153*–162*.
Redford, D.B. 1982. A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan. Journal of the Society for the Study
of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74.
Safrai, Z. 1980. Borders and Administration in Eretz Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and the
Talmud. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Sayce, A.H. 1887–88. Babylonian Tablets from Tell el-Amarna, Upper Egypt. Proceedings of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology 10: 488–525.
Schmitt, G. 1987. Geba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103: 22–48.
Sellin, E. 1904. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Wien, Phil. -Hist. Klasse 50/4). Wien.
Tsafrir, Y., Di Segni, L. and Green, J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani — Maps and Gazetteer. Eretz
Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem.

Rubutu/Aruboth 215

Weippert, M. 1966. Archäologischer Jahresbericht. ZDPV 82: 274–330.
Wright, G.E. 1967. The Provinces of Solomon. Eretz Istael 8: 58*–68*.
Zadok, R. 1978. West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources. In: Avishur, Y.

and Blau J., eds. Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm
on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: 163–179.
Zadok, R. 1982. Remarks on the Inscription of Hdys‘y from Tell Fakhariya. Tel Aviv 9: 117–
129.
Zertal, A. 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Zertal, A. 1992a. Arubboth. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. New York: 465–467.
Zertal, A. 1992b. Hepher. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. New York: 138–139.
Zertal, A. 1992c. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Shechem Syncline. University of Haifa.
(Hebrew).
Zimmern, H. 1890. Palästina um das Jahr 1400 vor Chr. Nach neuen Quellen. ZDPV 13: 133–
147.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of
Canaan1

The question of the economic advantages gained for Egypt by holding the
land of Canaan permanently during the Late Bronze Age has, until recently,
been dealt with only in a general way.2 The isolation of the factors relating
exclusively to the problems of the Egyptian permanent occupation of the land
of Canaan and the Egyptian impositions on their vassals is so difficult that
scholars have usually withheld judgement.3 However, Albright (1975:106) ex-
pressed the opinion that “the regular tribute alone must have been a ter-
rific burden.” This view was combined with his earlier concept, according to
which “the wealth and culture of southern Canaan decreased rather steadily
under foreign misrule, until it reached an extremely low ebb in the thir-
teenth century” (Albright 1949:101; 1963:25).

In an article published recently, Ahituv (1978:93–105) reviewed this ques-
tion. As a basis for his study, he used the written documents available for
the whole period of Egyptian rule in Canaan, sorting the material according
to the different categories of commodities and estimating the value of each
item for Egypt. His conclusions are diametrically opposite to the views held
by Albright: “It is indeed probable that there was no economic interest in the
Egyptian conquest of Canaan, and if such an interest existed it was very lim-
ited” (Ahituv 1978:104).

This article will re-examine the economic aspects of the Egyptians’ occu-
pation of the Land of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.

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

216

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 217

The Problem of the Source Material

The written sources available for our inquiry are the Amarna letters, sev-
eral Egyptian royal inscriptions and a handful of administrative and economic
texts. No Egyptian royal archive, other than that discovered at Amarna, has
been found. The administrative and economic texts were collected from var-
ious places and cover different reigns and subjects. Thus, it is clear that no
comprehensive picture of the type required by the subject of this article can
be drawn from them.

The royal inscriptions pose a different problem. Almost all the informa-
tion included there is connected with booty, and other kinds of income are
rarely recorded. However, the booty lists, important as they are for the study
of the economy of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, should not be taken into
account in the present discussion. The establishment of a permanent body of
government and the imposition of taxes and duties on the conquered popu-
lation oblige the conqueror to maintain the security of that territory. Military
campaigns, whose primary object is to take the maximal amount of booty,
are destructive by nature, and their aim is the opposite of that of a perma-
nent government. It is my opinion that the mixture of booty and tribute (as
in Ahituv’s article) cannot contribute to the assessment of the more perma-
nent factors of Egyptian government in Canaan.

The Amarna letters are a very different case, because many aspects essen-
tial to the discussion are included there. The duration of the whole archive,
the place of many letters within the chronological framework, the origin of
most of the dispatches and the relative strength of the city-states mentioned
in the tablets are well known. A combination of all these data together may
help in the examination of the problem at hand.

The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten were devoid of major military
campaigns. The lack of booty made it necessary to use peaceful means (com-
merce, gifts and tribute) to bring needed materials to Egypt. This is a clear ad-
vantage when one is trying to identify the possible contributions of the vas-
sals to the treasury of their overlord.

The Amarna letters are crucial for the discussion. Thus, it is important to
appreciate what has remained of the original archive. This unique collection
includes letters brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new cap-
ital Akhetaten (Amarna) when the royal court moved there, but lacks those
letters taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment. The number
of letters transferred in both cases is unknown, and we don’t know the cri-
teria for their selection. One might conjecture that only those letters that
were necessary for future correspondence were brought to the new capital
and taken when the royal court left Amarna (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:32–

218 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

36; Na’aman 1975:2–3). Also, an unknown part of the archive was totally de-
stroyed when it was discovered and before the value of the tablets was rec-
ognized (Knudtzon 1915:1–15; Campbell 1964). Therefore, it should be kept in
mind that our main source for the discussion is only a part of the original ar-
chive of Amarna.

The time span of the archive is important for the discussion below. The ar-
chive covers the period from the thirtieth year of Amenophis III to the third
year of Tutankhamun, when the city of Amarna was abandoned. The time
span depends on whether there was co-regency between Amenophis III and
Akhenaten or not. The maximal period covered by the archive is 28 years
(8+17+3), and the minimal is 17 years (8+6+3).

The Economic Data of the Amarna Tablets

The tribute in the Amarna letters is hopelessly confused with the gifts,
and there is no way to distinguish between them. However, as vassals’ “gifts”
were usually not less obligatory than tribute in the ancient Near East, this is
not a real obstacle to the discussion.

