Canaan in the second millenium bce

286 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

When his brothers rebelled against Abbael, their lord, king Abbael, with
the help of the gods Hadad,3 Ḫebat and the spear [of Ishtar4] went to Irride,
conquered Irride and captured his enemy. (5) At that time Abbael, in exchange
for Irride which his father granted, gave Alalakh of his free will. (8) And at
that time, Yarimlim s[on of Ḫammu]rapi and servant of Abbael, brought up
[his statue to the temple] of Ishtar. (11) [If? the offspring? of Ab]bael shall take
what he (Abbael) gave to Yarimlim — he will give him city for city.

(13) Whoever shall change the settlement that Abbael has made and will
do evil against Yarimlim and his descendants-may the god Hadad dash him
into pieces with the weapon which is in his hand; may Ḫebat-Ishtar shatter
his spear; may Ishtar deliver him into the hands of those who pursue him;
may Ishtar . . . impress feminine parts into his male parts.

Commentary

The text is divided into two equal parts: lines 1–10 include the “historical
introduction” and the actual deed, and lines 11–20 include the legal clauses
as well as the divine sanction for the transaction.

Line 3: The three gods, Hadad, Ḫebat, and Ishtar, are invoked in lines 16–
18 of our text. This trio of gods is mentioned again in the inscription of Idrimi
(lines 1–2): “Idrimi, the son of Ilim-ilimma, devotee of the gods Hadad, Ḫebat,
and my lady Ishtar, lady of Alalakh.”5 In view of these texts, tablet AT 456,
lines 24–27 might be restored as follows: “With the . . . [. . . of Ḫebat] and the
mighty weapon [of Ishtar, the la]dy(?); with silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, precious
stones and the strong weapon of Hadad.”

The weapon of Ishtar appears in our text as šukurru, either “lance” or
“spear” (Salonen 1965:90–92). For the various symbols held by the goddess
Ishtar, see Barrelet 1955:222–260; Collon 1975:180–185.

Line 4 is a précis of the events described in more detail in AT 456:26–28.
“His enemy” is Muzun-Addu mentioned in AT 456:21, 28 (see Dietrich and
Loretz 1969:214–215).

Line 6: Ḫammurapi I, king of Yamḫad, gave the town of Irride to his son
Yarimlim and his heir to the throne of Yamḫad, Abbael, gave Yarimlim the
city of Alalakh in exchange for Irride.

3. The reading of dIM (either Hadad or Teshub) and dIŠTAR (either Ishtar or Išḫara) is
uncertain. However, to faciliate the discussion, I have transcribed dIM as Hadad and dIŠTAR
as Ishtar throughout the article. For details, see recent discussion by Haas and Wilhelm
1974:138.

4. Haas and Wilhelm 1974:138.
5. The inscription of Idrimi was published by Smith 1949. For the most recent treat-
ment of the inscription, see Greenstein and Marcus 1976:59–96.

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh 287

Lines 7–8: The restoration is based on AT 63:19–22: šanat Niqmiepuḫ šarru
. . . ṣalamšu ana bīt Adad ušelū. (For further parallels see: Dossin 1950:57, nos.
20–21; CAD E 130 c; AHW 209a h).

Lines 11–13: The subject of these lines is presumably the future heir of
Abbael, king of Yamḫad, which should be restored in the lacuna at the begin-
ning of line 11. For the formula GN1 pūhat GN2 nadānu, see Draffkorn-Kilmer
1959b:94, n.5.

Line 17: for Ishtar (Inanna) breaking the lance, see Sjöberg 1975:185, line
82.

Line 19: The logogram SAG.UR.SAG appears again in AT 265:4 (see below)
and may be read as assinnum (see Römer 1965:157–158). The assinnum was
clearly connected with the cult of Ishtar (see CAD A/2 341–342; Renger 1969:
192–193). One of the citations in the CAD article mentions “the dancers and
the singers whom Ishtar had changed from men into women.” Sjöberg (1975:
223–226) argued that “when referring to the Inanna-Ishtar cult the passages
refer only to the changing of roles of women and men in the cult ceremo-
nies.” However, there are several passages in the Assyrian royal inscriptions
where Ishtar is clearly changing males into females (AHW 1047a s.v. sinnišāniš
and sinnišānu). Our passage, where the assinnum is mentioned, also contains
that same motif. The change of men into women is repeated in the Hittite
military oaths (Oettinger 1976:11, lines 42–53, with further references on pp.
38 and 75). All these passages might, therefore, refer to some popular legend
or belief where Ishtar played the role of a castrating goddess.

For the translation of lines 19–20, see Speiser 1954: 23. For a different sug-
gestion, see AHW 833a s.v. paraurum.

The two principal gods mentioned in the Alalakh tablets are IM (Hadad)
and IŠTAR (Ishtar) (Wiseman 1953:16–17; Klengel 1965a: 88–89). Hadad ap-
pears mainly in the two narrative passages cited above (AT 1:2, 16; 456:27)
and in penalty clauses (AT 52:19; 54:20; 58:12; 95: r.3; 455:43). Most, if not all,
of these tablets are genuine products of the court of Ḫalab. It is clear that
such passages were directly borrowed from the scribal tradition of Yamḫad
(Klengel 1965a). The god Hadad is also frequently mentioned in the inscrip-
tions accompanying the seal impressions of both levels VII and IV at Alalakh.
Some of the seals actually had belonged to the personnel of the court of
Yamḫad (Collon 1975, passim; Na’aman 1979). In addition, Hadad is evoked
once in the blessing at the beginning of letter AT 116 (line 5). We might,
therefore, conclude, with Klengel, that it is Hadad of Ḫalab who appears in all
these references, and not a local deity of Alalakh.

The goddess Ishtar, on the other hand, is referred to as “lady of Alalakh”
in the inscription of Idrimi. This epithet is probably understood in the other
two passages cited above (AT 1:3, 18; 456:25). It seems to me that Ḫebat here

288 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

was reckoned to be the consort of Hadad of Ḫalab (see AT 15:13–14), and Ishtar
was the great goddess of Alalakh. This immediately clarifies the passage AT 1:
8–10, where Yarimlim, while establishing his seat in Alalakh, erected a statue
of himself before the goddess Ishtar in her local temple. Woolley (1955:64, 235–
237) intuitively proposed that the magnificent diorite head found in the level
VII temple was the statue of Yarimlim, ruler of Alalakh. The restoration of AT I
suggested above corroborates his proposal. It would seem that Yarimlim set up
the statue during the dedication of the temple that he built in his new capital.

The practice of the king setting up his statue before the god is well known
from Mesopotamian documents and has been the subject of extensive re-
search (Van Buren 1941:70–75; CAD Ṣ 80–81; Spycket 1968). Besides our pas-
sage, there is a second and parallel Old Babylonian reference in the Alalakh
VII archives. One year was named “Year of king Niqmiepuḫ . . . (when) he
brought up his statue (ṣalmum) to the temple of Hadad” (AT 63:19–22). Thus,
a king of Yamḫad erected his statue, which was dedicated to Hadad of Ḫalab,
in the central temple of his kingdom. The statue of Idrimi, originally belong-
ing to level IV at Alalakh, is another indication of that same practice (Wooley
in Smith 1949:2–3, 7; Wooley 1955:89).

The Akkadian term ṣalmum appears several times in the texts of Qatna,
but on each occasion in the sense of “figurine” and not as “statue” (Bottéro
1949:16, 21–22). Nevertheless, the inventory lists may shed indirect light on
the problem at hand, because they mention rulers and other important per-
sons dedicating numerous objects to the local gods of the temple (Bottéro
1949:29–30). Among those named is Durusha, king of Qadesh, the most pow-
erful in Syria at the time (Bottéro 1949:29–31; Epstein 1963:242–246).

The uninscribed statues found in the Syro-Palestinian temples should
be considered in light of these documents. Besides gods, there are two addi-
tional categories of candidates for the subjects of those statues: (a) the local
king or other important persons; and (b) a foreign king, either a suzerain or
an ally, expressing his piety towards the local god. It goes without saying that
there is no easy way to solve the problem of identification, and every case
must be examined individually.

The goddess Ishtar is mentioned almost exclusively in the administrative
documents from level VII at Alalakh. Besides AT 1:10, the temple of Ishtar
is mentioned in AT 127:10,15. After a detailed list of silver cups6 (lines 1–8)

6. For the interpretation of GAL as kāsum, see Dietrich and Loretz 1966:234–235; also
CAD K 256a. The reading ti-iš-nu suggested by Anne Draffkorn-Kilmer (1959a:209), and the
CAD (K 256a) is preferable, in this context, to the reading di-iš-pè proposed by Dietrich and
Loretz. Compare the passage AT 366:1 and AT:163 s.v. tišnu.

