Canaan in the second millenium bce

236 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

was intended, the correct form would be Yapiḫu* rather then Yapu, whereas,
in fact, Yapu should be identified with the coastal city of Joppa, whose name
appears in exactly the same form in at least two Amarna letters (EA 294:20;
296:33; see also possibly EA 138:6) and in a letter from Ugarit discovered at Tel
Aphek (Owen 1981:7, line 17, and p. 12). Joppa had been an Egyptian garrison
city since its capture by Thutmose III (Broshi 1958:737–743, with further bib-
liography; Na’aman 1981a:177–180). Royal granaries were set up in the city
(EA 294:22), Egyptian officials resided there and vassal kings were responsible
for guarding the city gate and the royal granaries (EA 294:16–24; 296:30–33).

Line 27 has tentatively been restored as iš-tu ŠU-[ka] on the basis of a sec-
ond letter from Megiddo (EA 245:35) i-na ŠU-ti-šu (“in his hand”). Biridiya em-
phasized that the workers were sent to Megiddo (“here”) by the pharaonic
authority (“from your hand”), i.e., from a place under his direct control, be-
cause the city of Joppa was an Egyptian garrison city and, hence, a possession
of the pharaoh.

We may conclude that workers conscripted in the coastal region were
brought to the Jezreel Valley to work as forced laborers. The second city,
Nuribta, may tentatively be identified with the city of Narbata, which is men-
tioned in Second Temple sources and was located near the main road leading
from Joppa to Megiddo (Avi-Yonah 1976:82, with earlier bibliography). The
identification, however, is by no means certain.5

In both the letter of Raḫābu (TT 2) and that of Megiddo (EA 365), the rul-
ers of city-states near the Jezreel Valley were responsible for the work per-
formed by “imported” labor. Biridiya of Megiddo supervised corvée work-
ers who came from Joppa and probably the Sharon plain and complained
that his neighboring rulers refused to provide any man-power. Aḫiyami of
Raḫābu was responsible for the work performed by the subjects of the ruler
of Taanach. According to the Megiddo letter, the agricultural workers were
needed at Shunem, in the Jezreel Valley. Raḫābu lay south of the garrison
city of Beth-shean; therefore, the kingdom of Taanach was probably its clos-
est neighbor west of Beth-shean. We may well assume that the areas north of
Beth-shean, including the region of Shunem, were pharaonic lands on which
the above-mentioned workers were forced to work.

Further light on the status of these lands may be gained from another
source. Following the description of the battle of Megiddo and the cap-
ture of the town by Thutmose III, there appears a long list of the booty and

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

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age 237

tribute taken from the city, as well as from three towns probably located
in Transjordan, namely Ngs, Ḥrnkr and Yeno‘am (Na’aman 1977b:171–172;
Spalinger 1983:99–100). Thutmose then describes the organization of the ar-
able lands near these towns as follows (Wilson 1969:238):

Now the fields (3ḫwt) were made into arable plots (‘ḥwt) and measured by controllers of
the palace — life, prosperity, health! — in order to reap their harvest. List of the harvest
which his majesty carried off from the Megiddo arable plots (‘ḥwt): 207,300 [+ x] sacks
of wheat, apart from what was cut as forage by his majesty’s army.

It seems that the fields (3ḫwt) had undergone a change in legal status, the
phrase “made into ‘ḥwt” designating this new administrative status of the
land, which is subsequently called “the Megiddo ‘ḥwt.” Measuring the fields,
probably for the reassessment of their potential crop yields for tax purposes,
was part of the procedure involved in changing their status (Goldwasser 1984:
86, n. 11, with further bibliography).

The enormous number — 207,300 [+ x] — of sacks of wheat came from the
‘ḥwt lands located in the vicinity of Megiddo. S. Ahituv (1978:98) calculated
that this amount of grain is approximately equal to 11,250 tons. Assuming an
average yield of 800 kg per acre, he concluded that the grain was harvested
from an area of about 12,500 acres. Whatever the exact size of the arable land,
it is clear that very large tracts in the Jezreel Valley changed their status at
that time and became pharaonic lands whose yields were the property of the
Egyptian authorities.

Combining the three sources, the following picture emerges: After the
battle of Megiddo and the capture of the city, the Egyptians took over large
tracts of arable land in the Jezreel Valley, including the fields of Shunem. The
city of Beth-shean became an Egyptian garrison city at that time, the super-
vision of these lands being part of its function. Responsibility for cultiva-
tion and harvesting was imposed, at least partially, on the rulers of the city-
states of the western Jezreel Valley (the land of Gina, see below) and the plain
of Beth-shean. Details of the distribution of both onus and responsibility
are lacking, however. Corvée workers may have been brought from remote
places, but probably only in cases of severe manpower shortage.

The offensive of Lab’ayu of Shechem against the “people of the land of
Gina” (EA 250:17,21) also reached Egyptian territory in this area. A. Alt (1926:
109–110) suggested that the lands of Shunem, as well as the city of Beth-
shean, were incorporated into Egyptian territory only at that time. As pro-
posed above, establishment of Egyptian hegemony and the territorial ar-
rangements in the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys had already been effected
under Thutmose III and remained unchanged for a long time. Unfortunately,
it is not known whether Egyptian territory in the northern plains was ex-
panded during the XIXth and beginning of the XXth Dynasties, at the time

238 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

Appendix

The Ancient Name of the Jezreel Valley

The valley near the city of Megiddo was called “the Qina Valley” in the an-
nals of Thutmose III and the wadi running through it “the Qina brook.” In an
Amarna letter (EA 250), the sons of Lab’ayu urge the ruler of Gath-padalla (a
city-state in the Sharon) to take action against Gina:

Commence hostilities against the people of the land of Gina because they slew our fa-
ther; and if you do not commence hostilities, then we will be hostile to you. And I an-
swered them: May the god of the king, my lord, deliver me from entering into hostili-
ties with the people of the land of Gina, the vassals of the king, my lord (lines 16–22).

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

6. Alt 1944:1–20; Weinstein 1981:17–28, with earlier bibliography; Na’aman 1981a:185;
1982:241–251; Beck and. Kochavi 1983:47–51; Goldwasser 1984:77–93; Oren 1985:183–199.

7. For the archaeological survey in the site of ancient Raḫābu (Tell eṣ-Ṣārem), see Zori
1962:176–178.

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age 239

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

Postscriptum

In his new French edition of the Amarna letters, W. L. Moran (1987) sug-
gested the following translation for EA 250:40–47:

And thus the two sons of Lab’ayu keep saying to me: Wage war against the king, your
lord, as our father did, when he attacked Shunem, Burquna and Ḫarabu, and deported
the evil ones, li[fti]ng up the loyal. He also seized Gath-rimmon and cultivated (yupatti)
the fi[el]ds (ugāri) of the king, your lord.

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

References

Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography, Philadelphia.
Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105.
AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Albright, W.F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 6. New Haven: 13–74.
Albright, W.F. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. (American Oriental

Series 5). New Haven.
Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27.
Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint:

1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175).
Alt, A. 1926. Zur Geschichte von Beth-sean 1500–1000 v. Chr. PJb 22: 108–120. (Reprint: 1953.

Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 246–255).
Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33: 52–88. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur

Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 363–395).
Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 1–

20. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München: 216–230).
Avi-Yonah, M. 1966. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A

Historical Geography. Grand Rapids.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. (Qedem 5). Jerusalem.
Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1983. The Egyptian Governor’s Palace at Aphek. Qadmoniot 16: 47–

51. (Hebrew).

240 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Borger, R. 1967. Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur I, Berlin.
Broshi, M. 1958. Joppa. Enc. Miqr. III: 737–743.
CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Chicago.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Fitzmyer, J.A. 1967. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. (Biblica et Orientalia 19). Rome.
Gal, Z. 1982. The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations. Tel Aviv 9: 79–86.
Glock, A.E. 1983. Texts and Archaeology at Tell Taannek. Berytus 31: 58–63.
Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera‘ in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11:

77–93.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. (Studia Pohl 1). Rome.
Hrozný, F. 1904. Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘annek. In: Sellin, E. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften

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

Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age 241

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

Zadok, R. 1977–78. Historical and Onomastic Notes. WO 9: 35–56, 240–241.
Zertal, A. 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Zori, N. 1962. An Archaeological Survey of the Beth-Shean Valley. In. Aviram, J. ed. The Beth-

shean Valley (The 17th Archaeological Convention). Jerusalem: 135–198. (Hebrew).

On Gods and Scribal Traditions
in the Amarna Letters1

The Amarna Letters, discovered more than a century ago, are still our
main source for the history and culture of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.
Many details concerning the land and its inhabitants have been extracted
from these letters, and the overall picture, to a certain extent, is based on the
analysis of this source material. Due to its central position in scientific re-
search, the archive still deserves special attention, and progress in the under-
standing of difficult passages and terms could contribute to a better under-
standing of the historical and cultural situation. On the other hand, mistaken
interpretations may lead scholars to stray far from ancient reality, because in
certain cases, there are no other sources against which these conclusions and
inferences may be checked.

Four problems relating to gods and/or Canaanite scribal traditions will
be discussed in this paper. These problems are: (a) the passage referring to
Ummaḫnu in the letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos, (b) the identity of the god
whose name is written dA, (c) the identity of the god whose name is written
dNIN.URTA, and (d) the references to DINGIRmeš in the Amarna letters. W.L.
Moran’s authoritative new translation (including many important notes and
new readings) of the Amarna letters (1987) is the point of departure for all
textual discussions in this article.2

1. Ummaḫnu, Servant of the Lady of Byblos

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

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

242

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters 243

EA 85: (84) fUm-m[a-aḫ-nu] (85) [ù mu]-ut-ši mMil-ku-ru GÉME dN[IN ša] uruGub-
[la u] (86) [li-ib–1]u-uṭ LUGAL-ru a-di GÉME d[NI]N i-na [. . . ù] (87) [tu-d]a-na i-na qa-
at lúGAL [ša] dNI[N ša uruGub-la]; “Ummaḫnu — and her husband Milkuru — ser-
vant of the Lady of Byblos, and by the life of the king (I swear) that the servant
of the Lady is in [your country(?)] and may she be delivered to the hand of the
official of the Lady of Byblos.”

EA 83: (51) ù (52) Ii-ma-ad al-le-mi (53) fUm-ma-aḫ-nu ù mMil-ku-ru (54) mu-
ut-še GÉME ša dNIN (SS) [ša ur]uG[ub-I]a [x (x)] KALA.GA (56) [ù tu-da-na i-na
qa-at lú]ra-b[u] (57) [š]a d[NIN ša uruGub-la]; “And may you be informed: surely
Ummaḫnu and Milkuru her husband — is a servant of the Lady of Byblos, the
powerful [. . .], and may she be delivered to the hand of the official of the Lady
of Byblos.”

EA 86: (23) [ù l]i-ma-[ad al-le-mi] (24) [fU]m-ma-aḫ-[nu ù mu-ut-ši] (25) [mMil-
k]u-ru G[ÉME dNIN] (26) [ša] uruGub-[la x (x)] (27) [KALA.G]A a-na is-x [x (x)] (28) [ù]
qí-bi a-na LUGAL-r[i ù] (29) [t]u-da-na a-na dN[IN ù] (30) [ú]-ul ti-ka-li-s[i i-na . . .];
“And may you be informed: surely Ummaḫnu — and Milkuru her husband — is
a servant of the Lady of Byblos, the powerful [. . ., . . . ]; thus say to the king and
may she be delivered to the Lady and do not detain her [in your land(?)].”

EA 84: (42) [ša-ni-tam] a-mur fU[m]-ma-[aḫ-nu] GÉME d[NIN ša] (43) [uruGub-
la] lúmu-ut-ši mMil-kur-[ru ù] (44) [a-na pa-a]n EZEN ye-ni uš-ši-r[a-ši] “Further,
behold, Ummaḫnu servant of the Lady of Byblos — her husband is Milkuru —
and send her back before the wine festival.”

Notes: The reading ye-ni was noted by Moran (1987:268, n. 14). For the
Canaanite noun yēnu in a cuneiform tablet from Tel Aphek, see Rainey 1976:
138–139.

The four passages make it clear that Ummaḫnu, who had formerly served
in the temple of Ba‘alath of Byblos, and her husband Milkuru stayed some
time in Egypt. She probably served there in the temple of Hathor = Ba‘alath
of Byblos and was detained for a while. This may well be an indication of the
close cultic relations at that time between the temples of Ba‘alath at Byblos
and Egypt.3 Rib-Hadda requested her immediate return, emphasizing in one
of his letters that she should participate in the wine festival conducted in his
town. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the date and cultural background
of this local festival. The official in charge of the servant of the Lady of Byblos
held the title of rabû; his local Canaanite title remains unknown (compare
Ugaritic rb khnm).

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

244 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

2. The God A (dA) in a letter of Aziru of Amurru (EA 161:40)

Letter EA 164 marks a turning point in the policies of Aziru of Amurru to-
ward Egypt. He promises that he would come to Egypt as soon as the danger
of the Hittite attack passed, but makes one condition: that the Pharaoh and
his officials swear a solemn oath not to conspire against him. He sent his god
with a messenger to Egypt concluding his request with the words (lines 39–
46): “And so you will take the oath in front of my god and the god A (dA).”