The term for tribute in the letters is biltu. It appears in the combination
bilat šarri (EA 288:12; see EA 160:44) and bilat šamaš (EA 325:21). The terms for
gifts are tāmartu (EA 99:12, 19) and qīštu (EA 53:51, 100:33, 288:22).

The discussion of the economic data is divided into three main categories.
We shall examine the value of the items in terms of “money” whenever this is
possible, using the silver shekel as a standard.

Tributes and Gifts

The deliveries of both kinds will be grouped together by commodities.

Silver

EA 287:54 — 5000 shekels are sent from Jerusalem;4 EA 313:7–11 — 1400
shekels are sent from southern Palestine; EA 309:21 — 100 shekels are sent
from southern Palestine; EA 270 — Milkilu of Gezer is severely requested to
pay 2000 shekels; EA 99 — the ruler of Ammiya is ordered to send 20 shekels
as a part of the dowry of his daughter.

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

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 219

Copper and Bronze

Bronze was used exclusively for manufacturing tools and vessels.
Therefore, whenever a heavy weight is mentioned, even if the Akkadian
word is siparru (“bronze”), it can only mean “copper” and not “bronze”
(Oppenheim 1969:241). EA 151:47 — 5 talents of copper are sent from Tyre; EA
69:25–30 — an unspecified amount of copper was taken from Byblos; EA 77:7–
8 — Rib-Adda of Byblos is requested to send copper and bronze tools.5 The re-
lationship of the value of silver to that of copper in Egypt at the time of the
18th Dynasty was 1:100 (Helck 1975:270; Janssen 1975:106–107). Copper was
cheaper in the northern countries, roughly 1:200–400.6

Glass

Four rulers, all from southern Palestine, sent raw glass (eḫlipakku) on the
same occasion (EA 314, 323, 327, 331).7 The ruler of Tyre sent the same mineral
(mekku — EA 148:5). The weights mentioned in the letters are 30 (EA 323:16), 50
(EA — 327:10) and 100 (EA 148:8), but it is not clear whether it designates the
shekel unit or not, and we cannot estimate the value of these consignments.

Wood

EA 160:14–19 — Aziru of Amurru sent 8 ships loaded with wood; EA 161:
55–56 the same ruler promised to send another transport of wood (and agri-
cultural products as well); EA 151:48 — an unknown kind of wood is sent from
Tyre to Egypt.

Manufactured Goods

EA 266:20–33 — Tagu of Ginti-kirmil sent a chariot with all its appurte-
nances;8 EA 151:48 — Abi-Milki of Tyre sent a whip to the Pharaoh; EA 168:9–
10 — Aziru of Amurru sent vessels (unūtu); EA 99 — the ruler of Ammiya is or-
dered to send chariots and horses (besides silver and slaves) as a dowry to the
Pharaoh. All the dispatches mentioned in this category are clearly gifts.9

5. For s/še-en-ni meaning bronze vessel, see Liverani 1971:261, n. 45; AHw 1164b, s.v.
šannu(m). It is not clear to me why the passage EA 69:8, 10, 13 was cited in AHw 1048a, s.v.
sinnu 1.

6. For Nuzi, see Eichler 1973:15; Heltzer 1978:30–31, 77–78.
7. For the identification of eḫlipakku as a raw glass, see Oppenheim 1973:259–266.
8. For this passage, see Na’aman 1977b.
9. “Thirty goblet[s of silver(?)] and gold” are mentioned in letter EA 219:25, but the tab-
let is so broken that the context in which the goblets appear remains obscure.

220 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Cattle

EA 301:19 — Shubandu of south Palestine sent 500 cattle; EA 242:11 —
Biridiya of Megiddo sent 30 cattle. The price of an ox in Egypt at the time of
the 18th and 19th Dynasties was about a half dbn (=5 shekels) of silver (Helck
1975:271–272; Janssen 1975:176). The price of an ox in the northern countries
was 10–20 shekels of silver.10

Personnel

EA 64:20–23 — ‘Abdi-Ashtarti of south Palestine sent 10 maids of an un-
known description;11 EA 268:15–20 — Milkilu of Gezer sent 46 maidser[vants],
5 attendants and 5 aširūma. EA 287:54–55 — ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem sent x
prisoners (asirū) and x+8 caravan escorts; EA 288:16–22 — ‘Abdi-Ḫeba sent 21
maidservants, 10 slaves and 80 prisoners (asirū);12 EA 301:20 — Shubandu of
southern Palestine sent 20 girls; EA 309:19–24 — a southern Palestinian ruler
sent 10 maidservants and 10 slaves on one occasion and x + 1 on another;13 EA
99 — the ruler of Ammiya is ordered to send 20 slaves as part of the dowry of
his daughter to the Pharaoh.

The price of a maidservant, according to an Amarna letter (EA 369), was
40 shekels of silver. This fits well the prices in Egypt (Helck 1975:211) and the
north Syrian kingdoms in that period.14 Accordingly, the deliveries of slaves

10. Heltzer 1978:20–21, 74, n. 13. The average price of an ox at Nuzi was 10 shekels of
silver; Eichler. 1973:15.

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

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 221

and maids were of very high value. In letter EA 369, the Pharaoh sent his
envoy to buy 40 maids at their full price. As mentioned above, no major mili-
tary campaign was conducted in those years, and the dispatch of all kinds of
slaves seems to have been essential for the Pharaoh.

The group called aširū(ma) needs brief consideration. Rainey (1967:296–
301) suggested that they were a kind of military personnel. Astour (1972:
15–25), on the other hand, defined them as merchants organized in groups.
Without embarking on a detailed discussion, it seems to me that the material
from Canaan supports Rainey’s suggestion. Thus, in letter No. 5 from Taanach,
Amenophis orders the ruler of Taanach to send him tribute and troops, in
which aširū are also included.15 Milkilu of Gezer and ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem
sent transports to the Pharaoh, which included slaves, maidservants, atten-
dants, caravan escorts, prisoners and aširūma (EA 268:20). Merchants are out
of question in this context. The aširū(ma) may well be a kind of warrior, per-
haps even bodyguards of the rulers.