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh 289

comes the summary (lines 9–16): “A total of 708 shekels of silver Yarimlim
paid to the temple of Ishtar; 1,800 (shekels), the rest of the silver of [the tem-
ple] of Ishtar, is charged to Yarimlim.” A second debt of the palace to the
temple of Ishtar is to be inferred from document AT 369:1–3: “190 shekels
of sliver, the sliver of Ishtar, (delivered) to Nakkušše.” Nakkušše, mentioned
several times in the archives of Alalakh (AT 9:18; 10; 30:10; 55:31, 80:6; 98 f.),7
had received silver borrowed by the palace from the temple of Ishtar. A sec-
ond delivery of two cups of silver to the personnel of the palace (É.GAL)8 is re-
corded afterwards (lines 4–9). The two transactions were recorded in roughly
the same manner, specifying the sum of silver, its origin and the recipient(s),
with the total expenditure stated at the end (lines 10–12).

A temple of Ishtar is mentioned also in AT 126:38–39, “you shall enter the
temple of Ishtar with your hands unwashed.” The subject of this sentence is
possibly the ruler (awīlun) of Alalakh. This entrance to Ishtar’s temple is the last
of a series of sacrifices and rituals of expiation to be performed by him after
he had transgressed his oath of loyalty to his brother, the king of Ḫalab. The
above-mentioned temple is, therefore, Ishtar’s temple in Alalakh. Moreover, I
believe that Hadad and Ishtar, the two Eidgötter to these sacrifices and rituals
(lines 2–3 and 26–29), were regarded as the great gods of Ḫalab and Alalakh.

The close economic relationship existing between the palace and the tem-
ple at Alalakh is evidenced also in the ration lists, where different commodi-
ties delivered to the temple of Ishtar were recorded among the expenditures
of the palace. Thus, rations of barley and emmer were offered “before the
goddess Ishtar on the (celebration)-day of the month utitḫi” (AT 269:11 and
44). Sheep were sacrificed at a second celebration described as “the (celebra-
tion)-day ḫiari of Ishtar” (AT 346:2 and AT 348:2). Two seahs of barley and an
equal quantity of emmer were allotted to Ḫaliya “before the goddess Ishtar”
(AT 242:14–15).

7. Nakkušše was most probably a brother of Yarimlim, ruler of Alalakh. This is indi-
cated by tablet AT 9 (in conjunction with the still unpublished tablets AT 10 and 98 f.),
which relates to a dispute over inheritance between two brothers, Yarimlim and Nakkušše.
The deceased king, their father, is clearly, mentioned in line 13 (“Now one hundred sheep
and ten cows of the king are debited to Yarimlim.”); and in my opinion he is Ammitaqum I
of Alalakh (see Na’aman 1976:129–40). Nakkušše appears several times in the Alalakh tab-
lets, all from the time of Niqmiepuh, king of Yamḫad (AT 30:10; 55:31; 80:6; 369:3), holding
a high position in the court of Alalakh. A third royal brother, Dini-Addu, held the office of
sukkallu (AT 55:30). Nakkušše the diviner (bārû), serving in the time of Irkabtum of Yamḫad
(AT 54:31), might be connected with Nakkušše, the son of Kaššena, serving at the same pe-
riod in the court of Alalakh (AT 64:16).

8. For the use of ekallû in the meaning of “personnel of the palace” see CAD E 62.

290 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

A priest of Ishtar is mentioned (always anonymously) in many tablets
from level VII (AT 27:11; 61:22; 65:11; 238:21; 270:3; 274:19; 281:6; 378:20). All
other personnel functioning in cult performances (šatammu, šangû, bārû) ap-
pear without specification of the name of the god whom they served (with
the exception of AT 55:35, Eḫli-Ashtar SANGA IM). But the assinnum, men-
tioned only once in these ration lists (AT 265:4), certainly is to be connected
with the cult of Ishtar (see above).

Finally, in a list of distributed rations, barley and emmer were allotted
to the É.BÀD dIŠTAR (AT 243:9,13). É.BÀD = bīt dūri = “fortress.”9 The mean-
ing of this phrase, “the fortress of Ishtar,” becomes clear once we realize that
it refers to the temple of level VII. This temple had walls four meters thick
enclosing a single inner room measuring 9.65 x 11.50 meters. Presumably
more than one story high (Wooley 1955:59), it indeed had the appearance of
a fort.

The temple of Alalakh level VII is one of a group of temples, known in
modern scholarship as “fortress temples” (Mazar 1968:92–93; Toombs and
Wright 1963:18). These temples are all geographically Syro-Palestinian and
were discovered at Ebla (Matthiae 1975:49–53, 63–67), Megiddo (Loud 1948:
102–105; Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973:179–184) and Shechem (Wright
1957:20; 1965:123–128; Toombs and Wright 1963:18–20). Closely related tem-
ples were excavated at Ugarit (Schaeffer 1931:8–10; 1933:119–120) and Hazor
(Yadin 1972:75–83). In the biblical narrative of Judges 9:46–49, the “migdal of
Shechem” is mentioned three times. Mazar (1968:92–93; Toombs and Wright
1963:18) and Wright (1965:123–128; 1970:314) independently suggested that
this expression referred to the massive temple excavated in the Canaanite
city of Shechem and that this kind of temple, accordingly, would be called
a “migdal temple.” Thus, the biblical term migdal, indicating the temple of
Shechem, is parallel to the Akkadian term bīt dūri, “fortress,” referring to the
temple of Alalakh level VII. Either term, “migdal temple” or “fortress temple,”
may be used to designate that kind of Syro-Palestinian temple.

Summing up the results of this rather short discussion, it is clear that the
fortress temple adjacent to the palace of Alalakh level VII was dedicated to
the goddess Ishtar. The inscription of Idrimi, mentioning Ishtar as the “lady
of Alalakh,” agrees well with this conclusion. Accordingly, the temple of level
IV, built above the level VII temple, was also dedicated to the same goddess.

9. For the meaning of bīt dūri, see CAD D 197 and AHV 178a d). Our reference is miss-
ing in both dictionaries, whose entries include only material from the first millennium BC.
However, the expression āe dūri, “fortified city,” appears in Old Babylonian omen texts (see
AHW 178a c).

The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh 291

By inference, one might also suggest that the other fifteen temples, situ-
ated one over the other, were erected for the cult of Ishtar, the “first lady”
of Alalakh.

References

AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Albright, W.F. 1957. Further Observations on the Chronology of Alalakh. BASOR 146: 26–

33.
Barrelet, M.-T. 1955. Les déesses armée et ailées. Syria 32: 222–260.
Bottéro, J. 1949. Les inventaires de Qatna. RA 43: 1–38, 137–215.
CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Chicago.
Collon, D. 1975. The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. (AOAT 27). Kevelaer and

Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1966. Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu: eine

philologische und kulturhistorische Studie. WO 3: 206–245.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1969. Siegel des Taḫe-Addu (ca. 1750 v. Chr.) Ugarit-Forschungen

1: 213–215.
Dossin, G. 1950. Les noms d’années et d’éponyms dans les ‘Archives de Mari’. In: Parrot, A.

ed. Studia Mariana. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 4). Leiden: 51–61.
Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959a. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis.

Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor.
Draffkorn-Kilmer, A. 1959b. Was King Abba-AN of Yamḫad a Vizier for the King of Ḫattuša?

JCS 13: 94–97.
Dunayevsky, I. and Kempinski, A. 1973. The Megiddo Temples. ZDPV 89: 161–187.
Epstein, C. 1963. “That Wretched Enemy of Kadesh.” JNES 22: 242–246.
Gelb, I.J. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3). Chicago.
Gelb, I.J. 1977. Thoughts about Ibla. In: Buccellati, G. ed. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies,

Monographic Journals of the Near East I/1. Malibu California.
Greenstein, E.L. and Marcus, D. 1976. The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi. Journal of the

Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8: 59–96.
Haas, V. and Wilhelm, G. 1974. Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna. (AOAT

Supplement 3). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Klengel, H. 1965a. Der Wettergott von Ḫalab. JCS 19: 87–93.
Klengel, H. 1965b. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 1 — Nordsyrien. Berlin.
Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939. (Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago.
Matthiae, P. 1975. Unité et developpement du temple dans la Syrie du Bronze Moyen.

In: Le Temple et le culte. (Compte rendu de la vingtième Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale). Leiden: 43–72.
Mazar, B. 1962. Migdal (“Tower”). Enc. Miqr. IV: 633–635. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1968. The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. IEJ 18: 65–97.
Na’aman, N. 1976. A New Look at the Chronology of Alalakh VII. Anatolian Studies 26: 126–140.
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Chronology of Alalakh Level VII Once Again. Anatolian Studies 29:
103–113.
Oettinger, N. 1976. Die militärischen Eide der Hethiter. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 22).
Wiesbaden.

292 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Renger, J. 1969. Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit. Teil 2. ZA
59: 104–203.