Knudtzon did not try to identify dA. Schroeder, however, (1915a:326–327)
suggested identifying him with Amon. The basis for the suggestion are sev-
eral letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos in which Amon is called “the god of the
king” (EA 71:4; 86:3; see also EA 87:5; 95:3). The context of EA 164:40 requires
the name of the personal god of the Pharaoh; thus, Schroeder identified dA
with Amon, the Egyptian national god. Schroeder’s suggestion was also ad-
opted by other scholars (Rainey 1978:108; Moran 1987:403).

The identification suggested by Schroeder, however, is unacceptable.
Aziru’s preparation for the journey to Egypt took place in the later years of
Akhenaten (Kitchen 1962:17–18, 44; Campbell 1964:88–89, 135; Helck 1971:174–
78). At that time, the Sun-God Aten had been raised high above all other gods in
Egypt; Amon, having lost his former position as the Egyptian national god, was
certainly not the god in front of which Akhenaten would have taken the oath.
The god whose name was written dA can only be the Sun-God Aten who was, at
that time, the personal god of the king and the official god of the kingdom.

When did the god Amon disappear from the Amarna correspondence?
This problem will be discussed briefly, to provide a better understanding of
the reference to dA in the letter of Aziru.

Amon is mentioned in the letters of Kadashman-Enlil of Babylon (EA 1:
46), of Tushratta of Mitanni (EA 19:15,24,76; 20:26,74; 24:passim; and pos-
sibly EA 27:87), of Rib-Hadda of Byblos (EA 71:4; 77:3; 86:3; 87:5; 95:3) and
in a letter sent by the Pharaoh to Milkilu of Gezer (EA 369:29). The let-
ters of Kadashman-Enlil and most of the letters of Tushratta were sent to
Nimmuriya, i.e., Amenophis III. Letter EA 27, which was sent to Napḫururiya,
i.e., Akhenaten, poses a special problem. The date of the letter is disputed, but

4. For the discussion of the date of EA 27, see Redford 1967:144–146, 162–64; Kühne
1973:43–45, 127–29, with earlier literature; Moran 1987:53.

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters 245

should best be dated in the second year of Akhenaten.4 The text in lines 87–88
is fragmented and what is left are the words “Teshub and [. . .] may direct that
I and my brother [. . .].” In light of parallel passages, one may expect that the
name “Amon” was written after the break in line 87 (EA 19:15,75–76; 20:74).
However, in his textual edition of the Amarna tablets, Knudtzon (1915:236, n.
g.) noted on the break in line 87 (after the ù sign): “Ob der Gottesname get-
ilgt gewesen ist, lässt sich nicht entscheiden, weil die Zeichen sehr verstüm-
melt sind.” In the facsimile of the tablet, Schroeder simply left a blank space
after the ù sign (Schroeder 1915b:No. 11, line 87). Thus, it remains unclear
whether the name of Amon was written (or even written and then erased) in
letter EA 27.

All the letters sent by Rib-Hadda, in which the name of Amon was writ-
ten, pre-dated the Egyptian campaign launched to capture ‘Abdi-Ashirta of
Amurru, which took place under Amenophis III — as is witnessed by the group
of Byblian letters in which the ruler of Byblos reminds Pharaoh Akhenaten of
the campaign conducted during the reign of his father.5 Thus, they can safely
be dated in the time of Amenophis III. The Egyptian letter to Milkilu of Gezer
(EA 369) certainly was written before the religious reform of Akhenaten, be-
cause, in all subsequent letters sent from Egypt to Canaan, Amon is omitted
from the concluding formula (EA 99, 162, 163, 367, 370).

We may conclude that the god Amon disappeared from the Amarna cor-
respondence shortly after the coronation of Akhenaten. This conclusion may
be corroborated by the analysis of the greeting formula in EA 102:5–8: “May
the Lady of Byblos, goddess of the king, my lord, give you dignity before the
king, your lord, the Sun of (all) the countries.” At the time of Amenophis III, it
was either the god Amon (EA 71:4–6; 86:3–5) or Amon and the Lady of Byblos
(EA 77:3–5) who were designated in greeting formulae “god(s) of the king.”
In letter EA 102, the name of Amon is omitted, and Ba‘alath alone is referred
to as “goddess of the king.” The letter was written after the nomination of
Yanḫamu as commissioner of Ṣumur, subsequent to the fall of Ullasa into the
hands of Aziru and his brothers (Na’aman 1975:208, 229). Thus, it is evident
that soon after the ascent of Akhenaten to the throne, Amon disappeared
from the Amarna correspondence.

Therefore, we may assume that both “great kings” and vassals were told,
probably verbally by the Pharaoh’s messengers, to stop using the name of
Amon in their letters. The assumption well explains the sudden disappear-
ance of the god’s name in letters written by all the addressees of the new
Egyptian king.

5. Moran 1969:98*; 1985:175–176, n. 9; Na’aman 1988:187, with earlier literature in n. 34.

246 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

3. The Identity of the God NIN.URTA in the Amarna Letters6

The god NIN.URTA appears four times in the Amarna letters: twice as a
theophoric element in proper names (EA 84:39 — mÌR-NIN.URTA; 170:36 — mÌR-
d<NIN.>URTA), once as a place name in the kingdom of Jerusalem (EA 290:16 —
É dNIN.URTA) and once probably as a name of a temple (EA 74:31 É NIN.URTA).7
The name mÌR-dNIN.URTA also appears on a tablet from Ugarit, which carries
the seal of “‘Abdi-NIN.URTA king of Siyannu” (Nougayrol 1956:230–231).

Which West Semitic god might have been the equivalent of the Mesopotamian
god Ninurta? In the early days of research, scholars sought the solution to this
problem in later Babylonian god lists.8 However, in a special study dedicated
to the identity of the god Ninurta in the Jerusalemite letter EA 290:16, Kallai
and Tadmor demonstrated that these lists are irrelevant to the problem of the
scribal tradition common in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.9 They suggested

6. The problem of the identity of dNIN.URTA in the Amarna letters has been discussed
in greater detail in my doctoral dissertation (1975:105–108). A similar solution to the prob-
lem, although discussed only briefly, was reached by Astour 1979:21.

7. The suggestion by Kestemont (1971:49) to read EA 117:4 either uruŠal–l[u] or
uruNI[N.URTA] is not acceptable. The sign NIN does not fit the traces in Schroeder’s facsim-
ile of EA 117 (Schroeder 1915b:No. 62, line 41), and a town called by the name of a deity is
without parallel. One may restore EA 117:40–42 as follows: (40) ú-ul š[ul-mu] (41) a-na ša-
šu-nu iš-tu uruṢ[u-mu-ra a-di] (42) uruUl-la-sà; “Are they not enjoying peace from the city of
Ṣ[umur to] the city of Ullasa.” For a comparison of EA 117:40–42 with EA 288:26–28, a pas-
sage from a letter of ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem, see Na’aman 1975:vol. 2, p. 43*, n. 56.

8. For the history of research and the various suggestions offered by scholars, see Kallai
and Tadmor 1969:139.

9. Kallai and Tadmor 1969:138–141. For the same reason, I cannot accept the sugges-
tion, by Lipińiski (1973:443–445), to identify the god Ninurta in EA 290:16 with the Hurrian
god Tašmiš. The rendering of Hurrian words by logograms is restricted to those areas
where Hurrian was the mother tongue of the scribes; however, the logographic writing
dNIN.URTA appears in letters from Amurru, Byblos and Jerusalem, where West Semitic was
the mother language of the scribes.

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters 247

identifying the god Ninurta with the god Ḥoron, one of the central West Semitic
deities of Syro-Canaan in the second millennium BCE. According to their analy-
sis of the literary sources, Ḥoron was first of all a war-god and, in this aspect, was
close to the Mesopotamian god Ninurta.10 Like other important West Semitic
gods (i.e., Ba‘al, Hadad, Rashap, Shamash), his name was written by a logogram.
The place name mentioned in letter EA 290:16 should be rendered Bīt-Horon
and, thus, can be identified with biblical Beth-ḥoron, a town located on the main
road leading from the northern Shephelah to the city of Jerusalem.11

However, this attractive solution to the problem of the identity of the
town mentioned in EA 290:16 is not free of doubts. First, Ḥoron had a dis-
tinctive chthonic character — as is evident from both the derivation of his
name, from the absence of his name in the offering texts in Ugarit and from
texts in which he fights the evil forces. He was not a war-god who partici-
pated in cosmic fighting against the enemies of nature and mankind, but,
rather, he was the protector of human beings from demonic forces.12 Second,
according to the god lists from Ugarit, Ḥoron did not rank high in the local
pantheon — unlike the god Ninurta in the Mesopotamian pantheon. Third,
and most important of all, Ḥoron does not appear as the theophoric ele-
ment in any Late Bronze Age proper name that has been published so far.13
Three out of the five references to dNIN.URTA are proper names; thus, his
identification with Ḥoron is unlikely. Needless to say, this constitutes an-
other distinctive difference between Ḥoron and Ninurta, who was a popu-
lar god whose name frequently served as the theophoric element in proper
names.

In the god lists of Ugarit, Ninurta is identified with Gasharu (Hallo and
Moran 1979:72, n. 23; Moran 1987:252, n. 10). The god Gasharu, however, is
entirely unknown in Canaan and can hardly have been referred to in the
Amarna letters under the name dNIN.URTA.

10. For the god Ḥoron in the second millennium BCE, see Albright 1936:1–12; 1941:
7–12; Posener 1945:20–42; Xella 1972:271–286, and further literature on p. 271, n. 1;
1988:55–58; Stadelmann 1967:76–88; Helck 1971:454–455, 471–472; Caquot 1979–80:
173–180.

11. Kallai and Tadmor 1969:141–147. It should be noted that the identification of
dNIN.URTA with Ḥoron was suggested previously by Albright 1936:7, n. 20; 1968:120.

12. Stadelmann 1967:80–81; de Moor 1970:222; Caquot 1979–80:175–177; Xella, 1988:
55–57.

13. It must be recalled that the two assumed references to the god Ḥoron in Ugaritic
proper names (Gröndahl 1967:386) are mistaken. See Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1976:
KTU 4.350, line 13 and KTU 4.75, VI line 1. For the possible reasons for the unpopularity of
the god Ḥoron, see Xella 1988:57.

248 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

A possible solution to the identity of dNIN.URTA in the Amama letters may
be found in two Ugaritic edicts that refer to the political status of the king-
dom of Siyannu in the fourteenth century BCE. For many years, Siyannu was
part of the kingdom of Ugarit — until Murshili II, king of Hatti, confirmed the
secession of Siyannu from Ugarit and its transfer as a vassal state to the alle-
giance of Carchemish. Two documents that deal with the secession refer to
the same territory, around the town of Ḫarmana. One document (RS 17.170)
carries the seal of “Niqmepa son of Niqmaddu king of Ugarit” and calls the
other party ‘Abdi-‘Anati. The second document (RS 17.123) carries the seal
of “‘Abdi dNIN.URTA king of Siyannu” and calls the other party “the king of
Ugarit” (Nougayrol 1956:78 and 230–231). Though Nougayrol (1956:7, 244)
and Liverani (1962:151–152) treated ‘Abdi-‘Anati and ‘Abdi-dNIN.URTA as two
different kings, the two names may well refer to one and the same person.
‘Abdi-dNIN.URTA is not mentioned in any other document from Ugarit and,
with the omission of his name, the number of kings of Siyannu becomes iden-
tical to that of the kings of Ugarit at that time.14

Regarding the identification of Ninurta with ‘Anat, we may first of all note
that, in spite of the importance of the latter goddess in the West Semitic pan-
theon during the second millennium BCE, no logographic divine equivalent
for her name was ever discovered.15 Second, like Ninurta, ‘Anat is a war-god-
dess whose name is common as a theophoric element in proper names. Third,
toponyms combined with the divine name ‘Anat are known from Canaan in
the Late Bronze Age (Beth-‘Anath) and in the Iron Age (Beth-‘Anath and
‘Anathoth).16 The location of the Beth-‘Anath mentioned in EA 290:16 remains
unknown, although it may be sought, tentatively, not far from Keilah (EA 290:
14–18 “And now, moreover, a town of Jerusalem, Beth-‘Anath is its name, has
deserted with the city of Keilah”; see CAD A/2 415b).

Why was the name of a male god identified with a goddess (compare
Lambert 1969)? One may suggest that it was the result of the first element
of the name Ninurta, i.e., dNIN = bēltu = “lady.” The goddess ‘Anat, one of
the major goddesses in the West Semitic pantheon, has no fitting counter-
part among the Mesopotamian goddesses (Ishtar was already identified with
‘Ashtoreth); therefore, she was identified with the god of war and hunting,

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

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters 249

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

4. DINGIRmeš in the Amarna Letters

From the early days of research into the Amarna letters, it has been rec-
ognized that some of the references to DINGIRmeš (ilāni) in the letters should
be translated as a singular, i.e., “god” (see Hartmann 1973–74:72–74). Thus, in
the most common introduction to the letters — “Speak to the king, my lord,
my god (DINGIRmeš-ia), my Sun . . .” — DINGIRmeš stands as a singular. Note also
EA 198:1–3 “Say to the king, my lord, my personal god (DINGIRmeš SAG.DU-ia).”
In the most common submission formula — “At the feet of the king, my lord,
my Sun, my god (DINGIRmeš-ia), seven time and seven times I have fallen” —
DINGIRmeš stands for the singular. In the greeting formula of letters EA 96:4–
7 and 97:3, the verbal form liš’al proves that DINGIRmeš should be translated as
singular. Thus, it is clear that ilāni — like Hebrew ’elôhîm — is sometimes a sin-
gular form (pluralis majestatum).