Pharaonic Territories and Their Products

Alongside the old Canaanite city-states, the Egyptians established a net-
work of garrison cities to administer the territories under their power, prob-
ably set up by Thutmose III. Four were situated on the coast, Gaza and Joppa
in the south and Ullasa and Ṣumur in the north; one city (or perhaps two)
was located on the major caravan-route linking Mesopotamia and Syria with
Palestine and Egypt (Beth-shean and possibly Yeno‘am; see Na’aman 1977a);
another such city, Kumidi, lay on the major crossroad of the Lebanese Beqa‘.
In all these places (except Kumidi) the city-state rulers were deposed and re-
placed by Egyptian officials who assumed administration of the city, in coop-
eration with the local urban institutions (see EA 102:22–2316).

The vassal city-state rulers were liable to corvée of different kinds, which
they fulfilled in the Egyptian garrison cities and the surrounding territories.
They garrisoned the cities (EA 60:20–25, 103:13–15, 289:18–20; see EA 190:4–
5, 197:37–39, 253:32–35), defended their walls and gates (EA 296:30–33) and

15. Taanach tablet No. 5, lines 4–15. There is no textual justification for Albright’s
translation (1944:23–24), which began a new sentence in line 8, thus, separating the aširū
from the preceding lines.

16. The passage is related to the Egyptian garrison-city of Ṣumur, and the official men-
tioned there was probably Appiḫa (EA 69:25,29, 100:12, 105:35; see EA 103:11–15, 106:21–22).
I cannot accept the opinion of A. Altman (1978:101) that the passage is related to the city
of Ambi; Ambi was under the sovereignty of Byblos and, as a subordinate town, was not di-
rectly supervised by an Egyptian official.

222 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

guarded special installations (EA 294:16–24). They were also liable to repair
damages (EA 160:26–28; 161:35–40).

The most instructive letters are those relating to the cultivation of the
Egyptian territories in the area of the garrison cities. Letter EA 365 is the
well-known episode of gathering corvée workers for cultivating the fields of
Shunem.17 It has been suggested that the fields of Shunem were incorporated
as a result of the destruction of the city by Lab’ayu (Alt 1924:34–41). However,
another solution seems preferable; in the annals of Thutmose III, after the list
of booty taken from three Transjordanian cities (Na’aman 1977a), the follow-
ing passage (Wilson 1969:238) appears:

Now the fields (3ḫw.t) were made into arable plots (‘ḥw.t) and assigned to inspectors of
the palace . . . in order to reap their harvest. List of the harvest which his majesty car-
ried off from the Megiddo arable plots (‘ḥw.t): 207,300 [+x] sacks of wheat, apart from
what was cut as forage by his majesty’s army.

The first part of the passage is related to the fields of the above-mentioned
three cities, which were reparcelled and assigned to the supervision of the
palace’s inspectors. The second part is related to the fields in the neighbor-
hood of Megiddo, using the same Egyptian term, ‘ḥw.t, as in the first sentence.
The word ‘ḥw.t (“arable plots”), in contrast to 3ḫw.t (“fields”), designates the
administrative status of the territory belonging to the state.18 Thus, the enor-
mous amount of reaped sacks of grain came from a large area of arable land
incorporated by the Pharaoh after the conquest of Megiddo. Therefore, one
may conjecture that the fields, including the area around Shunem, were su-
pervised by the nearby Egyptian garrison-city of Beth-shean, which was an-
nexed at that time.

Further light on these incorporated territories is gained from letter No. 2
of Taanach (Albright 1944:20–23, with earlier references; Rainey 1977:33–64).
The letter was sent by Aḫiyami, the ruler of Rehob, a city situated in the Beth-

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

18. For ‘ḥw.t see Gardiner 1948:55.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 223

shean valley (Albright 1944:23, n. 70) In one section (lines 13–16) he writes:
“Command your towns that they should do their (corvée) work. I am respon-
sible for anyone who stays in the town.”19

The responsibility of the ruler of Rehob for the corvée work of the towns
of Taanach is an exact parallel to the responsibility of Biridiya of Megiddo for
workers coming to Shunem from Joppa and Nuribta (EA 365). It seems that
rulers situated in the bordering areas were (in turn?) responsible for the cul-
tivation and harvesting of the Pharaonic fields in the Jezreel Valley and for
supervising workers originating from other city-states. The Jezreel Valley
was in all likelihood crown property at this time, as it was in later periods.20

The territorial scope of the other Egyptian garrison-cities is less clear.
Kumidi’s position in the Lebanese Beqa‘ is similar to that of Beth-shean in the
Jezreel Valley. Was the annexation of Kumidi combined with the incorpora-
tion of the nearby fertile fields? This may well be an important factor in the
foundation of an Egyptian garrison city in the Lebanese Beqa‘.

In letter EA 60, ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru says: “And I had harvested the
grain of Ṣumur” (lines 26–27).21 Ṣumur was an Egyptian garrison city; thus, its
fields were cultivated by the neighboring vassals.