Römer, W.H.Ph. 1965. Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit. Leiden.
Salonen, E. 1965. Die Waffen der alten Mesopotamier. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche

Untersuchung. (Studia Orientalia 33). Helsinki.
Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1931. Les Fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Deuxième campagne

(printemps 1930): rapport sommaire. Syria 12: 1–14.
Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1933. Les Fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Quatrième campagne

(printemps 1932): rapport sommaire. Syria 14: 93–127.
Sjöberg, Å.W. 1975. in-nin šà-gur4-ra: A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the en-Priestess

Enḫeduanna. ZA 65: 161–253.
Smith, S. 1949. The Statue of Idri-mi. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of

Archaeology at Ankara, No. 1). London.
Smith, S. 1957. Yarim-Lim of Yamḫad. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32: 155–184.
Speiser, E.A. 1954. The Alalakh Tablets. JAOS 74: 18–25.
Spycket, A. 1968. Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la Iere dynastie

de Babylone. (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 9). Paris.
Toombs, L.E. and Wright, G.E. 1963. The Fourth Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR

169: 1–60.
Van Buren, E.D. 1941. The ṣalmê in Mesopotamian Art and Religion. Orientalia 10: 65–92.
Wiseman, D.J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of

Archaeology at Ankara, No. 2). London.
Woolley, C.L. 1955. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–

1949. London.
Wright, G.E. 1957. The Second Campaign at Tell Balâṭah (Shechem). BASOR 148: 11–28.
Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London.
Wright, G.E. 1970. Significance of Ai in the Third Millennium B.C. In: Kuschke, A. and

Kutsch, E. eds., Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Tübingen:
299–319.
Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor: The Head of all Those Kingdoms, Joshua 11:10. (The Schweich Lectures of
the British Academy, 1970). London.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products
in the Alalakh IV Court1

The inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, has been the subject of ex-
tensive discussion since its publication in 1949 by S. Smith.2 In its style and
with its wording, the inscription is without parallel in the existing corpus of
Akkadian royal inscriptions (Oppenheim 1955:199 f). Even the paleography is
odd, with combinations of archaic and late forms, including many variants
of the same sign-forms. A number of these peculiar traits have been ascribed
to Sharruwa, the scribe who wrote the inscription (Moran 1975:161 n. 37).
Furthermore, in addition to the textual peculiarities, Sharruwa’s own place in
the royal inscription written by him is exceptional. To my knowledge, there is
no parallel case in the Akkadian and West Semitic corpus of royal inscriptions
for the kind of long blessing dedicated to the scribe who composed the text.
This becomes even more curious, because the blessing for the ruler in whose
name the inscription was written is oddly missing. In an article written by
Kempinski and myself (Kempinski and Na’aman 1973:217–218), we tried to
explain this phenomenon by suggesting that

Sharruwa probably stealthily inserted his name in place of the name of the king, thus,
granting for himself the gods’ blessing through the statue presented before them in
the temple. Such an act was possible in a society in which only a small minority was lit-
erate; and, belonging to a small group, they must have felt a bit of freedom in trusting
the silence of the other scribes.

These outstanding features of the scribe Sharruwa make it desirable to
investigate his activities in the Alalakh IV archive further. Such an investiga-
tion may be of even more general interest, because we know little about the
actual activity of royal scribes in the ancient Near East. It can even shed new
light on the problem of the composition of the inscription of Idrimi, as I hope
to show below.

1. Reprinted with permission. Oriens Antiquus 19 (1980), 107–116.
2. Smith 1949. For the last detailed treatment of the inscription, see Greenstein and
Marcus 1976:59–96, with full bibliography on p. 59. The inscription of Idrimi has also re-
cently been the subject of a doctoral dissertation: see Oller 1977a.

293

294 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Six legal documents written by Sharruwa were found among the tablets
of level IV at Alalakh. These documents are: AT 15:20; 17:23; 47:20; 72:16; 91:
22 (IG[I Šar-r]u-wa); 104: rev. 5 ([IGI Šar-r]u-wa)3 (the lines in which the name
Sharruwa is mentioned appear after the colon). Of these tablets, five are
dated to the time of Niqmepa, the son of Idrimi (AT 15, 17, 47, 72, 91), and the
sixth was written in the days of his son Ilim-ilimma (AT 104).4 Thus, Sharruwa
was still in office long after the death of Idrimi. Idrimi reigned in Alalakh for
approximately thirty years (we take it for granted that this might be a round
number), the period of his flight and wandering taking place beforehand. It is
obvious, therefore, that Sharruwa belonged to a later generation than Idrimi
and could not have been an eye-witness to most of the adventures described
so vividly by him. As to the content of Sharruwa’s documents, AT 15 formu-
lates in legal terms the promotion of a person to the status of maryannu. AT
91 formulates the legal terms of a second marriage of a maryannu, including
the future status of his two wives and their children (see below). AT 17 deals
with the problem of compensation resulting from a marriage where the fa-
ther-in-law was executed for committing a crime.5 AT 47 belongs to the class
of texts dealing with loans, including a personal pledge to a third party.6 AT
72 is a legal document dealing with the purchase of an ox. The content of AT
104 is unknown, because the tablet is broken. Thus, while the last two cases
(AT 47 and 72) are of a common nature, the other three are unique, not only
among the Alalakh tablets, but also among the entire corpus of the Akkadian
legal documents. One might suggest that the formulation of these excep-
tional cases was deliberately entrusted to the royal scribe Sharruwa.

Moving from the content to the text of these documents, one can find
quite a few cases where Sharruwa exhibits his fondness for playing with signs
and words. The name Irkabtu, frequent among the witnesses of Alalakh IV,7 is
written in AT 15:16 as URUDU.DUGUD (Eri-kabtum) (Draffkorn(-Kilmer) 1959:

3. The name “Sharruwa the scribe” also appears in an economic text (AT 159: 5).
4. The name Ilim-ilimma (written DINGIR.DINGIR-ma) son of Niqmepa appears in line 2
of tablet AT 104 (the line is half broken). In the first line of the reverse the names Ta-ku-ḫu-
l[i] and [T]i-ḫi-i[a] appear. The broken name in line 4 of the reverse may be restored as [A-
ki]-ia (compare AT 15: 19 and 47: 19 both written by Sharruwa).
5. Tablet AT 17 was translated by Finkelstein 1969:546.
6. Tablet AT 47 was treated by Eichler 1973:75–77, along with other documents from
Alalakh dealing with a personal pledge for a loan. An additional text belonging to that same
group is AT 50, and herewith is a translation of the text (based on collation of the tablet):
“Eḫli-Teshub from the city of Annašše received x+30 (shekels) of refined silver (measured)
by the royal weight ([N]A4 LUGAL) (from) [x]-x-ki-ra-ri. There will be no interest and his son
shall stay before the king. And in the next year he will return him (the silver).”
7. Wiseman 1953:138 s. v. Irkabtu. Add to the list: AT 74: 15.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court 295

144). The name Ilim-ilimma is written in AT 47 as I-lim-DINGIR-ma (line 3) and
as DINGIR.DINGIR-ma (line 7). The name Ashtabishar appears as Aš-ta-bi-šàr
(line 4) and as Àš-ta8-bi-šar (line 5) in that same tablet, using different signs
for three out of the four syllables (von Soden and Röllig 1967:45 No. 229).
Finally, in tablet AT 91, the name Akab-giashe is written twice as A-kab-gi-a-še
(lines 17 and 24) and twice as A-kab-A.AB.BA (lines 5, 14). This play with signs
gives us a clue to the Hurrian word kiaše, the meaning of which remained un-
known to the present time (Gelb Purves and MacRay 1943:226b; Laroche 1968:
506). We can now posit the equation kiaše = A.AB.BA = tâmtu (“sea”). Even a
quick glance at the contexts in which the word kiaše appears clearly shows
that the meaning of “sea” fits them nicely. Thus, in KUB XXVII 38 1 4 it oc-
curs with the determinative DINGIR in a parallelism with the mountains and
rivers. Also it fits in the list of gods and deified beings in the sacrifice of El
published by Laroche (1968:504–507). We are not surprised to find the sea ap-
pearing as a theophorous element in personal names once we remember the
place of Tiamat and of Yam in the Babylonian and West Semitic mythologies.
However, the frequency of the occurrence of the element kiaše in the Hurrian
onomasticon apparently reflects a particular tradition of the Hurrian speak-
ing people.8

A second interesting feature of Sharruwa’s documents is the use of
Hurrian words, forms and syntax. This is illustrated by the expression dEN.LIL
SANGA-še ku-uk-še (“the EN.LIL priesthood k.”) in AT 15:11 (Draffkorn(-
Kilmer) 1959:180, 197); by the word ḫimudi (AT 47:9), which seems to be the
Hurrian equivalent of Akkadian manzazzum “pledge” (Draffkorn(-Kilmer)
1959:221); by the confusion of Akkadian and Hurrian forms in the word
maryannu (AT 15:4, 5; 91:5, 9, 16); and by the wrong use of dative and accusa-
tive pronominal suffixes in AT 17:4, 14, 16; 47:13, 16. These Hurrian traits are
somewhat in contrast to the text of Idrimi, where only a minor Hurrian influ-
ence can be shown (Greenstein and Marcus 1976:62). On the other hand, the
West Semitic traits, so marked in the story of Idrimi, can hardly be found in
those documents. We are confronted with a puzzle: How to explain the fact
that the same scribe wrote his legal documents under the influence of a spo-
ken Hurrian, while composing the royal inscription under an influence of a
West Semitic literary tradition. It is hardly possible to think of two different
scribes with the same rare name, Sharruwa, active during the same period at
the court of Alalakh, particularly as the legal documents show that same ten-

8. For the older onomastic material, see Gelb 1943:226b; for the Alalakh texts, see
Draffkorn(-Kilmer) 1959:83; for the Mari documents see Sasson 1974:379. For the Chagar
Bazar texts, see Kammenhuber 1977:141.