To demonstrate that the decision in the case of DINGIRmeš may be quite
complicated, I would like to add some further examples of DINGIRmeš as a sin-
gular form. Most of the examples suggested below are taken from passages
already discussed in this article.

Moran (1960:4, n.3; 1987:268, n.10) has pointed out that ilāni both in EA
84:35 (where it refers to dDA.MU-ia) and in EA 129:51 (ilāni balṭi) is singular
in meaning. The passage EA 77:30–35 has been restored by Moran (1987:257
and 258, n.8), and it is evident that DIN[GIRmeš] directly refers to the Lady of
Byblos and is a singular form. In EA 74:57 DINGIRmeš-nu is in apposition to the
Lady of Byblos, the passage (lines 56–57) may be translated “I will guard the
city loyal to him together with our lady, our goddess, for you.”

In letter EA 164 discussed above (see Part 2), Aziru expressed his will to
travel to Egypt and appear before the Pharaoh, but makes one condition: that
the latter and his officials first take an oath before his and the Pharaoh’s gods
not to conspire against him. It is clear that DINGIRmeš-ia (lines 31, 40) refers to
his personal god, which he had sent to Egypt together with his messenger.

Finally, it seems that in several letters the “god of the king” (i.e., the
Pharaoh) is written either in singular (DINGIR) or in plural (DINGIRmeš) form.
The singular form appears in letters EA 179:23, 250:20,49 and 337:14; the plu-
ral appears in letters EA 161:32 and 189:r. 14. dUTU in the latter texts is in ap-
position to DINGIRmeš-nu-ka, as is evident from EA 189;r. 13 which has the sin-

17. It is not clear whether Etaqqama refers here to a standard that was carried at the
head of the advanced army, or whether he used these words only as a metaphor for the

250 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

gular verbal form ellak. EA 189:r. 13–15 may be translated: “And I came (in
time), and your god, namely the Sun, went before me.”17 EA 161:32–33 “Your
god, namely the Sun, be my witness. . . .” As was noted in Part 2, all these five
references to the “god of the king” were written in the time of Akhenaten and
reflect the rise of the Sun-God to the status of the supreme god of the king-
dom and the personal god of the king.

In conclusion, we may note that in many cases ilāni is a singular form and
that sometimes it is quite difficult to decide whether it stands for the singular
or the plural. Understanding the context may be the key for the correct form;
each and every case should be analyzed in its own right.

References

Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden.
Albright, W.F. 1936. The Canaanite God Ḥaurôn (Ḥôrôn). American Journal of Semitic

Languages and Literatures 53: 1–12.
Albright, W.F. 1941. The Egypto-Canaanite Deity Ḥaurôn. BASOR 84: 7–12.
Albright, W.F. 1968. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting

Faiths. London.
Astour, M. 1979. The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 13–28.
Auld, A.G. 1977. A Judean Sanctuary of ‘Anat (Josh 15:59)? Tel Aviv 4: 85–86.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Caquot, A. 1979–80. Horon: revue critique et données nouvelles. Annales Archéologiques de

Syrie 29–30: 173–80.
Dietrich, M. Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J. 1976. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. (AOAT

24). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome.
Hallo, W.W. and Moran, W.L. 1979. The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth.

JCS 31: 65–115.
Hartmann, B. 1973–74. Elōhīm als Singular. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 48: 67–76.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

ed., Wiesbaden.
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bīt Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of

Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).
Kestemont, G. 1971. Le Nahr el-Kebir et le pays d’Amurru. Berytus 20: 47–55.
Kitchen, K.A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology.

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

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

Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.

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

On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters 251

Lambert, W.G. 1969. The Reading of the God Name dKA.DI. ZA 59: 100–103.
Lipińiski, E. 1973. Beth-Schemesch und der Tempel der Herrin der Grabkammer in den

Amarna-Briefen. VT 23: 443–445.
Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici. (Studi Semitici 6). Rome.
de Moor, J.C. 1970. The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 2: 187–228.
Moran, W.L. 1960. Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 1–19.
Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*–99*.
Moran, W.L. 1985. Rib-Hadda: Job at Byblos?. In: Kort, A. and Morschauser, S. eds. Biblical

and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Winona Lake: 173–181.
Moran, W.L. 1987. Les letters d’EI-Amarna. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13. Paris.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according

to the Amarna Letters. Ph.D. Thesis. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters.

Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–194.
Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des archives sud (Archives

internationales). (Mission de Ras Shamra 9). Paris.
Posener, G. 1945. Houroun: nouvelles mentions de cette Divinité. JNES 4: 240–242.
Rainey, A.F. 1976. A Tri-Lingual Cuneiform Fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3: 137–140.
Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln.

2nd revised ed. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Seven Studies.

Toronto.
Schroeder, O. 1915a. iluA = iluA-ma-na.” OLZ 18: 326–327.
Schroeder, O. 1915b. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der

Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig.
Stadelmann, R. 1967. Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden.
Xella, P. 1972. Per una riconsiderazione della morfologia del dio Ḥoron. Annali dell’Istituto

Orientale di Napoli 32: 271–286.
Xella, P. 1988. D’Ugarit à Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Ḥoron, Eshmun. WO 19: 45–

64.

Ḫ

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a
Social Term to the Literary Sphere1

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

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

252

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 253

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

I. The Ḫabiru in Ancient Near Eastern Documents

The Ḫabiru are mentioned in more than 210 texts written in the course
of the second millennium BCE in many Western Asiatic kingdoms.7 The earli-
est documents in which they appear belong to the first half of the eighteenth
century BCE. The latest hieratic and cuneiform occurrences mentioning the
Ḫabiru are dated to the twelfth and eleventh centuries, respectively. At any
rate, it seems clear that Ḫabiru as a general Western Asiatic phenomenon dis-
appeared from the historical arena some time toward the end of the second
millennium BCE.

Common to all the people designated as “Ḫabiru” is the fact that they
were uprooted from their original political and social framework and forced
to adapt to a new environment. The different traits and social behavior of
the Ḫabiru in each area of Western Asia are the outcome of this adaptation to
new circumstances. Among the reasons for breaking off their former political
and social ties were wars, disasters, famine, debt, heavy taxes, prolonged mil-
itary service, and so on. Recent studies on tribes have shown that the poor-
est tribal elements, those whose livestock or land diminished to the point at
which it was no longer sufficient to sustain a family, often left their tribes to
seek a living elsewhere (Rowton 1976b:14). It should be emphasized that the

5. The term “tribe” is so deeply entrenched in discussions of ancient Western Asiatic
society, and particularly in the description of the early history of Israel, that, in spite of re-
cent suggestions not to use the term (see Fried 1975), one can hardly avoid it. For a conve-
nient definition of the expression “tribe,” see Kamp and Yoffee 1980: 88–89.

6. See the works of Mendenhall 1973; Rowton, 1976b; Gottwald 1979. For a complete
list of Rowton’s publications, see Rowton 1976:17–18, n. 4; 1981:25–36. For a criticism of
Rowton’s approach see Gottwald, 1979:889–894; Kamp and Yoffee, 1980:91–94.

7. For an updated list of documents, see Bottéro 1972–75:15–21; for additional notes on
the list, see Bottéro 1981:90–91, n. 4. Bottéro’s list of texts includes sources that concern the
ḫabbatu as well as others that mention only personal names.

254 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

tribal framework was basically territorial and included inhabitants of small
towns and villages as well as nomads.8 Tribal ties encompassed large areas
and functioned as a loose, social structure that united many groups and fam-
ilies of a diverse nature: farmers, nomads, and sometimes even members of
urban populations. Thus, the discussion of migrants from the tribal sector is
by no means restricted to people of nomadic background. Indeed, J. Bottéro
(1981:96–97) has demonstrated recently that most of the people designated
as “Ḫabiru,” insofar as their background can be established, actually came
from the sedentary population and not from among the nomads. They orig-
inated from the two major sectors of the “dimorphic society” of the ancient
Near East — the urban and the tribal — and were an intermediate social ele-
ment between these two groups.

As it happened, individuals sometimes moved from their homeland to
neighboring countries and served either in the public or private sector for
subsistence or wages. Usually, however, they did not migrate alone, but
formed a band. These bands were independent bodies and were restricted in
number and unified, often having a single prominent leader. No further hier-
archy or institutional organization was needed for this tiny social structure,
and it is for this reason that none of the institutions that typify either clan or
tribe ever appeared in connection with the Ḫabiru (Bottéro 1972–75:26; 1981:
94). The predatory nature of the bands was a direct outcome of their social
status. M.B. Rowton (1977:193) emphasized that “in tribal society the most
predatory elements were usually the small and poor tribes or tribal splin-
ter groups. These lacked the strength to assert their claim to pasture. As a re-
sult they would turn to brigandage.” This statement is even more true of the
groups of Ḫabiru who had neither tribal territory nor large fields and herds,
and they often became dangerous to sedentary society. On occasion, however,
they served as mercenaries to rulers in neighboring areas, and service in the
armies of established kingdoms opened the way for the re-integration of the
Ḫabiru into sedentary society and may have even been a stepping-stone to
a military career for a leader of a band (Rowton 1977:193). Further details
about the Ḫabiru-bands and their origin, organization, and activity can be
gleaned from the Bible, as I hope to show below.

The social status “Ḫabiru,” i.e., “uprooted migrants,” did not last very long
(Bottéro 1981:93–106). The stable organization of these bands, mainly based
on the personality of their leader and cohesion of their members, was short-

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

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 255

lived. Sooner or later their members married, had children, and their number
expanded to a degree that necessitated support from a larger political group.
Thus, the bands appear to have re-integrated themselves either into tribal
society or (through military service) into urban society; they may have even
formed the nucleus of an entirely new tribe (Rowton 1977:194). It appears
that individual refugees often became re-integrated into society through
their service in ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. One may safely conclude
that the people designated as “Ḫabiru,” who appeared in different places at
different times in various Western Asiatic regions, had nothing in common,
apart from their similar social status. Each society had its own “Ḫabiru-peo-
ple.” In general, the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru can be described as a circular
process, one in which people were uprooted from the society in which they
were born, lived for a while as foreigners in another country, and then were
absorbed into their new environment.

The problem of the etymology and exact meaning of the term “Ḫabiru”
was clarified recently by the publication of newly discovered letters from
Mari. The verb ḫabāru appears in two of these tablets and was translated
by the editor, M. Birot (1974:nos. 50, 72, and p. 228) as “immigrer.” Bottéro
(1981:95 f), however, disagreed and suggested that the verb was derived from
the noun Ḫabiru and should be translated “est-devenu-ḫabiru.” It is note-
worthy that the single appearance of the same verb in a Cappadocian tab-
let (Stephens 1944:No. 226) is earlier than all other occurrences of the term
Ḫabiru. The inconsistency in the recording of the verb ḫabāru may well be
due to its West-Semitic origin. Be that as it may, the light that the new Mari
tablets can shed on the original concept of the appellation Ḫabiru is certainly
more important than its assumed etymological contribution. To demonstrate
this, I present the tablets in more detail below.

(1) ARM 14 50. A certain person, Ami-ibâl, came from the town of Nasher
in Ilānṣura and was accused of being registered as an elite soldier who had
defected from his unit, which was stationed at Ilānṣura. Ami-ibâl rejected
the accusation by claiming that four years before the assumed registration
he had migrated (verb ḫabāru) from Ilānṣura to Subartu (the reasons for the
move are not specified) and had returned to his homeland only recently be-
cause of the advance of Atamrum.9

It is clear from this letter that there was a markedly perceived difference
between a deserter (pāṭeru) and a migrant (Ḫabiru). Desertion was regarded
as a grave offence, and the government sought out deserters and punished

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

256 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

them severely when they were caught. Migration, on the other hand, was re-
garded as a legal, voluntary act.

(2) ARM 14 72. Addu-sharrum was a Babylonian and an overseer (wak-
lum) of a group of soldiers. He was accepted, together with his band, as a re-
placement in the kingdom of Mari. Eight months later, the Babylonians de-
manded his extradition, claiming that he had defected from the army after
the Babylonian troops came to Mari. To this claim Addu-sharrum answered
that he had fled from Babylonia to Mari and, thus, was a migrant (Ḫabiru)
who should not be extradited. Yaqqim-Addu, the governor of Saggaratum
who wrote the letter, sent Addu-sharrum to the king of Mari suggesting that
the latter should check to see “if this man fled from Babylonia or whether he
came up with the troops and then stayed” (lines 30–32).

The two letters reflect a similar problem, i.e., determining the legal sta-
tus of a man who is accused of being a deserter, but who states he is a migrant
and, thus, a Ḫabiru. If he is the latter, he has broken no law and should be nei-
ther punished nor extradited.

(3) ARM 14 73. This letter is closely connected with letter no. 72 above; un-
fortunately, only the second half is preserved. Yaqqim-Addu cites the words
of the group of replacements overseen by Addu-sharrum, saying: “Is there
a country which extradites its replacements? Not only us: a messenger who
was used to hearing the secrets of his lord, if he enters the service of another
king, he becomes the son of (that) country. Now, why should you extradite
us?” (rev. lines 5–12).