We know about royal granaries (šunuti) in the Egyptian garrison city of
Joppa from letter EA 294:22. What grain was brought there? One possibility is
that it originated from fields in the territory of vassals. However, apart from
a single case (EA 224), such imposts were always connected with the prepara-
tions for an Egyptian military campaign (see below). Therefore, another possi-
bility may be suggested: The grain came from incorporated territories located
near Joppa. Unfortunately, only late and indirect arguments can be brought
in support of this assumption. Joppa is absent from the conquered Canaanite
cities in Joshua 12 and is excluded from the territory of Dan (Josh. 19:40–46);22
this might indicate that Joppa was not annexed by the kingdom of Israel in
the tenth century BCE. Indeed, according to the annals of Sennacherib, Joppa,
with Beth-dagon, Bene-berak and Azor, belonged at that time to the kingdom
of Ashkelon. Ashkelon apparently seized the harbor of Joppa with its territory
to the east after the collapse of Egyptian rule in southern Palestine and held

19. For line 16, see EA 174:8–9 and 363:7–8: nīnu ibašânu ana māt Amqi, “we were in the
land of ‘Amqi.”

20. Alt 1924:34–41; 1937:79–83; Avi-Yonah 1966:136–137, 141–142; Kallai 1958:632–634.
21. The translation of CAD (E 340a) is not acceptable since it combines two compound
sentences with the same verb.
22. Josh. 19:40–46; see Kallai-Kleinmann 1958:134–160; Mazar 1960:65–77; Aharoni
1966:266–267.

224 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

it until the eighth century BCE.23 Granted this reconstruction, the territory to
the east of Joppa was an integral part of the Egyptian garrison-city.

The city of Gaza poses another problem. There is much textual and ar-
chaeological evidence for intensified Egyptian activity in southern Palestine
in the time of the 19th and 20th Egyptian Dynasties (see below). But the only
evidence known to me for the area out of Gaza during the 18th Dynasty is a
tablet unearthed at Tell el-Ḥesi (EA 333j.24 Inasmuch as the tablet was sent to
an Egyptian official (rabû), it seems that his seat was at Tell el-Ḥesi and that
the place may have belonged to the Egyptian center at Gaza.

Summarizing the discussion, it seems to me that Thutmose III an-
nexed not only the above-mentioned six garrison cities (as well as the
Transjordanian triad), but also considerable territory in their neighborhood.
The clearest case is for the Egyptian lands in the Jezreel valley, around Beth-
shean; the evidence for the other Egyptian garrison cities is more limited or
even obscure. The Canaanite vassals performed part of their corvée by culti-
vating these fields, whose produce was gathered in the cities. Part of the pro-
duce might well have been sent to Egypt, with the rest serving for the main-
tenance of the Egyptian troops and administration stationed temporarily or
permanently in the country.

Preparations for Egyptian Military Campaigns

Egyptian campaigns to the north were supported by extensive prepara-
tions undertaken by the vassals in Asia, relieving Egypt of the economic bur-
den usually involved in such campaigns. It is assumed that, as the commod-
ities needed for these campaigns were collected from Canaanite cities, they
formed an additional burden on the vassals of Thutmose III and his succes-
sors.

The steps taken by Thutmose III in organizing his campaigns to the north
are very well known. He collected food supplies and all the equipment and
materials needed for future campaigns at several bases situated along the
Phoenician coast (Alt 1950). Thus, for example, even the boats designed to
cross the Euphrates were prepared in the mountains of Lebanon, near the
Phoenician coast (Wilson 1969:240).

Thutmose III conducted his campaigns from bases located along the
Phoenician coast, and, therefore, only the maritime bases are mentioned in
his inscriptions. The Amarna letters (and letters Nos. 5–6 from Taanach as

23. For the historical continuity between the Egyptians and the Philistines, see Alt
1944:14–20. See also Mazar 1964: 5–6.

24. See the detailed discussion by Albright 1942:32–38.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 225

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

Comparative Material

To evaluate the data collected in the preceding paragraph, we shall
bring some comparative material from two other ancient Near Eastern
kingdoms.

The tribute paid by Ugarit to the Hittite kingdom was recorded in the
treaty of Shuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu (Dietrich and Loretz 1966:206–245).
The tribute consisted of 500 large shekels of gold, goblets of gold amount-
ing to 100 shekels, goblets of silver amounting to 180 shekels, 13 garments of
linen, 1300 garments of dark red wool and 1300 garments of light red wool.
The tribute paid by Aziru of Amurru to the Hittites is mentioned in the treaty
between Murshili II and Duppi-Teshub: 300 shekels of refined gold.26 The rate
of gold to silver in the contemporary northern states was 1:4–9 (Leemans
1957–71:512–513; Heltzer 1978:14, 27).

Other data concerning tribute are known from the Assyrian empire in the
first millennium BCE. The ruler of Bit Zamani (a north Mesopotamian state)
paid Ashurnaṣirpal II two minas of gold, 13 minas of silver, 1000 sheep and
2000 (measures) of barley (Luckenbill 1926:§475).

In the days of Shalmaneser III, the north Syrian kingdoms paid the fol-
lowing sums: Patina — 1 talent of silver, 2 talents of dark red wool and 200
logs of cedar; Carchemish — 10 minas of gold, 1 talent of silver and 2 talents
of dark red wool; Sam’al — 10 minas of silver, 200 logs of cedar and 1 homer
of cedar resin; Kummuh — 20 minas of silver and 300 logs of cedar (Luckenbill
1926:§601).

A partial list of the tribute imposed by Esarhaddon on Egypt after its con-
quest is also known (Borger 1956:114, II:13–19).

The annual payment of tribute (šattišam, “yearly”) is repeated innumera-
ble times in the Assyrian royal inscriptions; withholding tribute was always

25. For this campaign, see Schulman 1964:51–69; Reviv 1966:45–51; Liverani 1971:259–
260, n. 41; Pintore 1972:101–131; 1973:299–318.

26. Goetze 1969:203b. For the tribute of Cyprus, see Güterbock 1967: 77–78. 51.

226 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

Conclusions

The discussion so far has shown how complicated is the problem at hand.
No clear-cut picture is to be expected under such circumstances, but certain
conclusions may be drawn from the evidence.