296 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

dency to a play on signs so typical of the royal inscription. The explanation,
therefore, must be sought elsewhere.

It seems to me that this apparent contradiction is to be explained in light
of the West Semitic narrative tradition underlying the story of Idrimi. This
tradition is best illustrated by the late stock of biblical stories, to which might
be added some scattered compositions written in the first half of the second
millennium BCE outside the Sumerian and Babylonian centers of learning
(e.g., the inscriptions of Yakhdunlim, king of Mari, and the fragmentary in-
scription of the reconquest of Mari by Zimrilim).9 Any discussion of the ori-
gins of this literary tradition must be delayed until the publication of the doc-
uments from Ebla. Furthermore, it is clear that only a very small sample of
these literary compositions, presumably current during the first half of the
second millennium BCE, have been found. However, this tradition must have
been strong and very deep rooted, because it was considered to be the ap-
propriate literary genre for a “royal biography” even in the mainly Hurrian
society of the north Syrian city of Alalakh at the beginning of the 15th cen-
tury. Thus, although the task of writing the story of Idrimi was entrusted rel-
atively late in the king’s reign to the royal scribe Sharruwa (who seems him-
self to have been of Hurrian background), he accomplished his task by using
phrases and expressions borrowed from the stock of the West Semitic nar-
rative tradition, which, presumably, were learned in some scribal schools
of north Syria. This well-established tradition prevented the penetration of
the current Hurrian spoken language to the text. Sharruwa’s own “contribu-
tions” to the difficulties of the text lies in the odd paleography and orthog-
raphy that he has used throughout the inscription (doubled with the work of
a stone-cutter who had no experience with this kind of work, thus, produc-
ing many signs that hardly look like the standard forms). However, the main
problem of deciphering the text is to be sought in the West Semitic tradition,
of which we possess no other contemporaneous literary works.

Of all the legal documents written by Sharruwa in the Alalakh IV archive,
tablet AT 91 is by far the most complicated and, apart from its last section,
has never been treated since its original publication by Wiseman.10 The tab-
let has been collated by me, and herewith I offer a transliteration, translation
and commentary.

9. For the inscriptions of Yakhdunlim see: Dossin 1955:1–28; Oppenheim 1969:556–557;
Thureau-Dangin 1936:49–54; Kupper 1976:299–303. For the inscription of Zimrilim see:
Dossin 1971:1–6; Sasson 1972:177–178.

10. Wiseman 1953:54; for the last paragraph of the teat see: Mendelsohn 1959:355. I am
grateful to Dr. E. Sollberger for the permission to collate the tablet (AT 91= BM 131486), now
in the British Museum.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court 297

Transliteration

(Dynastic seal impression)

1. i-na pa-ni mNíq-me-p[a šarru]
2. mA-kab-ta-ḫé DUMU (mār) [Š]e?-ma-/ra/?-[n]a?
3. (erased line)
4. DUMU. < MÍ > (mārat) Ta-ku-ḫu-li a-na DAM (aššati)-šu i-ḫu-u[z]
5. fA?-kab-A.|AB|.BA (giaše) ma-ri-ia-an-ni
6. MÍ.É.GI.A (kallati) ù DUMU.MÍ (mārat)-šu
7. [š]a É (bīti) fUm-mi-du-ra
8. [qa]-du DUMUmeš (mārē)-[š]i-ma
9. DUMU DUMUmeš (mār mārē)-[š]i-ma ma-ri-ia-an-nu
10. [za-ku-ú]
11. x x x [ta] x UD-mi
12. mi-im-ma mi-in-de4 be-el
13. mUm-mi-du-ra [T]UG (irašši)
14. ù fA-kab-A.AB.BA (giaše)
15. qa-du DUMUmeš-ši-ma
16. ma-ri-ia-an-nu za-ku-ú
17. m.fA-kab-gi-a-še ki-ma
18 DUMU.MÍ (mārat) É (bīt) MÍ.É.GI.A (kallati) É (bīt) [A-kab-t]a-[ḫ]é
19. ú-ul i-ni-/ir/-ru-u[b]
20. IGI Zi-ti-dIM (Tešub) IGI Ir-[kab-tù]
21. IGI Zi-ti-dIM (Tešub) IGI T[a]-ku-ḫu-l[i]
22. IGI A-kab-[t]a-ḫe IG[I Ša]r-ru-[w]a
23. IGI Aš-ra-[q]a-ma É.[GAL.LI]M (ekallû)
24. ša fA-kab-[g]i-a-še [ù ša]
25. m.fZi-li-ip-na-nu-u[n šum?-ma?]
26. i-ba-aš-ši-na bi-ri-[ši-na]
27. ša ú-la-dú
28. DAM (aššat)-ta5 ša-lu-uš-ta la [i-i]ḫ-[ḫa-az]
29. šum-ma ki-la-li-ši-na-ma la [ú-la-du]
30. ù DAM (aššat)-ta5 ša-lu-uš-ta
31. i-iḫ-ḫa-az di-nu NU (ul) T[UK] (irašši)

Translation

Before the king Niqmepa, Akabtaḫe the son of Shemarana(?) took as wife
the daughter of Takuḫuli. Akab-giashe (shall be) maryannu kallatu. And his
daughter staying in (his) house, Ummidura, with her sons and grandsons
(shall be) maryannu zakû. . . . the day . . . anything perhaps the husband of
Ummidura acquires, and then Akab-giashe with her sons (shall be) maryannu
zakû. Akab-giashe as a daughter of the house of the daughter-in-law shall not
leave the house of Akabtaḫe.

List of seven witnesses, including the scribe Sharruwa.

298 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Concerning Akab-giashe and Zilip-nanun — if one of them shall give birth
he (Akabtaḫe) shall not marry a third woman. If neither of them shall give
birth then he may marry a third woman and they will have no legal claims.

Notes

Line 2: For the name Akabtaḫe, see Speiser 1954:24.
Line 5: The second sign in the line (a) has an extra horizontal wedge cross-
ing the two verticals.
Lines 9–10: The restoration is based on the parallel expression in lines 15–
16.
Line 12: For minde in an Alalakh tablet see AT 2 line 5.
Line 19: The verb nērubu generally means “to flee, to run away” (AHW
781a). But the context here rather requires the sense of “to leave.”
Line 23: For ekallû in the sense of “personnel of the palace,” see CAD E 62.
Line 31: The phrase at the end, dīnu ul irašši, is a shortened formula; the
expanded formula appears in a second document written by Sharruwa, AT 17:
17 ina warki ūmi dīnu [ul irašši] “For all future time he will have no legal claim”
(see CAD I 291b).

The two key terms for the correct understanding of the text are maryannu
kallatu and maryannu zakû. The verb zakû in the sense of “to become clean (of
obligations)” and the adjective zakû in the sense of “free (of claim)” are well
known in the Akkadian documents and are frequent particularly in the legal
documents from Ugarit (14th–13th centuries). The expression maryannu zakû
(“being maryannu he is clean (of obligations)”) is to be understood as the full
status of maryannu-ship, including an exemption from all kind of payments
and conscriptions to the king. The second term, maryannu kallatu, is to be in-
terpreted as an inferior status, and the text makes it clear that it was held
only temporarily.

As for the interpretation of the text: Akabtaḫe married Zilip-nanun (line
25) who gave birth to a daughter, Ummidura. The tablet guarantees the sta-
tus of maryannu zakû to Ummi-dura and her descendants. But Zilip-nanun
has failed to produce a male heir, and Akabtaḫe now marries a second wife,
Akab-giashe. She shall temporarily hold the status of maryannu kallatu, and
in the future (depending on a condition that is not clear to me) Akab-giashe
with her future children shall held the status of maryannu zakû. The last para-
graph of the text stipulates that only if both women do not produce a male
heir, then Akabtaḫe will be permitted to marry a third wife.