The second claim reminds us of the case of David, “the servant of Saul,
king of Israel,” who later joined Achish, king of Gath, and was with him “for,
days and years since he deserted” (1 Sam. 29:3). Migrating to a neighboring
kingdom and serving under its king is regarded in this letter as an acceptable
move, even if the migrant had previously served in the court of another king.
It should be emphasized, however, that these claims were raised by replace-
ments whose extradition had been requested (see rev. lines 13–14) and who
were desperately trying to escape this fate.

Keeping this background in mind, I can now attempt to define the differ-
ence between the Ḫabiru and munnabtum.10 The latter term seems to have had
a more general meaning, designating various types of runaways, even slaves
who ran away from their masters. In certain cases, therefore, people desig-
nated munnabtum were treated like the pāṭeru of the Mari tablets and were
prosecuted and extradited. The Ḫabiru, on the other hand, who were re-

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

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 257

garded as migrants, were immune from such acts of prosecution. Once their
status was recognized, they were allowed to remain (as aliens) in the ancient
Near Eastern kingdoms to which they had fled, and in no case were they cap-
tured or extradited. Thus, it is clear that Bottéro was justified in defining the
Ḫabiru as “réfugié,”11 in contrast with the prevailing definitions (e.g., “resi-
dent aliens,” “aliens,” “outlaws”), which emphasized the status of the Ḫabiru
subsequent to their migration. Hence, it appears that it is only the act of mi-
gration, and not any specific status resulting from conditions in the new en-
vironment, that defines the appellative designation “Ḫabiru” in Western
Asiatic societies of the second millennium BCE.

II. The Ḫabiru in the Amarna Letters: From Social Appellation to
Expression of Derogation

The largest single group of documents in which the term “Ḫabiru” is men-
tioned, the Amarna tablets, was the first to be discovered. Most of the tablets
were sent by Canaanite rulers to the Egyptian court during the first half of
the fourteenth century BCE. The Ḫabiru appear in these letters as a distinct
component of the population, scattered in all areas of Canaan. They had an
important effect on events that took place in the regions under Egyptian
rule. They were usually portrayed as a negative element wreaking havoc in
all areas of Canaan and a cause of concern to and complaints by the city-state
rulers. In only a few instances are the Ḫabiru referred to without this tone of
reproach and accusation.

The Amarna correspondence shows a marked development in the history
of the appellation “Ḫabiru.” On many occasions, the term went beyond its
original meaning (i.e., a designation for uprooted people) and became a de-
rogatory appellation for rebels against Egyptian authority.12 This is partic-
ularly clear in the letters from Byblos, where there is a similarity between
statements in which the Ḫabiru are mentioned and statements in which
‘Abdi-Ashirta or his sons appear.13 Also, the expression “to become Ḫabiru,”
which is repeated in many letters from all areas of Canaan, implies deser-

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

258 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

tion from the Pharaoh and his representatives, the various rulers of the city-
states, and defection to the side of their opponents, who were regarded as
outlaws (Liverani 1979:65–77). The extension of the term “Ḫabiru” to denote
elements that were opposed to the Pharaoh and the rulers of the city-states is
certainly connected with the political nature of the Amarna correspondence:
The letters were diplomatic exchanges sent to the overlord, the Egyptian
Pharaoh, and, thus, every city-state ruler tried to justify his own deeds and
to denigrate his enemies. The use of the appellation “Ḫabiru” as a kind of de-
rogatory expression presupposes, of course, the actual presence of Ḫabiru -
bands, which were a major cause of disruption in the Egyptian province of
Canaan. The term “Ḫabiru” had a negative connotation in the Egyptian court.
Thus, it was extended to include all real, ostensible, or fabricated forces act-
ing against the Egyptian authorities. Of course, this must be taken into ac-
count when dealing with the Amarna correspondence, especially when try-
ing to determine the role of authentic Ḫabiru-bands and Ḫabiru-soldiers in
the political events and their effect on social and economic conditions of the
time.

Recent studies on the Amarna correspondence have made it clear that
the archive reflects no breakdown in the Egyptian rule of Canaan. Rather, the
letters portray a situation of “business as usual,” one in which the Egyptians
were strong enough to maintain their rule over their Asiatic provinces.14
From an Egyptian point of view, the Ḫabiru were regarded more as a dis-
turbing element than as a real threat to their rule in Asia. For the rulers of
the city-states, on the other hand, the Ḫabiru may have been a direct threat,
and the Amarna letters supply many indications of this. It is in this context
— taking into account the complicated problems involved in the evaluation
of the source material — that the historical role of the Ḫabiru in the land of
Canaan can be established.

What might the relationship have been between the Ḫabiru of the
Amarna period and the Israelites of the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE? It
has been suggested in recent studies that the Canaanite city-state system
gradually decayed and finally collapsed during the fourteenth-thirteenth
centuries and that large population groups simultaneously withdrew from
the crumbling urban society, subsequently united with each other, and later
formed the nucleus of a confederacy of the Israelite tribes.15 Accordingly, the

14. See, among others, Schulman 1964:51–69; Several 1972:123–133; Na’aman 1981:172–
185; Weinstein 1981:15–17, with additional bibliography.

15. The hypothesis of an increasing withdrawal from the control of the central govern-
ment, in which the bands of Ḫabiru played an important role, is central in Mendenhall’s

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 259

masses of Ḫabiru withdrawing from the Canaanite cities during the Amarna
period could have played an important role in this scenario, because they
have been regarded as the link between the Ḫabiru of the Amarna period and
the Israelite tribes.16

There is enough evidence today, however, both from contemporary doc-
uments and archaeology, to call this theory into question. First, there are
no archaeological indications for large-scale settlement during the four-
teenth-thirteenth centuries BCE in the mountainous parts of Palestine, i.e.,
where the Israelites of the twelfth-eleventh centuries would have settled.
Furthermore, there is a clear cultural break in the settlement of these moun-
tain areas between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Also, there are clear
indications of the intensification of Egyptian involvement in Palestine at the
time of the Nineteenth and the beginning of the Twentieth Dynasties in
Egypt (Weinstein 1981:17–23, with additional bibliography; Na’aman 1982a:
241–255). It appears that the Egyptian occupation of southern Canaan in the
thirteenth and the first half of the twelfth centuries BCE was stronger, and
their involvement more intense, than it was during the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Finally, there is archaeological evidence that suggests that Canaanite culture
flourished in this last phase of Egyptian rule in Palestine, in marked contrast
to earlier concepts that characterized the thirteenth century BCE as a period
of extreme decline in Canaanite civilization. The picture of the gradual col-
lapse of the city-state system from the Amarna period on and the simultane-
ous gradual strengthening of the forces withdrawing from Canaanite society
is, in my opinion, untenable.

One may further ask whether a large-scale migration from the city
state system was actually taking place during the Amarna period at all
(Mendenhall 1962:71–84; 1973:122–38; Liverani 1965a:323–327). The assump-
tion that there was such a migration is based mainly on the letters of Rib-
Adda of Byblos, which, however, reflect a singular historical moment: the
foundation of the strong kingdom of Amurru. This event is exceptional for
Late Bronze Age Canaan, a period characterized by the stability of the city-
states. Also, the letters of Rib-Adda are well known for their polemical nature
and tendentious use of the term “Ḫabiru” (see above) (Liverani 1971: 253–268;
1974:175–205). The results of archaeological excavations conducted in many
Palestinian sites indicate that no important Canaanite city was abandoned

and Gottwald’s descriptions of the settlement of the Israelite tribes. See Mendenhall 1962:
71–84; 1973:chaps. 1, 5, 7, 8; Gottwald 1979:pt. 8.

16. For a criticism of Mendenhall’s early statements on the Ḫabiru-Hebrew problem,
see Weippert 1971:66, 82–102.

260 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

during the fourteenth century, but rather, several new settlements were
founded during this period along the Coastal Plain and in the Shephelah re-
gion. The continual rebuilding of Late Bronze Age towns on their earlier scale
clearly shows that the former population of these towns was in fact unwill-
ing to withdraw from urban society and that these inhabitants actually re-
turned to their hometowns. It is only later, in the thirteenth century, that
central Canaanite cities were destroyed and abandoned. The large-scale exit
from the city-states and the assumed adaptation of a nomadic way of life in
the peripheral areas of Palestine by large groups of people were probably the
result of the destruction of many Canaanite cities in the thirteenth-twelfth
centuries (Mendenhall, 1973:142–153; Liverani 1965a:326–327, 332–335). One
doubts, however, whether the deserters of the Amarna period played an im-
portant role in this assumed process of nomadization.

Thus, it seems that the Ḫabiru were part of the society of Canaan in the
Late Bronze Age, appearing because of certain political, social, and economic
conditions and then becoming reabsorbed and assimilated into the same
society. One may conclude that no direct link connects the Ḫabiru of the
Amarna period with the Israelites of the pre-monarchical period (twelfth-
eleventh centuries). The Ḫabiru of the Late Bronze Age, like all other groups
of Ḫabiru in the ancient Near East, should be studied in the context of the en-
vironment from which they emerged.

III. Hebrews and Israelites in the Old Testament Tradition

1. The Nature of the Problem

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

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

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 261

extending the scope of ‘ibrî beyond Israelites.” Indeed, one is justified in dis-
cussing the Ḫabiru-Hebrew equation only within the context of the history
of Israel. By accepting the identity of the two names, one would necessarily
have to assume that the term was transformed from a social appellation into
an ethnic term. The question that needs to be asked is how and for what rea-
sons did this shift occur in Old Testament tradition?

Before discussing these questions, which have both historical and liter-
ary aspects, we must first examine the relationship of the Israelites and the
Hebrews in biblical tradition.

2. Migration from Israelite Society in the Pre-Monarchical and Early
Monarchical Periods

The name ‘ibrî(m) occurs in the Bible mainly in the description of two his-
torical periods: the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt and Philistine-Israelite
relations. It is used many times by foreigners, for example, by the Egyptians
(Gen. 39:14, 17; 41:12; Exod. 1:16; 2: 6) and Philistines (1 Sam. 4:6, 9; 13:3, 19;
14:11; 29:3) and also by the narrator with reference to Israelites in the con-
text of Egyptians vis-à-vis Israelites (Gen. 40:15; Exod. 1:19; 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16;
9:1, 13; 10:3). It refers mainly to Israelites in the pre-monarchical period and is
used to distinguish them from other ethnic groups; it usually appears in un-
favorable contexts, thus, lacking the halo generally associated with the term
“Israelite.”

One should begin with the occurrences of the term in the books of Samuel,
because, of all the traditions relating to the early history of Israel, the stories
in these books were the first to be set down in writing. Moreover, only a rel-
atively short time separates the events described therein from the date of
their recording, and, in addition, the author(s) lived in the same area where
the reported events took place. Thus, the books of Samuel are doubtless the
best source for a historical study of the problem of the Hebrews, much better
than all other biblical sources.

The designation ‘ibrîm appears seven times in 1 Samuel.18 Scholars have
already noted that 1 Sam. 14:21–22 is the key to its proper understanding.19
With the help of the LXX, the passage may be translated thus:

Now the Hebrews who had been with the Philistines before that time and who had
gone up with them into the camp, even they also turned to be with the Israelites who

18. The 1 Sam. 13:7 passage was omitted from the discussion, because it is obviously
corrupt. See Driver 1913:99–100.

19. See, for example, Gray 1958:180–181; Weingreen 1967:64–65; Weippert 1971:88;
Gottwald 1979:422–423.

262 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

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

The passage relates the joining of two different groups to the side of the
victor in the Battle of Michmash: the Hebrews who served in the Philistine
camp and the Israelites who hid themselves in Mount Ephraim (see 1 Sam. 13:
6). The narrator precisely defined the two groups, making it clear that the dif-
ference was not merely literary.

In the other six references, the name “Hebrews” is used by the Philistines
(1 Sam. 4:6, 9; 13:3,20 19; 14:11; 29:3). One may assume that by using this term,
the narrator intentionally emphasized the Philistines’ scorn of the uprooted
elements who were in their service and who were apparently considered an
inferior group. However, in five out of six references, the degrading appella-
tion is directed toward the Israelites, the rivals of the Philistines. The applica-
tion of the term “Hebrews” to the Israelites requires some explanation; some
background information about the activity of uprooted elements in the pre-
monarchical and the early monarchical periods is necessary.

As was recognized long ago, the bands of Jephthah and David were socially
identical with the Ḫabiru-bands of the second millennium BCE.21 The appel-
lation “Hebrews” is applied once to David and his band, who were scornfully
defined as such by the Philistine lords (1 Sam. 29:3). In fact, the best descrip-
tions of bands within the entire literature of the ancient Near East appear
in the biblical stories of Jephthah and David. They portray the background
of the flight, the emergence of the bands, their methods of survival, and the
manner in which they were re-integrated into Israelite society.

Jephthah was the son of a “harlot” and, as such, not entitled to an inher-
itance in his father’s house; he was obliged to migrate to a marginal terri-
tory (the Land of Tob). Known as a “mighty warrior,” he assembled a band
of “worthless fellows,” which he commanded. When the inhabitants of the
Gilead region were oppressed by the Ammonites, Jephthah was called by his
compatriots to lead, with his strong band, the armed forces of Gilead against
the aggressors. As a result of his success in the battles against the Ammonites,
he was able to acquire both wealth and authority in Gileadite society of the
eleventh century BCE (Judg. 11).