One of the main objects of a historical discussion is to judge properly
the balance of documentation. The Hittite and Assyrian royal archives illus-
trate the wide gap between the amounts of the annual tributes and the frag-
mentary evidence relating to the payments that was actually found in the
daily records. Only the royal inscriptions and treaties enable us to appreci-
ate the overall amount of the tributes. In Egypt, such information was not
included in the royal inscriptions, and only the partial archive from Amarna
has been found. The vassals were certainly obliged to pay their tribute on a
yearly basis, and an uninterrupted payment of the tribute was always con-
sidered an essential sign of loyalty to the Pharaoh (see EA 60:19–32, 254:
10–15). Apparently, however, only a relatively small part of the contribu-
tions to Egypt were mentioned in those letters. Most of the contributions
must have been collected by the Egyptian officials during their excursions
in the country without being recorded in the letters. Only on the occasion of
writing on other matters were the payments of tributes by the vassals men-
tioned, to emphasize their loyalty to the Pharaoh. The conclusion is inevi-
table: Even our main source, the Amarna letters, contains only a small part
of the whole set of contributions and must be used only as a guide to the
overall picture.

The sums paid by several south Palestinian vassals are quite remarkable.
Jerusalem sent (undoubtedly during a short time) two very valuable consign-
ments of 5000 shekels of silver and scores of different kinds of personnel.28

27. For the material concerning the Assyrian tributes and gifts, see Martin 1936;
Postgate 1974; Elat 1977.

28. One might express reservations about the high numbers included in letter EA
287:53–57, because the caravan was robbed on its way and did not reach Egypt. Thus, it

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 227

Milkilu of Gezer sent 50 persons of various kinds and was obliged to pay on
another occasion 2000 shekels of silver; 1400 shekels of silver were sent by an
unknown southern ruler, 100 shekels and 20 slaves by another, 20 maids and
500 cattle by Shubandu and 10 maids by ‘Abdi-Ashtarti. There are also the
four deliveries of raw glass from the same area. Several consignments were
sent from north Palestine and the Phoenician coast, but there is no record of
tribute from the south Syrian and Transjordanian cities.29

I have claimed elsewhere that Helck’s division of the Egyptian prov-
ince of Canaan into three administrative districts (Canaan, Amurru and
Upi in Helck’s terminology) (Helck 1971:248–252; see Aharoni 1967:146–
153; de Vaux 1968:25–28) is not acceptable. Rather, I have suggested that the
Phoenician coast and Palestine (apart from its northern parts) were one ad-
ministrative unit, and southern Syria (including the Bashan and the king-
dom of Hazor) was treated separately. This structure was apparently the out-
come of the events of the Middle Bronze Age, when southern Palestine and
the Phoenician coast were under Egyptian influence (though not necessarily
direct rule), and southern Syria and northern Palestine were grouped with
the Syro-Mesopotamian West Semitic kingdoms. These kingdoms, thus, ac-
quired an altogether different administrative and cultural tradition from the
other territories of Canaan, and was organized within a separate framework
(Na’aman 1975:166–172, 227).

The Egyptian policy in the two districts under their control might have
been different; the northern and less effectively controlled areas of Syria
were relieved, partially or even totally, from the burden of paying the yearly
tribute.

A comparison of the above-mentioned contributions to the tribute paid
by the much larger and richer north Mesopotamian and north Syrian states
to the Hittites and the Assyrians shows that the Egyptian burden was not
light at all. Admittedly, the Amarna letters mixed together tribute and gifts,
and the Hittite and Assyrian royal inscriptions and treaties mentioned mainly
(or even exclusively) tribute. On the other hand, the Amarna contributions
were only a portion of the levies imposed by the Egyptians on their vassals.
This point should be elaborated: The involvement of Egypt in the affairs of

can be argued that ‘Abdi-Ḫeba intentionally exaggerated, to reduce his future payments
(see lines 57–59: “Let the king, my lord, know that I cannot send a caravan to the king,
my lord.”).

29. Astour (1972:23) has suggested that a group of 10 aširūma were sent to Egypt from
one of the kingdoms situated in the land of Amqi (EA 173:13–14). But this letter dealt en-
tirely with military operations, and its sender was probably an Egyptian official, sending
the Pharaoh 10 prisoners of war (asirū).

228 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Canaan was more profound than the Hittites’ and the Assyrians’ involvement
in their vassal states. Canaan under Egyptian rule might be described as half-
way between an incorporated province and a vassal state, with a balance be-
tween the local rulers with their city-states on the one hand and the Egyptian
troops and administration with their garrison-cities on the other hand. This
difference in the relationships of the empires with their vassal states should
be kept in mind when comparing the burden that they imposed.30

The nature of the tribute and gifts is also significant. Most of the con-
signments from Palestine were of silver, cattle and personnel, with extraor-
dinary dispatches of raw glass and a chariot. From the Phoenician coast were
sent wood, copper/bronze and special deliveries like raw glass and vessels. It
is clear, therefore, that all those contributions were actually directed to the
Egyptian court and not to the Egyptian garrison-cities in Canaan.

Apart from cattle, agricultural products are only sporadically mentioned.
Grain and oil appear only once, and wine, honey, and so forth, are absent.
However, because agricultural land was a part of the Egyptian garrison-cities’
territories, the products of that land might have been sent Egypt. Agricultural
products like wine and oil probably were sent from Canaan to Egypt either by
commerce or even as tribute, although it is not attested in our letters.31

The existence of a network of supply for the Egyptian army embarking
on military campaigns to the north, both along inland roads and along the
coast, was an important military and economic factor of the Egyptian occu-
pation of the land.