At the last section of the present article, I would like to add a few notes
to the inscription of Idrimi, the main enterprise of our scribe Sharruwa. The
text was re-edited recently by Greenstein and Marcus and was also the sub-

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court 299

ject of a dissertation by Oller (1977a). I will take those two works as my point
of departure for further improvements of the reading and understanding
of the inscription, but will deal with the unpublished dissertation with the
utmost brevity (omitting all new readings of the text that were suggested
there).

Line 11: The suggestion of Kempinski and myself (Kempinski and Na’aman
1973:211, 216) to read here DUMU.NISAG. GAL was accepted by Greenstein
and Marcus. However, one must admit that such combination is attested no-
where else in Akkadian literature and that the equation NISAG = ašarīdu ap-
pears only in lexical texts (CAD A/2 41.6b). Furthermore, as pointed out by
Greenstein and Marcus (1976:72), mannum is an interrogative word (“who”)
and not an indefinite relative particle. I suggest, therefore, reading lines 10–
12 as follows: um-ma a-na-ku-ma ma-an-nu-um É (bīt) a-bi-šu lu-ú i-dàg!-gal ù
ma-an-nu-um a-na DUMUḫi.a (mārē) uruE-mar lu-ú ÍR (arad) “Who (among us) will
own his patrimony and who will serve the sons of Emar?” The sign dàg, in al-
most the same form, appears twice in an Amarna letter from Qadesh (EA 189
lines 2, 20; Schroeder, 1915:pl. 108 lines 2, 20) and in an Amarna letter from
Amurru (EA 169 line 9; Schroeder 1915:pl. 93 line 9). The two Amarna letters
originate from the same geographical region as the inscription of Idrimi and
were written only one century later. The sign dàg appears also in line 103 of
the inscription of Idrimi (li-d[à]g!-gal-šu-nu); see Oller 1977b:167–168. For a
parallel use of the verb dagālu see CAD D 22b c. It should be noted that the
combination of lu + verb appears twice more in the inscription. In line 100,
Kempinski and I suggested the reading lu-ú SIG5-ú-šu (lu idammiqūšu), and
Oller (1977a) suggested a parallel solution for the next verb. Thus, in three
out of four cases, where the optative form lu appears in the inscription, it is
followed by a verb, written twice as a logogram.

It seems to me that nothing was written at the beginning of line 12. It can
be seen clearly that there was a break from the very beginning in the stone in
line 11 as well, where the first sign was shifted beyond that break.

Line 31: ERÍNmeš Nu-ul-la! “The N/Lullaeans.” For exactly the same form of
the sign la (as if composed of two parts), compare lines 58 and 78 of our in-
scription. For the writing ERÍNmeš + designation of an ethnic or social group in
the Idrimi text, see ERÍNmeš Sutū (“the Suteans”), ERÍNmeš Ḫapiri (“the ‘Apiru”)
and ERÍNmeš Ḫurri (“the Ḫurrians”). For the use of ERÍNmeš in this collective
sense, see Albright and Moran 1948:245–246; Landsberger 1954a:201.

According to the story, Idrimi was forced to flee from Ḫalab, stayed for
seven years among the ‘Apiru and then mobilized the N/Lullaeans and launched
his counterattack. The connection between the ‘Apiru and the L/Nullu is well
known from the Hittite texts, where the “gods of the Lulaḫḫu” are mentioned
besides the “gods of the ‘Apiru.” The country of the Lullu(bu) is situated in the

300 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Zagros area, east of the Mesopotamian plains. Klengel, who has collected and
summarized all the written material concerning the Lullubu,11 denied any
common background between the Lullu(bu) mentioned in the Hittite and the
Egyptian documents and the Lullubu of the Zagros area. In his opinion, the
name Lullu (and its Hurrianized form Lulaḫḫu) was borrowed in the West
through the Ḫurrians and was used as an appellative meaning “barbarische
Gebirgsbewohner.”12 Such meaning may fit into our passage well. On the other
hand, one must remember that Kassites are already mentioned in tablet(s) be-
longing to the Alalakh VII archive (AT 412:6–7 and probably 238:20, 33; 248:
9).13 It is not impossible, therefore, to assume that groups of people whose ori-
gin was in the mountainous areas to the east of Mesopotamia penetrated into
south Anatolia and north Syria during the 17th and 16th centuries BCE at the
same time that the Kassites penetrated into Mesopotamia from the same area
from the second half of the 18th century onward. The presence of such wander-
ing eastern elements in the West may explain the late appellative meaning of
“mountainous barbarian” well, as was suggested by Klengel. Whether ERÍNmeš
Nulla in our passage designated an ethnic or an appellative name is difficult to
tell and is better left undecided.

Lines 55–56: ù gi5-nu a?-ša-ri-du-ú ša SIZKURX (niqê) ú-šar-bi “(So on account
of our treaty terms he received my greetings-present;) and I have added se-
lected(?) offerings of sacrificial animals.” The reading ginû makes perfect
sense for this line. The next sign looks like a nu (so Smith) and is certainly not
an a. However, a descriptive adjective of the object (ginû) is required by the
context, and I can only suggest amending the sign into an a (as a mistaken
repetition of the former nu sign). For ašaridu as an adjective qualifying an ob-
ject, see CAD A/2 418b. Another possible translation for the sentence is: “And
I have added offerings, the best(?) of the sacrificial animals.”

Line 56: ù bīta ḫalqu utêršu “And I restored to him the runaway famil(ies).”
The correctness of this translation (in place of the meaningless “and I re-
stored to him the lost estate”) hardly needs an explanation. The problem of
runaway fugitives was always central in the political relationships between
kingdoms in the ancient Near East. Several documents from the Alalakh IV
archive itself show the importance of the extradition of fugitives in the polit-
ical relationships between Mitanni and her vassal kingdoms. These stipula-

11. Klengel 1965:339–371. For the Hittite material, see recently Siegelová 1971:19–20;
see Rowton 1976:16–17.

12. Klengel 1965:358. Goetze (1957:123) has suggested that the Lulaḫḫu were soldiers
whose origin was from the mountainous region to the east of Mesopotamia.

13. See Kupper 1954:119; AHW 397a and 906x; CAD K 293b.

A Royal Scribe and His Scribal Products in the Alalakh IV Court 301

tions are the core of the two treaties signed between Alalakh and other vas-
sal states under the patronage of Mitanni (AT 2, 3); a third document’ (AT 101)
shows the actual procedure of such an extradition.14 For the use of bītu in the
sense of “family,” see CAD B 293–295; Dietrich and Loretz 1970:88–89.

Summing up the section formulating the relationships between Barattarna
and Idrimi (lines 54–58), a clear picture emerges: (a) Idrimi swore an oath of
loyalty and signed a vassal treaty; (b) Idrimi presented gifts and sacrificial
animals to his overlord; and (c) Idrimi returned the fugitives escaping from
the land of Mitanni into his territories to Barattarna. One might suggest that
these stipulations were of a permanent nature and, thus, can be taken as a
model for the obligations forced by Mitanni on its vassal kingdoms.15

References

AHW = von Soden, W. 1959–1981. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III. Wiesbaden.
Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1948. A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter from Byblos

(EA 82). JCS 2: 239–248.
CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1970. Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit (IV). Die É = bītu

– Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als Quelle für die Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung
von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr. ZA 60: 88–123.
Dossin, G. 1955. L’inscription de fondation de Iaḫdun-Lim, roi de Mari. Syria 32: 1–28.
Dossin, G. 1971. Documents de Mari. Syria 48: 1–19.
Draffkorn(-Kilmer), A. 1959. Hurrians and Hurrian at Alalakh: An Ethno-Linguistic Analysis.
Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor.
Eichler, B.L. 1973. Indenture at Nuzi. The Personal tidennūtu Contract and Its Mesopotamian
Analogues. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 5). New Haven and London.
Finkelstein, J.J. 1969. Documents from the Practice of Law. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 542–547.
Gelb, I.J., Purves, P.M. and MacRay, A.A, 1943. Nuzi Personal Names. (Oriental Institute
Publications 62). Chicago.
Goetze, A. 1957. Kleinasien. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Kulturgeschichte des
Alten Orients). München.
Greenstein, E.L. and Marcus, D. 1976. The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi. Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 8: 59–96.
Kammenhuber, A. 1977. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient und die historischen Wohnsitze der
Hurriter. Orientalia 46: 129–144.
Kempinski, A and Na’aman, N. 1973. The Idrimi Inscription Reconsidered. In: Aharoni, Y.
ed. Excavations and Studies: Essays in Honour of Professor Shemuel Yeivin. Tel Aviv: 211–220.
(Hebrew).