20. The 1 Sam. 13: 3 passage is emended in accordance with the version of the LXX. See
Driver 1913:98.

21. See, for example, Buccellati 1962:95–99; Mazar 1963:310–312; Mendenhall 1973:133,
135–136.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 263

Even more instructive are the stories of David’s rise to power. Serving first
as a military commander under Saul, king of Israel, and married to the king’s
daughter, he was later obliged to flee from his father-in-law, who sought to
kill him. “David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam; and
when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there
to him. And everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt,
and everyone who was discontented, gathered to him; and he became cap-
tain over them. And there were with him about four hundred men” (1 Sam.
22:1–2). In contrast to this description are the words of Nabal, David’s enemy,
who refused to give them supplies, calling them slaves “who are breaking
away from their masters” and men “who come from I know not where” (1
Sam. 25:10–11). By his authority and personal influence, David was able to
attract not only his relatives, but also elements of a lower social status, men
who had complaints against the incumbent regime as well as others seeking
a new fortune, thus, becoming the leader of a powerful, well-organized mil-
itary force. The band also included a priest (Abiathar, 1 Sam. 22:20–23) and a
prophet (Gad, 1 Sam. 22:5). This reminds us of the story of Idrimi, who was
not only the captain of his band but also its diviner.22

The narrator describes in great detail how David, leading his band, was
able to escape pursuit of the king of Israel. He sought places of refuge in the
inaccessible desert borderlands and in hidden caves. Of particular interest
are the ways in which David was able to maintain and sustain his band. He de-
manded protection money from the wealthier landowners in his area, even
threatening death when anyone refused to pay (1 Sam. 25). David also mar-
ried women of southern Judean origin — Abigail of Carmel and Ahinoam of
Jezreel (see Josh. 15: 55–56) — and was certainly supported by his fathers-in-
law. Because of the dangers involved in wandering within Israelite territory,
David later moved to Philistia, becoming a vassal of the Philistine king of Gath,
Saul’s main enemy. The band under David’s command served as mercenaries
in the Philistine camp, even in campaigns directed against their countrymen
(1 Sam. 27: 1–6; 28: 1–2; 29). The king of Gath gave him Ziklag, and from there
he systematically raided groups of pastoral nomads situated on the southern
borders of Palestine (1 Sam. 27:7–11). Because Ziklag was located in the vicin-
ity of the land of Judah, David began to create political alliances by defending
the settlements of southern Judah against the pastoral nomads of the desert,
even sending them gifts from the spoil of their hated enemies (1 Sam. 30). It

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

264 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

was only after the death of Saul that David’s special position was recognized
by the inhabitants of the land of Judah, who anointed him as their king in
Hebron (2 Sam. 2:1–4). His band became the nucleus of the growing army of
the new kingdom.

The case of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, is different (Judg. 9). He started
his career by hiring “worthless and reckless fellows, who followed him”
(Judg. 9: 4) and, thus, came to power. However, he remained within the con-
fines of his clan and tribe and never became a Ḫabiru. Using uprooted ref-
ugees to help him gain political power, Abimelech resembles the Canaanite
city-state rulers who hired soldiers from among the Ḫabiru for similar rea-
sons (see Judg. 11:4–11).

Gaal and his “kinsmen,” on the other hand, were refugees, probably of
Israelite origin, who assembled as a band and found shelter in the city of
Shechem under the protection of the “lords” of Shechem (Judg. 9:26–29).
Later, they were expelled from the town as a result of Abimelech’s mili-
tary pressure (vv. 30–41). This situation finds an exact parallel in the case
of the band of Ḫabiru who stayed in the city of Tushulti under the patron-
age of its ruler (Amanḫatpi), until they were forced to leave after the attack
by Tushulti’s neighboring rulers (EA 185 and 186). In still another example,
David and his band stayed in the city of Keilah under the patronage of the
“lords” of the city until they heard of Saul’s expected campaign against the
city; they then were forced to escape (1 Sam. 23:1–13).

Another instance of a leader of a band who subsequently seized the
throne is Rezon, the son of Eliada (1 Kgs. 11:23–24). Although the precise de-
tails are not known, the story is not unlike that of David and his rise to power
in Israel. Rezon fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and became the
leader of a marauding band. After the defeat of Hadadezer, Rezon gradually
gained more and more power and finally became the king of Aram-Damascus
during the reign of Solomon.

A literary depiction of a band is portrayed in Judg. 18. The plot has been
correctly characterized as a “chronique scandaleuse” and is certainly a po-
lemic against the sanctuary and cult of the city of Dan (Noth 1962:68–77). The
migrating Danites are presented as a brigade of 600 armed men (Judg. 18:11,
16, 17), exactly like the bards of David (1 Sam. 23:13; 27:2; 30:9) and Rezon (1
Kgs. 11:24). The mood of the Danites is characterized by the term mārēi nepeš,
“angry fellows” (Judg. 18:25), an expression that also describes the mood of
the men who attached themselves to David after his flight from Saul (1 Sam.
22:2). On their way northward, the Danites took both the cult objects and the
priest of Micah’s temple by force and threatened to kill him if he tried to stop
them. Finally, they made a surprise attack on the peaceful city of Laish, anni-
hilated its population, and eventually settled there (see 1 Sam. 27:8–11). The

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 265

Danites’ behavior is more brigandish than that of a pastoral clan and is an ac-
curate literary reflection of the way of life of the bands of the pre-monarchi-
cal and early monarchical periods.

3. The Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sam. 20)

The revolt of Sheba ben Bichri follows, in the “succession narrative,” the
rebellion of Absalom and is described as the direct outcome of the latter (2
Sam. 19:41–44; 20:1–2). The two stories form a coherent literary unit and
should be discussed together. Some general introductory remarks on these
two episodes are essential before we try to connect Sheba’s rebellion with
the subject at hand.23

Reading the stories about Absalom and Sheba’s rebellions carefully (2
Sam. 15–20) and attempting to interpret them historically, one finds a re-
markable discrepancy between the terminology used to indicate the rebel-
lious elements and the actual participants in these revolts. Absalom was of
the tribe of Judah. He was proclaimed king in Hebron, the central city of
Judah, David’s former capital. His commander-in-chief was Amasa, a Judean;
and his advisor, Ahithophel of Giloh, was also Judahite. David was forced to
abandon Jerusalem, his capital, in great haste and to cross the Jordan because
of the advancing rebel army from Hebron. One can hardly doubt the initia-
tive and the decisive role played by the tribe of Judah in the revolt. For this
reason, the elders of Judah were afraid to contact David after the death of
Absalom and the quelling of the rebellion (2 Sam. 19:10–13). Yet, in contrast
to all these concrete data, the rebels are consistently called “men of Israel,”
“all the men of Israel,” and “all the elders of Israel.” The “men of Judah” and
the “elders of Judah” appear suddenly in the story at the start of the negoti-
ations that follow the crushing of the revolt.

A similar inconsistency is also reflected in the story of Sheba’s rebellion.
The participants in the revolt are Sheba and his followers, who were obliged
to find shelter in the far-off city of Abel of Beth-maacah. Moreover, there is
no sign of the formation of a military organization of any kind on the rebel
side; yet, it is related that “all the men of Israel withdrew from David and fol-
lowed Sheba the son of Bichri” (2 Sam. 20:2).

These remarkable internal contradictions in the two stories, in my opin-
ion, can be explained as the result of the bias of the Judean scribes who com-
posed the stories.24 The narrator was reluctant to blame his own tribe, which

23. For the rebellion of Sheba, see Crüsemann 1978:104–111, with bibliography; Tadmor
1982:247–150.

24. For other passages reflecting the bias of the Judean scribes, see Na’aman 1982b:
156–157.

266 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

was also the king’s tribe, for Absalom’s rebellion. Therefore, he systematically
used the all-inclusive designations “men of Israel” and “all the men of Israel”
for the followers of Absalom, until reaching the point in the story when the
tribe of Judah once again supported the king. Thereafter, he changed his ter-
minology and called them by their real name, “men of Judah.” Thus, an anal-
ysis of only the terminology used cannot help us determine the chain of
events.25 I would propose that until Absalom’s entrance into Jerusalem, only
the tribe of Judah was involved in the rebellion. The main issue discussed in
the meeting between Absalom and his followers in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 17:1–
14) was whether to attack immediately, backed only by the tribe of Judah, or
whether to broaden their base of support. It was only after the acceptance of
Hushai’s advice that the other Israelite tribes became involved in the rebel-
lion and, at least partially, participated on the side of the rebels.

The same explanation, namely, the bias of the Judean scribe, also applies
to the description of Sheba’s revolt. To further blur the earlier anti-Davidic
position of the tribe of Judah, the narrator intentionally magnified the im-
portance of this second revolt, transforming it into an all-northern Israelite
tribal act against David. The narrator, thus, wanted his readers to infer that
two general insurrections occurred at that time: one all-Israelite headed by
Absalom and a second northern Israelite headed by Sheba. In fact, there were
two rebellions: one mainly Judahite headed by Absalom and a second, local
one, headed by Sheba.

Sheba’s revolt started at an inopportune time for David, immediately after
the quelling of Absalom’s rebellion, when he began to show his preference
for Judah during the incident of the crossing of the Jordan (2 Sam. 19:12–16,
41–44). Sheba was trying to take advantage of the dissatisfaction among the
northern tribes and incite a second rebellion. There is no indication, however,
that he won them over, although the revolt caused much apprehension in
David’s camp (2 Sam. 20:6).

What might have been the background of Sheba ben Bichri? We are told
that he was of the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. 20:1), probably of the Benjaminite
clan of Becher (see 2 Sam. 16: 5, Shimei ben Gera) (Driver 1913:340); that he
lived in Mount Ephraim (2 Sam. 20:21); and that his followers are called kl
hbrym (2 Sam. 20:14). There is a marked inconsistency between Sheba’s two
designations — “a Benjaminite” and “of Mount Ephraim” — because the lat-
ter was located north of the tribal inheritance of Benjamin. All the places
that are explicitly located in Mount Ephraim (Timnath-serah, Ramah, Bethel,

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

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 267

Mount Zemaraim, Shechem, Shamir) are situated north of Benjamin’s border.
Furthermore, two districts within the Solomonic administrative division are
called “Mount Ephraim” (1 Kgs. 4:8) and “Benjamin” (1 Kgs. 4:18), indicating
the separation of the two territories. No single reference supports the idea
that parts of Benjamin’s inheritance were ever included in Mount Ephraim.26
One might even propose that the name Benjamin (“son of the south”) for the
southern tribe of the House of Joseph was given on account of its position
south of Mount Ephraim, the seat of the tribe of Ephraim and part of the tribe
of Manasseh.27 How can we account for the fact that the rebel lived outside of
the territory of his tribal inheritance?

Mount Ephraim, where Sheba lived, especially its western slopes, was a
common hiding place for runaway peoples. This is evident from the descrip-
tion in 1 Sam. 13–14, where those escaping the Philistine’s attack hid them-
selves in Mount Ephraim (1 Sam. 14:22; see 13:6). Certain parts of Mount
Ephraim are explicitly called “Seirah,” i.e., a wooded (“shaggy”) area, in the
story of Ehud’s escape from the Moabites (Judg. 3:26–27; see also Josh. 15:
10).28 Assuming that Saul was of the clan of Becher (1 Sam. 9:1, Bechorath
probably represents Becher) (Marquart 1896:14; Cook 1899–1900:166, n. 46;

26. Kallai (1971:191–195) suggested that Mount Ephraim was originally a general desig-
nation for the mountainous area north of Jerusalem that may have included the territory
of Benjamin. He based his conclusion mainly on the sequence in 1 Sam. 9:4–5 suggesting
that the territories of Shalisha, Shaalim, Jemini (= Benjamin), and Zuph were all included
in Mount Ephraim, which headed the list of “lands.” The geographical description of the
search for the lost asses, however, should be explained differently. Saul started the search
from his birthplace, Gibeah. From Gibeah, he went northward to Mount Ephraim; (b) con-
tinued eastwards to the land of Shalisha; (c) proceeded southward to the land of Shaalim;
(d) passed westward to the land of Jemini (= Benjamin); and (e) went northward to the land
of Zuph, where the city of Ramah is situated (1 Sam. 1:1). It is clear that the narrator has
arranged the territories (“lands”) in a deliberate geographical sequence, emphasizing that
Saul, in the search for the lost asses, has made a vast circle around the city of Ramah before
at last entering the city according to the divine plan. One may further note that all sources
in which Mount Ephraim is mentioned were written only after the establishment of the
Israelite monarchy, thus, reflecting the territorial concepts common at that time. All bibli-
cal references to Mount Ephraim indicate that the northern boundary of Benjamin’s inher-
itance marks its southern border. Whether the term “Mount Ephraim” was originally asso-
ciated with other areas cannot be established.

27. For the northern border of Mount Ephraim, see Na’aman 1983:8–12.
28. See Astour 1975:331–332, 365; Soggin 1981:52. In light of Josh. 15:10 and Judg. 3:26,
one may also clarify the problems involved with the mention of mātāti še’eri in an Amarna
letter from Jerusalem (EA 288:26). The toponym can hardly refer to the region of Seir
(Edom), located far away, southeast of the area of Jerusalem. Seir (še’eri) is probably a de-
scriptive designation for the wooded mountainous areas where the bands of Ḫabiru, ‘Abdi-
Ḫeba’s enemies, found shelter. The passage in EA 288:26–28 may be translated thus: “Unto

268 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

Malamat 1968:171, n. 28), one may infer that Sheba, who was kin to the house
of Saul, was persecuted by David and, thus, was obliged to leave his family
and tribe to seek refuge in this mountainous area.