Byblos is an exceptional case. No less than 70 letters pertain to that city;
nevertheless, Rib-Adda is ordered only once to send copper and bronze to
Egypt (EA 77:6–15), and he answers that he has none. On another occasion,
he gave copper to the Egyptian messenger Appiḫa (EA 69:25–28).32 On the
other hand, Rib-Adda asks in many letters for provisions, stressing his dis-
tress. This situation might well explain the lack of contributions from Byblos,
and it is significant that his only payment (EA 69:25–29) is probably dated
just after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru (Campbell 1964:80, 134). Was
the despondent tone of Rib-Adda a device to escape the payment of tribute
to Egypt?

There are several signs testifying to the intensification of the Egyptian oc-
cupation of Canaan, particularly in southern Palestine, during the time of the

30. For the Egyptian point of view, see Redford 1972:149–155.
31. For export of grain, oil and wine from Syro-Palestine to Egypt during the Ptolemaic
period, see Tcherikover 1937:20–23.
32. The apparent consignment mentioned in EA 126:4–6 is very doubtful and, therefore,
has been excluded from the above discussion.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 229

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

References

Abdul Kader Mohammad, M. 1959. The Administration of Syro-Palestine during the New
Kingdom. Annales du Service des Antiquités de I’Égypte 56: 105–137.

Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105.
AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Albright, W.F. 1941. Two Letters from Ugarit. BASOR 82: 43–49.
Albright W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish, with Some Remarks on

the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38.
Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27.
Albright, W.F.1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth.
Albright, W.F. 1963. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York.
Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2.

3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98–116.
Albright, A. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating

to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490.
Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint:

Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175).
Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33: 52–88. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur

Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 363–395).
Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67:

1–20. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München:
216–230).
Alt, A. 1950. Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im
syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97–133. (Reprint: Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 107–140).

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

230 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Altman, A. 1978. Some Controversial Toponyms from the Amurru Region in the Amarna
Archive. ZDPV 94: 99–107.

Astour, M. 1972. The Merchant Class of Ugarit. In: Edzard, D.O. ed. Gesellschaftsklassen im
Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten. (XVIII. Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale). München: 11–25.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1966. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A
Historical Geography. Grand Rapids.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. (Qedem 51). Jerusalem.
Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrian. (AfO Beiheft 9). Graz.

(Reprint 1967. Osnabrück).
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters with Special Reference to the

Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1966. Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu. Eine

philologische und kulturhistorische Studie. WO 3: 206–245.
Dothan, T. 1979. Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balaḥ. (Qedem 10). Jerusalem.
Drower, M. 1973. Syria c. 1550–1400 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History II/1, 3rd revised ed.

Cambridge: 417–525.
Eichler, B.L. 1973. Indenture at Nuzi. The Personal tidennūtu Contract and Its Mesopotamian

Analogues. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 5). New Haven and London.
Elat, M. 1977. Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 1000–539 B.C. Jerusalem.

(Hebrew).
Gardiner, A.H. 1948. The Wilbur Papyrus. II. Commentary. Oxford.
Goetze, A. 1969. Hittite Treaties. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to

the Old Testament. Princeton: 201–206.
Groll, S. 1973. A Note on the Hieratic Texts from Tel Sera‘. Qadmoniot 6: 56–57. (Hebrew).
Güterbock, H.G. 1967. The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered, JNES 26: 73–81.
Helck, W. 1960. Die ägyptische Verwaltung in den syrischen Besitzungen. MDOG 92: 1–13.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Helck, W. 1975. Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Alten Ägypten im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.

(Handbuch der Orientalistik). Leiden and Köln.
Heltzer, M. 1978. Goods, Prices and the Organization of the Trade in Ugarit. Wiesbaden.
Janssen, J.J. 1975. Commodity Prices from the Ramesside Period. Leiden.
Kallai, Z. 1958. Jezreel, Jezreel Valley. Enc. Miqr III: 628–634. (Hebrew).
Kallai(-Kleinmann), Z. 1958. The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan. VT 8:

134–160.
Kallai, Z. 1967. The Tribes of Israel: A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible. Jerusalem.

(Hebrew).
Kempinski, A. 1978. Tel Masos. Expedition 20/4: 29–37.
Kitchen, K.A. 1969. Interrelations of Egypt and Syria. In: Liverani, M. ed. La Siria nel Tardo

Bronzo. (Orientis Antiqvi Collectio 9). Rome: 77–94.
Klengel, H. 1963. Zur Sklaverei in Alalakh. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

11: 1–15.
Knudtzon, J.A. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. (Vorderasiatische

Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Kochavi, M. 1978. Canaanite Aphek. Expedition 20/4: 12–17.
Krahmalkov, C. 1971. Northwest Semitic Glosses in Amarna Letter No. 64:22–23. JNES 30:

140–143.
Leemans, W.F. 1957–71. Gold. RLA III: 512–513.

Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan 231

Liverani, M. 1971. Le Lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268.
Loretz, O. and Mayer, W. 1974. Die Glossen mi-ke-tu und ia-pa-aq-ti in EA 64:22–23. Ugarit-

Forschungen 6: 493–494.
Luckenbill, D.D. 1926. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I. Chicago.
Martin, W.J. 1936. Tribut and Tributleistungen bei den Assyrern. Studia Orientalia 8/1.
Mazar, B. 1960. The Cities of the Territory of Dan. IEJ 10: 65–77.
Mazar, B. 1964. The Philistines and the Rise of Israel and Tyre, Proceedings of the Israel

Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1/7.
Mendelsohn, I. 1955. On Slavery in Alalakh. IEJ 5: 65–72.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel

According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1977a. Yeno‘am. Tel Aviv 4: 168–177.
Na’aman, N. 1977b. ašītu (Sg.) and ašâtu (Pl.) – Strap and Reins. JCS 29: 237–239.
Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C. JCS 21: 236–254.
Oppenheim, A.L. 1973. Towards a History of Glass in the Ancient Near East. JAOS 93: 259–

266.
Oren, E.D. 1978. Esh-Shari‘a Tell (Tel Sera‘). In: Enc. Arch. Exc. IV: 1059–1069.
Oren, E.D. and Netzer, E. 1973. A Cult-Building in the Excavations of Tel Sera‘. Qadmoniot 6:

53–56 (Hebrew).
Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-

Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131.
Pintore, F. 1973. La prassi della marcia Armata nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-Amarna.