14. Landsberger 1954b:60; Na’aman 1974:268 and n. 18. See further tablet AT 110 and
Virolleaud 1936:21–26; Lettinga 1948:112; Klengel 1969:335 and 338 n. 23.

15. I omitted a few textual suggestions at the end of the article.

302 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Klengel, H. 1965. Lullubum: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altvorderasiatischen
Gebirgsvölker. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 11: 339–371.

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

Kupper, J.R. 1954. Review: D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets. The British Institute of
Archaeology 1953. BiOr 11: 117–121.

Kupper, J.R. 1976. L’inscription du “disque” de Yaḫdun-Lim. In: Eichler, B.L. ed. Kramer
Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. (AOAT 25).
Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: 299–303.

Landsberger, B. 1954. Note. In: Bottéro, J. Le Problème des Ḫabiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyri-
ologique Internationale. Paris: 159–161.

Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106–
133.

Laroche, E. 1968. Documents en langue hourrite de Ras Shamra. In: Nougayrol, J. et al. eds.
Ugaritica V. (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris: 447–544.

Lettinga, J.P. 1948. Review: Robert de Langhe, Les textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs
rapports avec le milieu biblique de l’Ancien Testament. Paris 1945. BiOr 5: 107–113.

Mendelsohn, I. 1959. On Marriage in Alalakh. In: Blau, J.L. et al. eds. Essays on Jewish Life and
Thought Presented in Honor of Salo Wittmayer Baron. New York: 351–357.

Moran, W.L. 1975a. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and
Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the
Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166.

Na’aman, N. 1974. Syria in Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle
Babylonian Period. Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 265–274.

Oller, G.H. 1977a. The Autobiography of Idrimi: A New Text Edition with Philological and Historical
Commentary. Ph.D. Thesis. Ann Arbor.

Oller, G.H. 1977b. A Note on Lines 102–104 of the Idrimi Inscription. JCS 29: 167–168.
Oppenheim, A. L. 1955. Review: S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi, London 1949. JNES 14: 199–

200.
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.
Rowton, M.B. 1976b. Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘Apirû-‘Ibrîm. JNES 35:

13–20.
Sasson, J.M. 1972. Zimri-Lim’s March to Victory. RA 66: 177–178.
Sasson, J.M. 1974. Ḫurrians and Ḫurrian Names in the Mari Texts. Ugarit-Forschungen 6:

353–400.
Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der

Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig.
Siegelová, J. 1971. Appu-Märchen und Ḫadammu-Mythus. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten

14). Wiesbaden.
Smith, S. 1949. The Statue of Idri-mi. (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of

Archaeology in Ankara, No. 1). London.
von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das akkadische Syllabar. 2. revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia

42). Rome.
Speiser, E. A. 1954. The Alalakh Tablets. JAOS 74: 18–25.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1936. Iaḫdunlim, roi de Ḫana. RA 33: 49–54.
Virolleaud, C. 1936. La légende phénicienne de Danel. (Mission de Ras Shamra 1). Paris.
Wiseman, D. J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the
Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5)1

1. Sarid in Judges 5:13

’āz yerad śārîd le’addîrîm ‘ām
yhwh yerad-lî baggibbôrîm

Verse 13a of the Song of Deborah is an old crux interpretum. The mean-
ing of śryd and its relation to l’dyrym is not clear, and the derivation of yrd is
debatable. LXXB translates “Then those who remained came down with the
mighty men,” a rendering that was adopted, with slight variants, by some
scholars.2 Others explained yrd as an imperfect D of rdh, “to have domin-
ion,” “to rule.”3 However, the similarity of v. 13a to v. 11b (“Then the people
of YHWH came down to the gates”) and the sequence within the passage de-
scribing the advance into battle of the Israelite troops (vv. 11b–13) strongly
support its interpretation as an imperfect G of yrd (“went down”) (Burney
1918:130–131; Weiser 1959:83; Globe 1975:170, n. 2). śryd was often explained
as a kind of designation for Israel, although the meaning of “remnant,” a
term usually applied to a survivor (or survivors) after a defeat, hardly suits
the image of the Israelite troops as they are portrayed in the song. It is for
this reason that scholars sometimes emended the text to read “Israel,”4
“gates” (š‘rym) (Burney 1918:130–131) or “officers” (śrym) (Kaufmann 1962:
137–138). These emendations have no textual support, and they are all lec-
tio facilior.

Another problem is the meaning of l’dyrym. The noun ’dyr (“mighty
one,” “noble”) was explained by modern commentators as referring to the
Israelites. The preposition l was translated in various manners, i.e., “as,”

1. Reprinted with permission. Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990), 423–436.
2. Burney 1918:130–131, with earlier literature; Weiser 1959:83; Globe 1975:170, n. 2;
Soggin 1981:82, 88.
3. Coogan 1978:148, with earlier literature in n. 35.
4. Moore 1895:150–152; Richter 1963:77, 401; Halpern 1983b:385, n. 26; see Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ad loc.

303

304 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

“like,” “with,” and “the.” It goes without saying that such meanings are un-
common for l in Biblical Hebrew.

An important clue for the understanding of v. 13 is the word ’z (“then”).
It opens the verse and appears four more times in the song (vv. 8, 11, 19, 22)
(Albright 1936:29–30; Rabin 1955:125; Hillers 1965:125; Ikeda 1979:66):

(a) “New gods were chosen, then he fought (lḥm) at the gates” (v. 8a).
(b) “Then down to the gates marched the people of YHWH” (v. 11b).
(c) “Then down marched . . . “ (v. 13a; see below).
(d) “The kings come, they fought; then fought the kings of Canaan” (v. 19).
(e) “Then the hooves of the horses hammered; the galloping, the galloping of

his steeds” (v. 22).

It seems that the word ’z was deliberately selected to open the five major
stages of the struggle between Israel and the Canaanites: (a) It is first men-
tioned to introduce the Canaanite military pressure on the Israelite city gates
(v. 8); (b) it introduces the emergence from the gates to fight the oppressors
(v. 11b); (d) it opens the actual fighting with the Canaanite kings (v. 19); and
(e) it introduces the defeat of the Canaanites (v. 22). Taking this consistent
structure into account, one would hardly expect that stage (c) refers back to
stage (b); rather, it describes a new stage in the Israelite advance to battle, be-
tween the emergence from the gates and the actual fighting.

With this background in mind, I suggest translating v. 13 “Then down to
Sarid he marched towards the mighty ones; the people of YHWH marched
down for him (lw) with warriors.” V. 13b is an elaboration of “he marched,”
identifying the marching force with “the people of YHWH” who came down
to fight “for him,” i.e., the God of Israel. Sarid is a well-known Israelite town
on the southern border of Zebulun (Josh. 19:10, 12).5 For the combination yrd
śryd (without a preposition of locative termination) see the border descrip-
tions in Josh. 15:10–11, 16:2, 7, 19:13. The noun ’dyrym (“mighty ones”) refers
to the Canaanites, the powerful enemies of Israel. The spl ’dyrym, in which yo-
gurt was served to Sisera (v. 25), is a special kind of a bowl (“lordly bowl”) that
befits the noble guest.

5. In Josh. 19:10 and 12, the MT reads śryd. In light of several versions (LXXL, Pesh.,
Latin), the reading šdwd was preferred by modern scholars. See Cooke 1918:175; Noth 1953:
110, 115; Kallai 1986:179, n. 165. However, in light of the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 13), it is
better to regard śryd as original; the reading šdwd is a scribal error due to the common in-
terchange of r/d in the Hebrew letters.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 305

The town of Sarid is located less than 10 km. south of “Taanach, by the
waters of Megiddo,” the military assembling ground of the Canaanite forces.6
Sarid is Megiddo’s closest northern Israelite town; the assembling of the
Canaanite troops near the latter is the logical site for attacking warriors
who have assembled near the former place. Whereas Mount Tabor, where
the Israelite troops assembled according to Judg. 4:6, 10–14, is located east
of Naḥal Kishon and its offshoots, the muddy wadi is situated halfway be-
tween Megiddo and Sarid, blocking the way for both attack and retreat for
the Canaanites. The deployment of the Israelite army at Sarid, on the south-
ern border of Zebulun, thus, fits well the place of Naḥal Kishon in the song
(v. 21). Meroz (v. 23) was probably a town in the vicinity of Sarid that refused
to join the battle and was cursed for its disloyalty.7 The town may have been
destroyed at that time as a punishment for disloyalty, as Migdal Penuel was
destroyed by Gideon in the time of the war against the Midianites (Judg. 8:17),
thus, disappearing from the scene; its location was not remembered by later
generations (Weiser 1959:91–92, n. 91; see Mayes 1974:86).

A. Caquot recently suggested that vv. 14–17 has been interpolated into
the Song of Deborah and that v. 18 originally came after v. 13.8 My interpre-
tation of v. 13 fits this attractive suggestion well: The march of the Israelite
troops to the place of battle near the southern border of Zebulun, thus, is fol-
lowed by praise of the two tribes that participated in the fighting against the
Canaanites.