The followers of Sheba are called kl hbrym in the MT version, and various
suggestions have been offered to explain this enigmatic name.29 Taking into
account the variant kl h‘rym in several manuscripts (LXX and S), one may sug-
gest the reading kl h‘brym. Thus, 2 Sam. 20:14 could be translated as follows:
“And Sheba passed through all the tribes of Israel to Abel of Beth-maacah;
and all the ‘Hebrews’ assembled and followed him in.” The term “Hebrews”
fits nicely into the historical context of the episode, and one can easily ex-
plain how it became corrupt at a later date due to a misunderstanding.

With this in mind, we may reconstruct the chain of events. Sheba was a
refugee who stayed with his band of “Hebrews” in the inaccessible area of
Mount Ephraim. At a moment of political crisis following Absalom’s rebellion,
he tried to take advantage of the situation by inciting a revolt. The moment
selected for the revolt was not unlike those occasions on which Jephthah,
David, and Rezon rose to power. It is for this reason that David, who was per-
sonally acquainted with the dangers involved in this kind of situation, was
so anxious to put an immediate end to the rebellion (2 Sam. 20:4–6). Sheba,
however, unable to gain support from the northern tribes, was obliged to flee
with his band of “Hebrews” and sought refuge at Abel of Beth-maacah, prob-
ably part of the Danite enclave in Upper Galilee (1 Kgs. 15:20; see the LXX ver-
sion of 2 Sam. 20:18). The rebel hoped to find shelter there, depending upon
the close relationship between the Danites, who had emigrated from the
Shephelah northward (Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18), and the Benjaminites, their for-
mer neighbors. Sheba’s hopes for asylum were in vain: He was betrayed and
killed after a short siege (see the episode in 1 Sam. 23:1–13). Rowton (1977:
193) noted that “history has doubtless forgotten far more parasocial leaders
than those who did leave a mark in the chronicles or in local tradition. For
usually only those are remembered who met success.” Sheba is an exception;
he is remembered because of the role the episode played in the author’s de-
liberate presentation of the history of David.

the wooded (‘shaggy’) areas (and) unto Ginti-kirmil all the city-state rulers are at peace,
but there is a war against me.”

29. For the various proposals offered by scholars for 2 Sam. 20:14, see Crüsemann 1978:
110, n. 25, with further bibliography.

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

4. The Transfer of the Term “Hebrews” to the Sphere of Literature

With their status as uprooted people living on the margins of society, the
bands described in the books of Judges and Samuel are identical to the Ḫabiru
of the ancient Near Eastern texts. The term “Ḫabiru,” however, is an appel-
lation that has exclusively social connotations, whereas the term “Hebrews”
has both social and ethnic connotations and is used as a gentilic only for the
Israelites. How, then, did the social appellation Ḫabiru become a “social eth-
nonym”30 in the biblical tradition, and why was it applied in these stories to
the Israelites?

As was demonstrated above, the “Hebrews” originated from among Israelite
tribal society just as all other Ḫabiru-people originated from the neighboring
Western Asiatic societies of the second millennium BCE. Moreover, in cer-
tain historical moments, such as the struggles with the Ammonites or the
Philistines, groups of “Hebrews” cooperated with their compatriots and were
subsequently re-integrated into Israelite society. Thus, there was a kind of
ethnic connection between the Israelites and the Hebrews in the sense that
the latter were part of Israelite tribal society both at the beginning and the
end of their history. Even David, who established the kingdom and founded
the capital city and royal dynasty of Israel, was a “Hebrew.” It is no wonder
that the social appellation acquired an ethnic meaning and that the refugees
of Israelite origin were called “Hebrews.” Taking into account this specific
usage for the term “Hebrew,” the author of the stories of 1 Samuel used a sub-
tle literary device: in the description of the Philistine scorn for the Israelite
uprisings, the Philistines mockingly call their enemies “Hebrew,” the term for
the marginal groups who had come to their aid and, thus, we see the begin-
ning of the literary process that would culminate with a considerable differ-
ence in meaning between the terms “Ḫabiru” and “Hebrew.” This narrator,
however, certainly knew the difference between the designations “Israelite”
and “Hebrew”: it is only the Philistines who would use this degrading name to
denigrate their rivals, the Israelites. Nowhere does the narrator use the term
“Hebrews” as a gentilic for the Israelite tribes.

As shown above, the scribes of the Amarna letters used the appellation
“Ḫabiru” in a similar way — as both a derogatory term indicating scorn and
as a label for all real or ostensible rebels against the Egyptians and their allies
among the city-state rulers of Canaan.31 By the way, the scribes of the books

30. For the term “social ethnonym,” Rowton 1976b:15.
31. Weippert (1971:87–88) has noted correctly the resemblance between the descrip-
tion of the Israelites, who resisted the Philistine claim to supremacy, as “Hebrews” and the
analogous use of the term “Ḫabiru” in the Amarna letters. See Gottwald 1979: 421–422.

270 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

of Judges and Samuel — when describing the Israelite scorn for their rivals,
the Philistines — also had them derisively call their enemies by the humili-
ating name ‘arēlîm, “uncircumcised” (Judg. 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36;
31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20).

When the term “Ḫabiru “ vanished from the Western Asiatic historical
arena, partly because of the foundation of “national states” in the region of
the western Euphrates at the beginning of the first millennium BCE and partly
because it was replaced by another term,32 the appellation “Hebrew” contin-
ued to be used in Biblical Hebrew. When examining the remaining biblical
references in which the designation “Hebrew” is used, one recognizes two
distinct features characterizing the original social position of the Ḫabiru: (1)
their status as aliens who have migrated to places far from their homeland,
and (2) their low social status as enslaved and exploited workers. At least one
of these characteristics is prominent in all descriptions of the Hebrews in the
Bible, particularly in the stories of the migration to Egypt and their sojourn
there. These features alone, however, differentiate those Hebrews from the
Israelites. It is clear that the appellation “Hebrew” has been transformed in
these traditions to designate Israelites in exceptional situations.

To illustrate this, I cite a few examples below.
(1) “Hebrew” as a designation for Israelites migrating to a foreign country:
Joseph, who was brought by force from Canaan to Egypt is called “a Hebrew”
(Gen. 39:14) and “a young Hebrew” (Gen. 41:12). Regarding the Israelites who
stayed in Egypt and who were frequently called “Hebrews” in the stories of
Exodus, it is explicitly stated “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”
(Exod. 23:9). The prophet Jonah, when leaving his homeland and fleeing to
a foreign country, calls himself “a Hebrew” (Jon. 1:9). Also, Abraham may
have been called “the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), because he was commanded by
the Lord “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to
the land that I will show you” (Gen. 12:1). The Gen. 14:13 passage may, how-
ever, reflect the later post-biblical ethnic usage of the term, meaning simply
“Israelite” (see below) (Weippert, 1971:93–101).
(2) ”Hebrew” as a designation for Israelites in a position of slavery: This
usage is common in the stories of the book of Exodus, in which it is applied to
Israelites who were enslaved and exploited by the Egyptians for hard labor.
In addition, in biblical law, the term “Hebrew slave” designates Israelites who
were enslaved (Exod. 21:2; Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:9, 14).

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

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 271

It seems clear that all biblical references to the “Hebrews” reflect some
traits borrowed from the image of the second millennium Ḫabiru. However,
one should not minimize the difference in the use of the two terms and the
changes that the appellation “Ḫabiru” underwent in the tradition of the Old
Testament. The distinct biblical term “Hebrew slave” may well illustrate this
transformation. The situation of a “Hebrew slave” has been compared many
times with that of the Ḫabiru-people in the contracts from Nuzi.33 However,
the latter were called “Ḫabiru” due to their status as migrants entering Nuzi
from neighboring countries. The “Hebrew slave,” on the other hand, was des-
ignated as such because of his social status as an Israelite who was enslaved
within his own society. The comparison clearly illustrates the development of
the term “Hebrew” within the biblical tradition and the increasing difference
that developed in the use of the terms “Ḫabiru” and “Hebrew.”

To what extent was the term “Hebrew” used in the colloquial language of
the time of the First Temple? Analysis of daily language on the basis of liter-
ary sources — and the Bible is a literary source — is extremely problematic.
However, from its occurrence in various parts of the Old Testament, it seems
reasonably clear that the term “Hebrew” was mainly restricted to the liter-
ary tradition. It rarely appears in the prophetic books (Jer. 34:9, 14; Jon. 1:9),
and only in the term “Hebrew slave” in biblical law, in both cases designat-
ing an individual. One may safely suggest that in the colloquial language the
term always referred to individuals. The application of the term “Hebrews”
to large groups of Israelites was probably confined exclusively to the liter-
ary sphere, possibly influenced by the stories in the books of Samuel. The
transfer of the term “Hebrew” to the field of literature brought about, in my
opinion, its separation from the historical appellation “Ḫabiru” — the term
“Hebrew” becoming an appellation unique to Biblical Hebrew.

The “literarization” of the term “Hebrew” in the tradition of the Old
Testament further affected the late development of the name in the post-
Old Testament period. As is well known, the designation “Hebrew” appears
in non-canonical Jewish-literature: Josephus, Philo, and the New Testament,
where it becomes a synonym of the ethnicon “Israelite” (Parzen 1932–33:
255–258; Lewy 1957:1; Gray 1958:188–193). The use of the term in these late
periods depends entirely on the terminology of the Old Testament, reflect-
ing the influence of biblical literary traditions on authors who could not
have been aware of the complicated background and changes that occurred
in the use of the term. Was the term applied indiscriminately to all Israelites

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

272 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE Ḫ

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

IV. Conclusion

In summary, it seems that a change in the use of the term “Hebrew” in
the tradition of the Old Testament and its separation from the appellation
“Ḫabiru” occurred in two major stages. The first stage is evident in the books
of Samuel, which were composed at a time when the phenomenon of mi-
gration was still common in the growing Israelite society. The appellation
“Hebrew” was apparently used at this time as a social ethnonym, designat-
ing the uprooted Israelites who were obliged to leave their families and seek
their fortunes elsewhere. On a literary level, it became a derogatory term
for the Israelites, used by their main adversaries during that period, the
Philistines.

Later, when the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru/Hebrews entirely disap-
peared from daily reality, the term “Hebrew” was restricted, in the colloquial
language, to individual Israelites who were either migrants or slaves. In the
literary tradition, the term was further transformed and became a general
designation for groups of Israelites who were outside their homeland, that is,
living in oppression in foreign lands. This latter stage opened the way for the
post-Old Testament use of the ethnicon “Hebrew,” in which all traces of the
original meaning of the appellation disappeared, and the name simply be-
came another term for the Israelites.

References

Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels 2. (Analecta
Orientalia 50). Rome: 251–369.

Birot, M. 1974. Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu gouverneur de Sagarâtum. (Archives Royal de Mari
XIV). Paris.

Borger, R. 1958. Das Problem der ‘apīru (‘Ḫabiru’). ZDPV 74: 121–132.
Bottéro, J. 1954. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. (Cahiers

de la société asiatique 12). Paris.
Bottéro, J. 1972–75. Ḫabiru. RLA IV: 14–27.
Bottéro, J. 1981. Les Ḫabiru, les nomades et les sédentaires. In: Castillo, J.S. ed. Nomads and

Sedentary Peoples. Mexico City: 89–107. (= 1980. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 6: 201–213).
Buccellati, G. 1962. La ‘carriera’ di David a quella di Idrimi, re di Alalac. Bibbia e Oriente 4: 95–99.
Buccellati, G. 1977. ‘Apirū and Munnabtūtu — The Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age.

JNES 36: 145–147.
Campbell, E.F. 1960. The Amarna Letters and the Amarna Period. BA 23: 2–22.
Cazelles, H. 1973. The Hebrews. In: Wiseman, D.J. ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford:

1–28.

Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere 273

Cook, S.A. 1899–1900. Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel. American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 16: 145–177.

Crüsemann, F. 1978. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des
Alters Testamentes and der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat. (Wissenschaftliche
Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament 49). Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1981. Die Inschrift der Statue des Königs Idrimi von Alalaḫ.
Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 201–269.

Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel. 2nd revised ed. Oxford.
Fried, M.H. 1975. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park, California.
de Geus, C.H. J. 1976. The Tribes of Israel. An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions

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

274 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Mendenhall, G.E. 1962. The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: 66–87.
Mendenhall, G.E. 1973. The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore.
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. Ugarit-

Forschung 11: 673–684.
Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–185.
Na’aman, N. 1982a. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and the Late Bronze

Ages. In: Eph‘al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. Jerusalem: 129–256. (Hebrew).

Na’aman, N. 1982b. The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the “Land
that yet Remaineth.” Eretz Israel 16: 152–158. (Hebrew).

Na’aman, N. 1982c. The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the ‘Apiru and the Shosu.
Göttinger Miszellen 57: 27–33.

Na’aman, N. 1983. The District-System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy. Zion
48: 1–20. (Hebrew).

Noth, M. 1962. The Background of Judges 17–18. In: Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W. eds.
Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. New York: 68–85.

Parzen, H. 1932–33. The Problem of the Ibrim (=”Hebrews”) in the Bible. American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures 49: 254–261.