Oriens Antiquus 12: 299–318.
Postgate, J.N. 1974. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. (Studia Pohl, Series

Maior 3). Rome.
Rainey, A.F. 1967. āširu and asīru in Ugarit and the Land of Canaan. JNES 26: 296–301.
Rainey, A.F. 1977. Verbal Usages in the Taanach Texts. Israel Oriental Studies 7: 33–64.
Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets: 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna

Tablets. 2nd revised edition. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Redford, D.B. 1972. The Taxation System of Solomon. in: Wevers, J.W. and Redford, D.B. eds.

Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World. Toronto: 149–155.
Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep

IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew).
Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis’ IV. OLZ 42: 145–148.
Röllig, W. 1976–1980. Japu. RLA V: 260.
Rothenberg, B. 1972. Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London.
Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Sdhriftdenkmäler der

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

Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69.
Several, M.Y. 1972. Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire in Palestine during the Amarna

Period. PEQ 104: 123–133.
Tcherikover, V. 1937. Palestine under the Ptolemies. Mizraim 4–5: 9–90.
Ussishkin, D. 1978. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1973–1977. Tel Aviv 5: 1–97.
de Vaux, R. 1968. Le Pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23–30.
de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel I-II. London.
Wilson, J.A. 1969. Egyptian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 227–264.
Wiseman, J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley
in the Late Bronze Age1

The Jezreel Valley was regarded as crown property that had a special
administrative and juridical status from ancient times to the period of the
Second Temple and even later. These royal estates had been maintained for
centuries and were transferred from one conquering power to another.2
When analyzing an Amarna letter (EA 365) concerning the cultivation of
the fields of Shunem by corvée workers arriving from various places, A. Alt
(1924:34–41) suggested that the fields where pharaonic land. According to
his reconstruction, they had been annexed by the Egyptians, following the
offensive of Lab’ayu, ruler of Shechem, and the destruction of the city of
Shunem (EA 250:41–47). Alt further assumed that the settlement of the sons
of Issachar in the plain of Jezreel was connected with the cultivation of these
crown lands. The description of Issachar (etymologically “man of hire”) as a
“strong ass” who “bowed his shoulder to bear and became a slave at forced
labour” (Gen. 49:14–15) was, in his opinion, derived from his status as a cor-
vée labourer of these fields.

Alt’s attractive hypothesis of the early settlement of the Issacharite fam-
ilies in the plain of Jezreel was recently refuted by Z. Gal (1982:79–86) on ar-
chaeological grounds. Furthermore, his reconstruction of the historical
background of the annexation of the lands in the Jezreel Valley (and of the
foundation of the Egyptian garrison city of Beth-shean as well) is open to de-
bate. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this problem in greater detail,
basing the analysis on other Late Bronze Age documents that have not been
discussed so far in this context.

The point of departure for the investigation is letter no. 2 from Taanach
(TT 2). The Taanach tablets were discovered by E. Sellin in 1903-04 and were
subsequently published by F. Hrozný (1904:113–122; 1906:36–41). For many

1. Reprinted with permission. Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. 1988. Society and
Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–185.

2. Alt 1937:81–84; Kallai 1958:628–634, with further bibliography; Avi-Yonah 1966:136–
137, 141–142.

232

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age 233

years the tablets have been discussed on the basis of Hrozný’s decipherment.3
They were collated by E. I. Gordon and A. E. Glock in 1966, and the results of
the collation were published by Glock (1983:58–63). The grammatical traits of
the letters from Taanach were meticulously studied by A.F. Rainey (1977:33–
64). The considerable improvement in both the reading and the understand-
ing of the letters enables us to re-examine letter TT 2 and to suggest a new in-
terpretation for certain parts of it.

Here is a translation of the letter, accompanied by a commentary and an
analysis of its contents.

(1) To Rewashur, speak. (2) Thus says Aḫiyami: May the Lord of the Gods (3) protect
your life.

You are a brother (4) and beloved in that place, (5) and you are aware that (6) I have en-
tered (to rule) in an empty house.(7) So give me a few (things) (8) two wheels and a bow
(9) and two (sets of) harness(?); and (10) if the bow is finished (11), being manufactured
for me, then send it to me (12) by the hand of Purdaya.

(13) Another matter: command your towns (14) that they carry out their work. (15) I
am responsible for everyone (16) that stays in the towns. (17) Now, look at me, so that
(18) I will make an alliance with you.

(19) Another matter: if there are copper arrows, (20) then let them be given (to me).

(21) Another matter: let Ili-rāpi’ enter (22) into the city of Raḫābu and let (23) me send
my man to you (24) and let a marriage be arranged.

Commentary

Line 1: For the second element of the name, see Gröndahl 1967:298,
with earlier bibliography. The first element (either ri or tal) is problematic.
However, scribes from three different places consistently employed only one
sign rather than two; thus, the transcription ri was preferred. For the history
of the research of the name, see Glock 1983:59, n. 10.

Line 2: The translation follows that of Albright 1944:20, n. 45. The god
Ba‘lu is certainly referred to by the title “the Lord of the Gods.” For a different
translation and interpretation of the blessing, see Rainey 1977:50.

Line 4: The phrase “in that place” (ina ašri šuwat) refers to the city of the
addressee (i.e., Taanach). For a similar expression, compare TT 1:17 “from
there” (ištu ašrānum), which also refers to the place of the addressee.