In light of this interpretation I suggest the following translation for the
original sequence of the song in vv. 11b–13, 18:

11b Then down to the gates marched the people of YHWH.
12 Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song.

Arise Barak, and capture your captives, son of Abinoam.
13 Then down to Sarid he marched towards the mighty ones.

The people of YHWH marched down for him with warriors,
18 Zebulun is a people that scorned his life to the death.

Naphtali too, on the heights of the field.

6. Rainey 1981:61*–66*. For the earlier literature, see the extensive discussion of
Täubler 1958:153–164.

7. Alt suggested that Meroz was a Canaanite city that joined the tribe of Manasseh and
was governed by aristocracy, i.e., the lords of the city. See Alt 1941:244–247. Alt was fol-
lowed by Täubler 1958:193–197; Gottwald 1979:512–513, 529, 573, 581. However, both the
assumption that Meroz must have been a former Canaanite city and that “its inhabitants”
(yšbyh) refers to the lords of the city, lacks any concrete foundation.

8. Caquot 1986:47–70 (esp. pp. 54–55); see Noth 1930:5, 36; 1960:150, n. 3.

306 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

2. The “Galilean Oriented” Redaction of the Story of Judges 4

It is generally assumed by scholars that biblical stories reflect a good top-
ographical knowledge of their authors, regardless of whether the stories are
historically accurate or not. This is a reasonable assumption, because even an
author who is describing a legendary episode will try to attach to it certain
environmental features to add authenticity to his composition. By analysis of
these stories, scholars were able to demonstrate the accuracy of the descrip-
tions within their geographical and topographical settings. Biblical stories,
thus, contributed much to the field of historical geography of the land of
Israel, with the identification of many sites becoming possible because of the
accuracy of these descriptions.

It must be emphasized, however, that the accuracy of the environmen-
tal features should not be taken for granted. After all, stories may have been
written by authors who lived in exile, far away from their homeland. Editorial
activity may also contribute to distortion of the original picture. As reason-
able as the assumption may look, topographical reliability and coherence of
the descriptions must first be established before we are entitled to estimate
the author’s familiarity with the environment that surrounded the story.

The description of the battle near Naḥal Kishon in Judges 4 is a good ex-
ample for such discussion. It is the only geographically detailed story that we
have from the north of Israel. For a long time, the story resisted reasonable
geographical understanding, and many solutions have been offered to over-
come the difficulties.9 The many inner contradictions within the plot may be
illustrated by the following five points:

(A) The site of Harosheth-ha-goiim, the seat of Sisera (v. 2) and the assem-
bling place of the Canaanite troops (vv. 13, 16), is disputed. It has been sug-
gested recently that it was located on the western Jezreel plain, in the area
between Taanach and Megiddo, where, according to the song, the kings of
Canaan assembled for battle (Judg. 5:19).10 The proposal was intended to set-

9. In addition to the commentaries, see Garstang 1931:294–303; Albright 1936:26–9; Alt
1937:52–65 (= 1953b:363–374); 1944:67–85 (= 1953a:256–273); Mazar 1952–53:80–84; Täubler
1958:142–169; Simons 1959:288–290; Richter 1963:32–65; Aharoni 1967:200–205; de Vaux
1978:790–796, with earlier literature. Rainey 1981:61*–66*; 1983: 46–48; Kallai 1986:228–
235.

10. Rainey 1983 connected Harosheth with the root ḥrṯ (“to cultivate”) and interpreted
Harosheth-ha-goiim as “the plantation of the Gentiles.” Like the majority of scholars,
Rainey assumed that the prose and the song refer to the same area, i.e., the western Jezreel
plain; however, whereas other scholars regarded Harosheth as the name of a town located
in the extreme west of the Jezreel plain (see n. 16 below), he identified it with a large terri-
tory, namely, the Megiddo-Taanach area.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 307

tle the problem of the relation of the prose to the song, but it involves other
difficulties. According to the prose, the Canaanite troops were summoned to
Harosheth-ha-goiim (v. 13), crossed the Kishon river and fought the Israelites.
After their defeat they fled back to their gathering place (v. 16). How, then,
should we account for the fact that Sisera fled in an entirely different direc-
tion, namely, to the oak of Zaanannim (v. 17), a place located on Naphtali’s
southern border (Josh. 19:33)? And how did it happen that Barak reached this
northern place at the end of his pursuit, after he had followed the fleeing
Canaanite troops westward, to Harosheth-ha-goiim (vv. 16, 22)?

Another difficulty in this hypothesis is in v. 2, where Sisera is described as
dwelling (ywšb) in Harosheth-ha-goiim. In spite of 1 Kgs. 11:16 and the Mesha
Stela (line 8) (Aharoni 1967:203), the wording ywšb b strongly conveys the im-
pression of referring to a definite place (e.g., v. 5), and not to a region (the west-
ern Jezreel plain, according to this interpretation) (see Simons 1959:288–289).

(B) From the description of Sisera’s escape, it may be inferred that he fled
northward and that the oak of Zaanannim (Josh. 19:33) was located on his
route. The city of Hazor, described as the seat of Jabin “king of Canaan” (vv. 2,
17; see 1 Sam. 12:9), is situated in the upper Jordan Valley, south of Lake Ḥuleh.
For these reasons, some scholars have identified Harosheth-ha-goiim with the
hill country of Galilee, east of Hazor, the seat of the northern Israelite tribes
(Mazar 1952–53:80–84; Aharoni 1967:201–203). The description of Sisera’s
dwelling in a vast area (v. 2) is not explained by this theory. Moreover, such a
northern location for the assembling place of the Canaanites involves great
difficulties. How can the seat of the northern Israelite tribes be identical with
the gathering place of the Canaanite troops? Also, did the Canaanite army
march from the north to Naḥal Kishon to fight their next-door neighbors,
the Israelite troops, here? And did Sisera advance southward from the area of
Hazor to the Kishon river to fight Barak, who likewise went southwards from
Kedesh of Naphtali to Mount Tabor? Finally, what is the relationship of the
prose to the Song of Deborah, according to which the Canaanites assembled
in the Megiddo-Taanach area?

(C) The oak of Zaanannim is situated near Kedesh, according to the story
(v. 11). However, Kedesh of Naphtali is located in the northern part of the
tribal inheritance, and the oak of Zaanannim was a toponym on Naphtali’s
southern border, near Adami-nekeb and Jabneel (Josh. 19:33) (Kallai 1986:
228–231; Na’aman 1986:138.–141). The attempts of scholars to escape this dif-
ficulty by locating Kedesh either near Taanach,11 at Khirbet el-Kidish north-

11. Moore 1895:117; Budde 1897:36; Garstang 1931:301; Abel 1938:415; Mazar 1950:328;
Stern and Beit Arieh 1976:22; see Burney 1918:81–82; Simons 1959:289.

308 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

east of the Jabneel Valley,12 or in the vicinity of Mount Tabor (Kallai 1986:232–
235) are not convincing. Kedesh of Naphtali is identical to Kedesh of Galilee,
mentioned several times in the Bible (Josh. 12:22; 19:37; 20:7; 21:32; 2 Kgs. 15:29;
1 Chr. 6:61); all other identifications may be regarded as unnecessary attempts
to avoid the difficulties inherent within the story in its final form.

(D) According to v. 10, Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh,
his city. This is odd: Zebulun is situated in the area north of Naḥal Kishon;
Barak’s wandering northward to Kedesh in order to return southwards to
Mount Tabor, on the border of his inheritance, does not make geographical
or military sense.

(E) Deborah’s seat in the area of Bethel (v. 5) also involves geographi-
cal problems. According to the prose, only Zebulun and Naphtali partici-
pated in the battle against Sisera. Thus, to bridge the territorial gap between
Deborah’s and Barak’s seats and to ensure her integration within the plot,
the author (or redactor) made her walk all the way from the area of Bethel to
Kedesh of Galilee, and then join Barak and his troops on their way southward
to Mount Tabor. The inhabitants of Mount Ephraim do not play any role in
the prose account; Deborah’s wandering north and south is another odd trait
in the story of Judges 4.

The conclusion is inevitable: The author of the story, or a late redactor,
was not acquainted with the geography of northern Israel and mixed up the
narrative elements in a way that excludes any geographical sense from the
description.

It seems to me that the confusion is the result of the work of a late Judean
redactor who did not understand certain details in the old story, and, al-
though he had no real knowledge of the topography in the north, he tried to
fill in various details that were left unspecified in the plot. In what follows,
I shall try to isolate his interpolations and then delineate the original story
and its relationship with the song.