Riesener, I. 1979. Der Stamm ‘bd im Alten Testament. Eine Wortuntersuchung unter
Berücksichtigung neuer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methode. (Beiträge zur ZAW 149). Berlin
and New York.

Rouault, O. 1970. Andariq et Atamrum. RA 64: 110–118.
Rowton, M.B. 1976a. Dimorphic Structure and Topology. Oriens Antiquus 15: 17–30.
Rowton, M.B. 1976b. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apirû-‘ibrîm. JNES 35:

13–20.
Rowton, M.B. 1977. Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element. JNES 36: 181–197.
Rowton, M.B. 1981. Economic and Political Factors in Ancient Nomadism. In: Castillo, J.S.

ed. Nomads and Sedentary Peoples. Mexico City: 25–36.
Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna

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

Period. PEQ 104: 123–33.
Soggin, J.A. 1981. Judges: A Commentary. (Old Testament. Library). Philadelphia.
Stephens, F.J. 1944. Old Assyrian Letters and Business Documents. (Babylonian Inscriptions in

the Collection of J.B. Nies 6). New Haven.
Tadmor, H. 1982. Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions

in the Time of David and Solomon. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and
Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 239–257.
Weingreen, J. 1967. Saul and the Habirū. Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem:
63–66.
Weinstein, J.A. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: a Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1–28.
Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations
of the ‘Apiru and the Shasu1

In Knudtzon’s edition of the Amarna tablets, a city named Inamta ap-
pears twice, in letters EA 83:38 and 104:52. As F. Thureau-Dangin first recog-
nized, in the Amarna letters the sign NAM could also be read as bir5 (Thureau-
Dangin 1940–41:171; cf. Mendenhall 1947:123; von Soden and Röllig, 1967:11
no. 54). The syllable bir5 appears twice in the correspondence of Rib-Adda
of Byblos (EA 74:34 and 129:82), and the town’s name i-NAM-ta, accordingly,
may be read as i- bir5-ta.2 The name Ibirta may be analyzed as a derivative of
the Semitic verb ‘br, meaning “crossing (place).”

According to EA 104, Rib-Adda was frustrated by the fall of Ullasa, the
Egyptian garrison-city, into the hands of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s sons and the gradual
increase of their power. He was even afraid to leave his own town to go to the
Egyptian garrison-city of Ṣumur, because “Gubla would become ‘Apiru. I will
be going to Ibirta and will seek to join the ‘Apiru.”3

The passage makes it clear that the town of Ibirta was an important ‘Apiru
center, so that the defecting people of Byblos would appeal to this particular
place to contact the ‘Apiru.

According to letter EA 83, a man of Ibirta was sent by Rib-Adda to Egypt
and was held there in the house of the Egyptian commissioner Yanḫamu
(lines 34–39). The man was probably called ‘Abdi-NIN.URTA and was the
Byblian envoy Puḫewa’s escort to Egypt (EA 84:39–41). Rib-Adda was ac-
cused by “his (‘Abdi-NIN.URTA’s) men” of sending ‘Abdi-NIN.URTA to Egypt
to detain him (EA 83:35–37). The fact that ‘Apirus were employed by Rib-
Adda as messengers is known from his own letter (EA 112:43–47). It may be
possible that an ‘Apiru leader from the town of Ibirta was detained in Egypt
after his arrival as a messenger so as to ensure the non-aggression of his fol-
lowers.

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

275

276 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

The “Satirical letter,” Papyrus Anastasi I, describes the area from Ṣumur
southwards, to the area of the Eleutheros (Nahr el-Kebīr). The scribe men-
tions first the city of Ḫalba, situated on the Tripoli-Ḥoms road, and then the
two cities of Qadesh and Tubiḫu, situated, respectively, on the northern and
southern branches of this road after it reached the Orontes river.4

In the next passage, the description focuses on a particular area, the “dis-
trict of the Shasu” (‘ n š3sw),5 emphasizing its difficulties and dangers. One
of the toponyms mentioned in this area, p3 mgr, was identified by Weippert
(1970:275) as the Grotto of Adonis, near the Lebanese town of Afqa. Next
comes Mount š3-w3, which is probably located east of the town of Tripoli.6
The third toponym in this passage is described thus (Wilson 1969:477a; Helck
1971:316): “Pray, let [me tell thee of . . .]-brt. You are hastened at its ascent
after you had crossed its stream above it.”

Helck has transcribed the toponym as . . .-bí-r-tá. The reading of the
r as sheva is evident from several other toponyms appearing in this pa-
pyrus, all using exactly the same writing for the r (i.e., Zarephath, Tyre,
Harnam, Jordan and also maryannu). One can hardly doubt the restoration
of the town’s name as [I]birta and its identity with the ‘Apiru’s town of the
Byblian Amarna’s letters. Its name was probably borrowed from the river
crossing, which, according to the Egyptian text, was located below the town.
The exact location of Ibirta still eludes us, although, tentatively, one may lo-
cate it east of Tripoli, at the foot of Mount Lebanon where Mount Shawe was
identified.

The above equation of the ‘Apiru’s town of the Amarna letters with the
Shasu’s town of the Egyptian document requires a short discussion of the

4. For the translation of Papyrus Anastasi I, see Wilson 1969:476–478; Helck 1971:315–
319. For the town of Ḫalba, see Rainey 1971:142–143.

5. The translation “the district of the Shasu” was first proposed by Gardiner 1911:63.
Following the publication of a parallel text from Deir el-Medineh, Gardiner’s translation
was adopted by Wilson 1969; Giveon 1971:125–128; Helck 1971; Weippert 1974:273. There
is nothing to support Rainey’s proposed emendation of the text into ‘(y)n š3sw (1975:14f.).
Not only are all other occurrences of the proposed toponym written syllabically (i.e., ‘ayin)
or with the EYE determinative, but the syllabic writing of toponyms is consistently used by
the scribe of Papyrus Anastasi I throughout the text. The writing of ‘n without the YOD in
the two extant copies of the text cannot be considered a mistake. Furthermore, the rest of
the passage makes it quite clear that it is the territory of the Shasu that is indeed referred
to (see below).

6. The relation of Mount š3-w3 with mountain Shawe, mentioned in the inscriptions of
Tiglath-pileser III, is not clear, because the latter is identified with Jebel el-Anṣariyeh, situ-
ated outside the Egyptian province of Canaan. See Forrer 1920:57f.; Weippert 1974:273; Kessler
1975:61; Na’aman 1977–78:231. For the derivation of the name Shawe, see Zadok 1978:174.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the Apiru and the Shasu 277

problem of the identity of the two groups, a subject that had been discussed
by scholars in the past.7

The Shasu and the ‘Apiru appear side by side in the booty list of Amenophis
II only. In most occurrences, the Egyptian scribes refer to the two groups in
quite different terms and under different circumstances. The Shasu are de-
scribed mainly as living in the peripheral areas of the land of Canaan, as well
as within the Egyptian Delta, and being the target of Pharaonic military op-
erations. The ‘Apiru, on the other hand, are described mainly as a distin-
guished group performing various services within the Nile Valley. Only spo-
radically are the ‘Apiru mentioned as an ethnic group living within the Land
of Canaan.

The corresponding pair of the Amarna letters are the ‘Apiru and the Sutu.
These two groups appear in situations that are not dissimilar, and the dif-
ference between them is not as clear as that between the above-mentioned
Egyptian pair. They appear in three occurrences side by side in the same let-
ter (EA 196:24–29; 246:r.6–7;8 318:10–14). On the other hand, in two letters
from Gezer, sent within a short period (see Na’aman 1979:679–681), the city
ruler Yapaḫu accuses both the ‘Apiru and the Sutu of having plundered his
country (compare EA 297:11–16 and 299:17–26). It is reasonable to assume
that the same group was intended by this double name. The interchange of
names is not entirely surprising once we remember the derogatory sense
that accompanied the name “‘Apiru” in the Amarna letters and the develop-
ment of the meaning “Rebel” (with a connotation of contempt) in many let-
ters where the ‘Apiru are recalled.9 One may assume that the Amarna scribes
did not take the trouble to specify the precise name of the trouble-makers
from among the various social groups then living in the Land of Canaan, be-
cause, by employing the name “‘Apiru,” they could create the correct impres-
sion in the Egyptian court.

Besides these inner considerations of both the Egyptian and the Akkadian
texts, there is still another, and more perplexing problem. According to the
Amarna letters, the anti-monarchal forces and the troublesome elements
within the Land of Canaan are called ‘Apiru. The Egyptian scribes, on the
other hand, name the Shasu as the major enemies of the Pharaohs, against
whom military campaigns are directed within that self-same territory. Only
rarely are the ‘Apiru mentioned as actual enemies in the Egyptian texts, and

7. Helck 1968:472–480; Giveon 1971:4–5; Gottwald 1979:458, 477–480; see Görg, 1979:
199–202; 1980:18–20.

8. In EA 246 r. 8 read LÚmeš KUR S[u-ti]. Compare EA 122:34 and 297:16. It is quite un-
likely that the Nubians (amēlūti mat Kaši) served as mercenaries under the sons of Lab’ayu.

9. Weippert 1971:71–74; Liverani 1979:71, with further bibliography in notes 18–19.

278 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

the same is true of the Sutu in the Amarna letters. What, then, might be the
relationship between the Egyptian Shasu and the Amarna ‘Apiru?

It should be emphasized that the tribally organized groups (Shasu, Sutu)
and the splinter groups that were organized as independent bands (‘Apiru)
were not identical. When discussing their accurate identity within the
Egyptian and the Akkadian texts, one should, in my opinion, also take into
account the literary tradition of both the Egyptian and the Akkadian scribal
schools. Once we understand the connotations of both names — the Shasu
in the Egyptian royal inscriptions and the ‘Apiru in the Akkadian correspon-
dence — the way is open for a reconsideration of the identity of both names
and even for a new inquiry into their possible resemblance in certain pas-
sages. To demonstrate the problem of literary tradition, we offer here one ex-
ample. Two tablets from the Egyptian garrison-city of Kumidi (Kāmid el-Lōz)
deal with the deportation of groups of ‘Apiru from northern Canaan to Nubia
(Edzard 1970:55–60). The two tablets were sent from Egypt, and, being writ-
ten in Akkadian, the scribes used the well known term “‘Apiru” to designate
the banished trouble-makers. Would an Egyptian scribe composing a royal
inscription call that same group by the name “‘Apiru,” or would he rather use
the name “Shasu”?

It is with this observation in mind that the references to the town of Ibirta
in the “Satirical Letter” and the Amarna letters should be understood. The
designation of the area as the “district of the Shasu” may be compared with
the famous ‘Apiru territory (eqli lúSA.GAZ) situated in the Land of Hatti, not
far from the border of Ugarit (Nougayrol 1956:107f).

The town of Ibirta as an ‘Apiru center may be equated with the town Ḫlb
‘prm mentioned in the tablets from Ugarit. Surprisingly, the phrase “he made
himself into the likeness (iry.f sw m ki n) of an Asiatic” in the passage relat-
ing to the town of Ibirta in Papyrus Anastasi I is parallel to the well-known
phrase “he became (nēpušu ana) ‘Apiru” common to the Amarna letters
(Nougayrol 1956:107f). The territory was perhaps bound together by some
sort of tribal organization, simultaneously sheltering scattered bands of
‘Apiru. The Egyptian and the Amarna scribes selected their designations for
these groups according to the literary traditions of their respective cultures,
Shasu in Egyptian and ‘Apiru in Akkadian.

The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the Apiru and the Shasu 279

References

Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz
— Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
7). Bonn: 55–62.

Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrisches Reiches. Leipzig.
Gardiner, A.H. 1911. Egyptian Hieratic Texts. Leipzig.
Giveon, R. 1971. Les Bédouins Shosu des documents égyptiens. (Documenta et Monumenta

Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden.
Görg, M. 1979. Tuthmosis III. und die Š3św-Region JNES 38: 199–202.
Görg, M. 1980. Namenstudien VII: Š3św-Beduinen und Sutû-Nomaden. Biblische Notizen 11:

18–20.
Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–

1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven.
Helck, W. 1968. Die Bedrohung Palästinas durch einwandernde Gruppen am Ende der 18.

und am Anfang der 19. Dynastie. VT 18: 472–480.
Helck. W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Kessler, K. 1975. Die Anzahl der assyrischen Provinzen des Jahres 738 v. Chr. in Nordsyrien.

WO 8: 49–63.
Liverani, M. 1979. Farsi Ḫabiru. Vicino Oriente 2: 65–77.
Mendenhall, G.E. 1947. The Message of Abdi-Ashirta to the Warriors, EA 74. JNES 6: 123–

124.
Na’aman, N. 1977–78. Looking for KTK. WO 9: 220–237.
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters.

Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 673–684.
Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives

Internationales). (Missions de Ras Shamra IX). Paris.
Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149.
Rainey, A.F. 1975. Toponymic Problems: ‘Ain-Shasu. Tel Aviv. 2: 13–16.
von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das Akkadische Syllabar. 2nd revised ed. (Analecta

Orientalia 42). Rome.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1940–41. Bir-ia-wa-za. RA 37: 171.
Weippert, M. 1970. Die Nomadenquelle. In: Kuschke, A. and Kutsch, E. eds. Archäologie und

Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling, Tübingen: 259–272.
Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine. London.
Weippert, M. 1974. Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Über die Š3św der

ägyptischen Quellen. Biblica 55: 265–280, 427–433.
Wilson, J.A. 1969. An Egyptian Letter. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 475–479.
Zadok, R. 1978. West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources. In: Avishur,

Y. and Blau, J. eds. Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E.
Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: 163–179.