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

234 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

line 6: For the grammatical analysis of the phrase arbaku ina bīti rāqi (“I
have entered into an empty house”), see Rainey 1977:60. To understand
the phrase properly, it should be compared with similar expressions in the
Amarna letters. Rib-Adda of Byblos wrote to the Egyptian high commis-
sioner Yanḫamu, whose appointment at that time as governor of the garri-
son city of Ṣumur was described as follows (EA 102:11–12): tīrbu ana bīti rēqi
(“you will enter into an empty house”). The assumption of a new office is de-
scribed as “entering (into a house),” the city of Ṣumur is portrayed as “an
empty house.” Pu-Ba‘lu of Yurza wrote to the Egyptian royal scribe, thus, (EA
216:18–20): ianu mimma ina bītija ina iribiya ana šašu (“there was nothing in my
house when I entered it”). The city or the palace of Pu-Ba‘lu is referred to by
the words “my house,” the verb erēbu referring to the ruler’s accession to the
throne of Yurza, his preoccupation in this matter serving as an excuse for the
long delay in sending the gift. The verb erēbu has a similar meaning in letters
EA 103:9–10 and 286:12–13 and should be comprehended in all these passages
as an idiomatic expression for assuming a new office, and in particular, for
the accession to the throne.

Line 7: The noun ubānu (“finger”) appears in TT 1:20 and may be translated
“a little,” “a few” (i.e., a finger measure). A similar phrase appears in several
Amarna letters (EA 264:8,12; 273:22; cf. 287:73).

Line 9: túguppašianima is a Hurrian noun that is known from the Nuzi and
Alalakh tablets (AHW, p. 1424a uppaš/sannu “ein Lederteil am Wagen”). In two
Nuzi texts (HSS XIII: 227, lines 9–13; HSS XV: 95, lines 1–6) uppaš/sannu ap-
pears alongside ṣimittum “yoke” and in a third text (Pfeiffer and Speiser 1936:
No. 11, line 10) it appears together with iltēnutum “set (consisting of several
objects).” The translation “harness” is tentative, based on contextual similar-
ity with two other letters, one from Gath-carmel (EA 266:26–33) and the sec-
ond from Kāmid el-Lōz, in which the equipment of a chariot is recorded (see
Na’aman 1977a:238). CAD (K, p. 550b, and M/l, p.33–34) mistakenly rendered
this noun as kuppašianu.

Line 16: For bašû ana āli, compare EA 174:8–9 and 363:7–8 ninu ebašānu ana
māt ‘Amqi (“we were in the land of ‘Amqi”), where ana replaces ina.

Line 18: For the Akkadian expression ṭābuta epēšu, “to make a treaty,” see
Moran 1963:173–176; Fitzmyer 1967:73–74.

Line 20: For the vocalization of the toponym, see Albright 1934:48, no. 15.
The old shift of stressed ā to ō is attested in Canaan only from the Amarna pe-
riod and onward, whereas the Taanach letters may represent an earlier stage.
See Zadok 1977–78:38–41, with earlier bibliography.

Letter TT 2 may be interpreted as follows: Aḫiyami, who sent the letter to
the ruler of Taanach, has recently ascended the throne of Raḫābu. The city
is mentioned several times in Egyptian sources and is commonly identified

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age 235

with Tell eṣ-Ṣārem, a site located south of the city of Beth-shean (Albright
1926:38–39; Aharoni 1967:112, 157, 165). The objects that Aḫiyami has re-
quested (wheels, a bow, arrows and sets of harness) are related to chariotry,
and it is not unlikely that the city of Taanach had a small chariot workshop at
that time. The ruler of Raḫābu further offered to make an alliance (or prob-
ably to renew an old one) with the king of Taanach and to strengthen it by
marriage between the two royal houses. He, therefore, suggested that either
Rewashur’s messenger (Ili-rāpi’) would come to his city or his own messenger
would be sent to Taanach to make arrangements for the wedding. All these
matters illustrate peaceful and mutually a good relationship between these
neighboring Canaanite rulers.

The words of Aḫiyami in lines 13–16 (“command your towns that they carry
out their work. I am responsible for everyone that stays in the towns”), on the
other hand, are exceptional. Certain questions come to mind: Under what cir-
cumstances was the ruler of Raḫābu, a city located in the Beth-shean Valley, re-
sponsible for the work of the inhabitants of the towns of Taanach? Before which
authority was he responsible for the workmen of the neighboring city-state?

To answer these questions, we may analyze letter EA 365, which reflects a
similar situation. A translation and interpretation of the letter are presented
below (Rainey 1978:28–31, with earlier bibliography).

(1) Say to the king, my lord and my sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the
king. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord and my Sun, seven times and seven times.

(8) May the king, my lord, be informed concerning his servant and concerning his city.
In fact, only I am cultivating in the city of Shunem, and only I am furnishing corvée
workers (awīlī massa).

(15) But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cul-
tivate in the city of Shunem, and they do not furnish corvée workers; Only I, by myself,
furnish corvée workers. (26) From the city of Joppa (uruIa-puki) they come here (an-ni
ki-ma), from [your(?)] hand (iš-tu ŠU-[ka?]), and from the city of Nuribta. (30) And may
the king, my lord, be informed concerning his city.

The location of the city of Ia-pu is the key for the proper understanding
of the problematic passage in lines 26–29. The city has, until now, generally
been identified with biblical Japhia, located on the southern border of the in-
heritance of Zebulun (Joshua 19:12) (Alt 1924:38; Aharoni 1967:161: Rainey
1978:105; Röllig 1976–80:260), which lies within the territory of the kingdom
of Shim‘on, Megiddo’s northeastern neighbor.4 However, if the town Japhia

4. The site of biblical Japhia is, unfortunately, unknown; its identification with the
Arabic village Yâfā does not accord well with the description of Zebulun’s southern border.
Thus, the antiquity of Japhia cannot archaeologically be examined.