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical
‘ry hprzy/hprzwt (“Rural Settlements”)1

Amarna tablet EA 137 is one of the latest letters of Rib-Hadda of Byblos,
written shortly after his expulsion from his home town and dispatched to the
Pharaoh by the hand of his son. Rib-Hadda describes in great detail the back-
ground for the expulsion, explaining how his young brother and the citizens
of Byblos had driven him out of his town and trying again and again to per-
suade his overlord to send troops to conquer the town. This long, well-pre-
served, colorful and artistically portrayed document did not fail to attract the
attention of scholars and has been translated and interpreted several times
in the last forty years (e.g., by W.F. Albright, A.L. Oppenheim, M.J. Seux and
W.L. Moran).2

Remarkable in the letter is the sudden appearance of a town called
Buruzilim (lines 64, 67, 85) in which Rib-Hadda asks for permission of res-
idence in case the Pharaoh should install another candidate on the throne
of Byblos. The reading of the place name was first suggested by H. Winckler
(1896:No. 71) in his edition of the Amarna tablets and was accepted subse-
quently by all scholars who discussed the letter (see recently, Moran 1987:
358–359, 596). However, deciphering of the assumed town name involves
problems in all three references to the name.

First, there is no qualifying URU determinative before BU-ru-zi-ŠI in lines
64 and 85. Line 85 reads URU-la (āla) iš-tu B[U-r]u-z[i-ŠI], having no determi-
native before the assumed toponym. Line 64 reads URU-la BU-ru-zi-ŠI. The
sign URU with phonetic complements (la/li/lu) appears several times in the
letter (lines 18, 25, 60, 73, 80, 93, 101), referring always to a noun (āla/āli/
ālu), whereas URU as a determinative always appears without phonetic com-
plement (lines 17, 31, 41, 73). Line 64 should be transcribed āla BU-ru-zi-ŠI,
the assumed town name again having no qualifying determinative before it.

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

280

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt 281

Second, when one reads uruBu-ru-zi-lim in line 67, “Les lignes 67s. sont extréme-
ment difficiles” (Moran 1987:361, n. 13). And third, a town called Buruzilim is
not mentioned in any other document from the coast of Lebanon. Thus, one
would very much doubt whether a city with this name ever existed; another
solution for the enigmatic BU-ru-zi-ŠI should be sought.

To clarify the problem, I will first suggest a new transliteration and trans-
lation (with some notes) to the difficult passage in lines 66–68, to be followed
by a translation of the relevant section of the letter (lines 59–87). The enig-
matic ālu/ālāni pu-ru-zi will then be compared with some biblical references
to kpr/‘ry hprzy/hprzwt, which, in my opinion, is the key for the correct inter-
pretation of the Byblian noun.

(A) Transliteration: (66) i-nu-ma (67) NA.KAR5-ra-at (nakrat) URUki (āli)
didliURU (ālāni) pu-ru-zi-ši (68) naKÚR-ru (nakrū) pal-ḫa-tu DUMUmeš (mārē)
ÌR-aš-ra-ti.

Translation: “When the city (i.e., Byblos) rebels, its p. settlements rebel,
being afraid of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.”

Notes:

For KAR5 (NA.KAR5-ra-at), compare line 17 (i-na-kar5-mi) and EA 119:26
(kar5-ṣí). For the reading didliURU (ālāni), compare line 76 (didliURUki). With
Moran (1987:361, n. 13), I interpret palḫatu as a fem. sing. participle. Rib-
Hadda claims that the city’s rebellion and his expulsion are the result of the
city’s fear of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. Lines 120–121 of letter EA 138 may
be restored and interpreted in the same manner: (120) pal-ḫa-tu [DUMUmeš
ÌR-aš-ra-ti . . .] (121) URUki LÚ-la ar-[ni] LUGAL. “Being afraid [of the sons of
‘Abdi-Ashrati], the city [accepted(?)] the traitor to the king (i.e., Rib-Hadda’s
younger brother; compare lines 59, 104 and see CAD A/2 299a).”

(B) Translation of lines 59–87:

The king, my lord, should not neglect the city (āli). Verily, there is very much gold and
silver within it, there are many possessions in its temple. If the king, my lord, shall
capture it, then he may do to his servant as he pleases, but let him give (me) one of its
(i.e., Byblos) p. settlements (āla pu-ru-zi-ši) for my residence. At the moment I am with
Ḫammuniri. When the city (āli) rebels, its p. settlements (ālāni pu-ru-zi-ši) rebel, being
afraid of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. When I went to Ḫammuniri it was on account of the
sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta, because they were powerful against me and because there was
no breath from the mouth of the king to me, and I said to my lord: “behold, Byblos be-
came their city (ālu-ši-na). There are many possessions of the king in it, the property of
our ancestors of old. If the king neglects the town, all the cities of the land of Canaan
will cease to belong to him.” The king must not neglect this matter!

Now, your servant, my son, I have sent to the king, my lord, and let the king send him
back quickly with troops in order to capture the city (āla). If the king, my lord, be gra-
cious to me and return me to the city (āli), then I will guard it as before for the king, my

282 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

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

It is remarkable that in all three passages where the noun ālu/ālāni pu-ru-
zi is mentioned, the post-determinative KI does not appear after the URU sign
(line 64 URU-la; line 67 didliURU; line 85 URU-la), whereas in all other passages
(with one exception in line 101 URU-lu-mi), the post-determinative KI follows
the noun ālu (URU) (lines 18, 25, 47, 51, 53, 56, 57, 60, 67, 73, 75, 76, 80, 82, 93,
99, 101). It is clear that the scribe deliberately emphasized the difference be-
tween the towns and cities of Canaan, on the one hand, and the ālu/ālāni pu-
ru-zi, on the other hand, and that the latter were regarded by him as a kind
of semi-settlements.

As is well known, the noun ālu refers to a very wide range of settlement
forms, e.g., city, town, village, manor, estate, fort, etc. (see CAD A/1 379–388).
Various nouns have been selected by the scribes to describe the surround-
ings of the cities and sometimes they appear in contrast to the city (CAD A/1
380–381). However, the noun pu-ru-zi is mentioned nowhere else in cuneiform
texts. Therefore, one would assume that it is a Canaanite loan word selected
by the scribe from the local Byblian vocabulary to accurately define the mes-
sage of his lord.

(C) When one looks for a similar noun in the West Semitic vocabulary, the
biblical root prz immediately comes to mind.3 Five passages seem particularly
relevant to the Byblian references and will be translated here in sequential
order (following the Revised Standard Version):

Deut 3:5 “All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides very
many unwalled villages (‘ry hprzy).”

1 Sam. 6:18 “Also the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the
Philistines belonging to the five lords, both fortified cities to unwalled villages (kpr
hprzy).”

Ezek. 38:11 “and say: I will go up against the land of unwalled villages (’rṣ przwt); I will
fall upon quiet people who dwell securely, all of them dwelling without walls and hav-
ing no bars or gates.”

Zech. 2:4–5. “and said to him: Run, say to that young man, Jerusalem shall be inhabited
as villages without walls (przwt), because of the multitude of men and cattle in it. For I
will be to her a wall of fire round about, says the Lord. . . .”

Esth. 9:19 “Therefore the Jews of the villages (hprwzym), who live in the open towns
(b‘ry hprzwt), hold the fourteenth day of the month of Adar as a day for gladness and
feasting and holiday-making.”

3. See Brown, Driver and Briggs 1906:826; Driver 1962/63:8–9; Koehler and Baumgartner
1983:908–909, with earlier literature.

Amarna ālāni pu-ru-zi (EA 137) and Biblical ‘ry hprzy/hprzwt 283

Common to all five references is the marked contrast between the for-
tified cities and the unwalled rural villages. The number of the latter group
was far more than the number of the former (Deut. 3:5; 1 Sam. 6:18). A simi-
lar picture appears in the annals of Sennacherib in which the Assyrian king
described his attack on the Kingdom of Judah: “I laid siege to 46 of his strong
cities (ālānišu dannūti), walled forts, and to the countless small villages (ālāni
ṣeḫrūti) in their vicinity and conquered (them)” (Oppenheim 1969:288). The
unwalled rural settlements must have been of a variegated character, i.e., vil-
lages, hamlets, manors, farms, etc., and located either on the border of the
fortified cities or in isolated places all around the countryside .4

Remembering this background, we can interpret the references to ālu/
ālāni pu-ru-zi in the Byblian letter. Rib-Hadda tried to convince the Pharaoh
to send troops to capture the city. Rib-Hadda’s personal fate following the
conquest should be left (so he wrote in his letter) to his lord’s decision. The
Pharaoh may decide to put him back on his throne, or he may install another
candidate on the throne of Byblos (lines 62–65, 81–87). In the latter case, Rib-
Hadda asks the Pharaoh to give him one of the rural settlements of Byblos
for his residence (lines 64–65, 84–85). The present hostility of Byblos and its
rural settlements (ālāni pu-ru-zi-ši) is the result of the fear of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s
sons (lines 66–68). The capture of Byblos by the Egyptian troops would im-
mediately pacify them, so he would be able to live peacefully in one of these
settlements.

We may conclude that ālāni pu-ru-zi in Rib-Hadda’s letter and ‘ry hprzy/
hprzwt in the biblical references have exactly the same meaning of “rural un-
walled settlements.” The territory of the city-state of Byblos was relatively
small, and many of its rural settlements must have been located not far from
the capital city. “One of its rural settlements” (line 64) and “a town out of
its rural settlements” (line 85) refer to sites in the neighborhood of Byblos,
where Rib-Hadda would have been able to find shelter in his late years, pro-
vided that the city was taken by Egyptian troops and governed by someone
favorable to him.

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

284 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

References

Brown, F., Driver S.R. and Briggs, C. A. 1906. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Oxford (2nd ed. 1951).

CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago.

Driver, G.R. 1962/63. Problems in Judges Newly Discussed. Annual of the Oriental Society of
the University of Leeds 4: 6–25.

Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorder-
asiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.

Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 1983. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten
Testament (3rd ed). Leiden.

Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13).
Paris.

Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 265–317, 556–567.

Portugali, J. 1984. ‘Arim, Banot, Migrashim and Ḥaṣerim: The Spatial Organization of Eretz-
Israel in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE according to the Bible. Eretz Israel 17: 282–290.
(Hebrew).

Winckler, H. 1896. The Tell-El-Amarna-Letters. London and New York.

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh1

In the course of his excavations at Alalakh, Woolley (1955:33–90) found
seventeen super-imposed temples. He (1955:33) commented only that they
were “presumably dedicated to the city goddess invoked by king Idri-mi.” He
obviously referred to “Ishtar, lady of Alalakh” mentioned in line 2 of idrimi’s
inscription, and Klengel (1965:89, n. 23) made the same suggestion in a short
note included in his detailed study on the weather-god of Ḫalab. It is the pur-
pose of this article to demonstrate this identification in greater detail, bas-
ing the analysis on written documents, mainly from the archives of level VII
at Alalakh.

We begin with document AT 1, which has now been collated.2 Here follows
a transliteration and translation of the text, accompanied by a detailed com-
mentary at the end.

l. i-nu-ma aḫ-ḫu-šu mAb-ba-AN be-el-šu-nu ib-ba-al-ki-tu
2. mAb -ba-AN LUGAL-r[u i-n]a /tu-ku/-u[l-t]i dIM
3. dHé-bat ù gišIGI.DÙ [ša dIŠTAR] a-na uruIr-ri-deki il-lik-ma
4. uruIr-ri-deki iṣ-/ba-at/ [ù a-i]a-ab-šu ik-šu-u[d]
5. i-na [U]D-mi-šu m[Ab-b]a-A[N] a-na pu-ḫa-at
6. uruIr-ri-deki [š]a a-b[i-š]u /id/-di-na-am
7. i-na na-ra-[am] li-ib-bi-šu uruA-la-la-aḫki
8. /i/-[i]d-di-in4 /ù] [i/-na UD-mi-šu mIa-ri-im-li-im
9. DU[MU mḪa-am-mu]-ra-pí ÌR mAb-ba-AN [ALAM-šu]
10. [a-na É] dIŠTAR ú-še-li
11. [šumma? warkit? mAb]-ba-AN ša mIa-ri-im-li-im
12. i[d-di-nu i-le-qé] /a/-[l]a-am pu-ḫa-at a-li-im
13. /id-di-na-aš/-šu ša a-wa-at Ab-ba-AN i-pu-šu
14. ú-na-ak-ka-ru a-na Ia-ri-im-li-im
15. ù pi-ir-ḫi-šu ú-la-am-ma-nu
16. dIM i-na gišTUKUL ša qa-ti-šu li-iḫ-bu-us-su
17. dHé-bat dIŠTAR gišIGI.DÙ-šu li-iš-bi-ru
18. dIŠTAR a-na qa-ti mu-ka-aš-ši-di-šu li-ma-al-li-šu
19. dIŠTAR SAG.UR.SAG pa-ra ú-ra-am
20. i-na bi-ir-ki-šu li-ṭe4-eb-bi

1. Reprinted with permission. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (1980), 209–214.
2. The tablet was published by Wiseman 1953. For the main treatments of the test, see
Albright 1957:27–28; Smith 1957:177–178; Klengel 1965:136–137.

285