My point of departure is Harosheth-ha-goiim, the gathering place of the
Canaanites according to the old story (vv. 13, 16). Its location (the western
Jezreel plain) and its original meaning (“the plantation of the gentiles”) appar-
ently were not clear to the redactor who identified it with Gelil-ha-goiim (liter-
ally, “the district of the gentiles”; Isa. 8:23), which, in his time, was a name for
the district of Galilee. He, therefore, assumed that the “king of Canaan” ruled
a vast territory whose scope was not dissimilar to the league of Canaanite
kings that fought Joshua according to Josh. 11:1–5. The origin of Jabin, “king
of Canaan,” and of his commander Sisera was left unnoticed in the old story of

12. Press 1950:327–328; Aharoni 1957:79, 99–101; 1967:204; Kochavi 1963:165–172.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 309

Judges 4. The redactor identified Jabin with the homonymous king of Hazor
(Josh. 11), thus, locating his seat (mlk b) in the area of eastern Galilee (v. 2a).
He further located Sisera’s seat at Harosheth-ha-goiim, where, according to
the old story, he assembled the Canaanite troops (vv. 13, 16). Thus, the above-
mentioned exceptional description of Sisera’s dwelling (ywšb b) in a region (v.
2b) was created.13

According to the old story, the defeated Canaanites were pursued to
Harosheth-ha-goiim, where they had assembled previously (vv. 13, 16). The
redactor regarded it as a name for a vast northern territory; thus, he like-
wise placed Sisera’s route of escape and Jael’s tent in the north. Jael’s seat
was identified with the oak of Zaanannim of which the redactor learned
from the border description of Naphtali (Josh. 19:33). He further described
it as situated next to Kedesh of Naphtali (v. 11), which was the best known
town within the inheritance of the tribe in later times and which he identi-
fied as the seat of Barak (v. 6). In reality, the oak of Zaanannim was located
far south of Kedesh. The redactor’s ignorance of the topography of northern
Israel likewise led to the interpolation of Kedesh as the assembling place of
the Israelites before they marched to Mount Tabor (v. 10). It is clear that he
assumed that Kedesh was situated somewhere north of Mount Tabor, thus,
describing it as the gathering place of the northern tribes and as a town near
the oak of Zaanannim, on the way northward to Galilee.

In line with his work of filling in gaps within the original plot, the redac-
tor inserted v. 17b, which describes a treaty between the Kenites and the king
of Hazor, thereby explaining Sisera’s escape to the tent of Jael and his trust
in her hospitality.14

Deborah’s seat was likewise missing in the original story of Judges 4. As in
the case of Jabin, the redactor identified her with a homonymous name, that
of Deborah who was buried near Bethel (Gen. 35:8), and located her place in
southern Mount Ephraim (vv. 4b–5). The mention of Elon Tabor (1 Sam. 10:3)
may have supported this identification (see Richter 1963:37–42). The redactor,
thus, gained an expansion of the circle of participants in the battle. However,
by assigning Deborah the role of a judge of Israel, he violated one of the prin-
cipal ideas of the “framework” of the book, namely, that Israel had been sub-
jugated to foreign power only after the death of the judge. Furthermore,
Deborah’s seat in Mount Ephraim obliged him to describe a union of the
two Israelite leaders, Deborah and Barak. Therefore, he inserted the move of

13. For the selection of the verbal form ywšb as the result of the preceding verbal form
mlk, see Simons 1959:288–289.

14. For the secondary character of vv. 11 and 17b, see Richter 1963: 43, 57–58.

310 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Deborah from her southern place northwards to Kedesh of Naphtali, where
the Israelite troops would have assembled (v. 9b).

The following words and sentences must have been interpolated into the
original story of Judg. 4: vv. 4b–5, 9b, 11, 17b; also ’šr mlk bḥṣwr (v. 2a); whw’
ywšb bḥršt hgwym (v. 2b); mqdš nptly (v. 6a); qdšh (v. 9b). The redactor was mo-
tivated by what might be called “the fright of anonymity,”15 and, to fill in the
“missing” details, he located the five participants of the plot (Jabin, Sisera,
Deborah, Barak and Jael) and supplied a motive for Sisera’s escape to Jael’s
tent. Unfortunately, the redactor was not acquainted with the geographical
reality of northern Israel, and by identifying Hazor and the district of Galilee
as the seats of Jabin, Sisera and the Canaanites, the geographical background
of the story became extremely odd. Moreover, the outlines of the battle as
they were portrayed in the song can no longer be reconciled with the de-
scription of the prose. It is clear that the redactor’s topographical ignorance
and his borrowing of the “missing” details from the corpus of biblical liter-
ature confused the integrity of the original story of the battle near Naḥal
Kishon. Only by eliminating these insertions can we understand the original
prose description of the event.

The original plot of Judges 4 may be delineated as follows: Jabin, “king
of Canaan,” and his commander Sisera had subjugated the Israelite tribes.
Deborah, the north Israelite prophetess, urged Barak to start a rebellion. He
summoned the troops of Zebulun and Naphtali, and they marched to Mount
Tabor to fight the Canaanites. The Canaanites’ commander, Sisera, immedi-
ately called his army with its mighty iron chariots (compare Josh. 17:16, 18;
Judg. 1:19) to Harosheth-ha-goiim, i.e., the western Jezreel plain, on the other
side of the Kishon river.16 The fighting broke out near Naḥal Kishon, and after

15. For the “fright of anonymity,” see Na’aman 1988:43–44, with earlier literature in
n. 3.

16. Harosheth-ha-goiim was located by many scholars in the vicinity of el-Ḥarithiyeh.
See Albright 1922:284–285; 1923:21–22; Alt 1937:372, with earlier literature in n. 3; Garstang
1931:380–381; Abel 1938:343–344; see de Vaux 1978:792. Noteworthy also is the name Silat
el-Ḥarithiyeh (map reference 172212), a village located 2 km. south of Taanach. It seems,
therefore, that Harosheth(-ha-goiim) was the name of the western Jezreel plain and that
the old name has survived on the margins of the plain. There are several parallel cases of
the preservation of an old name of a region in its margins. Thus, the name of the land of
Gina, which was the pre-Israelite name for the western Jezreel plain, has survived in the
name of the Second Temple Village Ginae. The village of Zer‘în (map reference 181218) pre-
served the name of the town of Jezreel and of the nearby Valley of the same name. The
name of the land of Kabul (1 Kgs. 9:13) has survived in the village of Kābûl (map reference
170252). The name of the vast area of Gilead has survived in Khirbet Jel‘ad. For a further dis-
cussion, see Na’aman 1988:184–185.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 311

his victory, Barak chased the Canaanites up to their towns. Sisera fled alone
on foot17 and arrived at Jael’s tent, which must have been located in the west-
ern Jezreel plain. There he was betrayed and killed, just before the arrival
of the Israelite commander at the place. The surrender of Jabin (v. 23), who
subjugated the Israelites at the beginning of the story, closes the circle and
brings the plot to its natural end.

B. Halpern (1983b:379–401 ; 1983a:41–73; 1988:76–103) suggested recently
that the story of Judges 4 was derived either from the Song of Deborah or
from questions and assumptions that arise from the song. In the discussion
above, it was pointed out that the story in its final form cannot be reconciled
with the song and that the description of the kings of Canaan who assembled
“at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo” to fight the Israelites across Naḥal
Kishon is in marked contrast to the geographical background of the prose.
The mention of the ten tribes in the song (Judg. 5:14–17) is another serious
obstacle for the comparison of the two sources.

By eliminating both the interpolated ten tribes from the song (see n. 8
above) and the “Galilean oriented” redaction from the prose, the way is open
for a fresh equation of the two sources. It seems to me that Halpern’s thesis
is essentially correct and that the song was the source from which the au-
thor of the prose drew the main details for his story. The reader is referred
to Halpern’s works for a meticulous description of the narrator’s reconstruc-
tion of history. It must be emphasized, however, that this author was not as
imaginative and speculative as Halpern assumed in his reconstruction of the
process of borrowing.

By composing the “framework” (vv. 1, 2*, 3, 23) and by eliminating the
episodes of Meroz and the mother of Sisera, the narrator succeeded in crys-
tallizing the plot.18 Two combating warriors and two women of contrasting
characters are represented at the center of the stage. The “king of Canaan”
was added to the plot as the subjugating enemy, in accord with the “frame-
work” of the stories of the judges. It is clear that the author has in mind the
kingdoms of his time, in which the king was the central figure and the chief
commander sometimes led the army to battle (compare, for example, 2 Sam.
10:6–18; Isa. 20:1). In place of the kings of Canaan and their leader (Sisera)
he, therefore, described a king and his commander of staff. The author fur-
ther replaced certain geographical names by others, which presumably were

17. For the literary motif of the commander of an army escaping alone from the battle-
field, see Tadmor 1985:70–75, with earlier literature.

18. For the narrative structure and the contents of Judges 4, see recently Murray 1979:
155–187; Amit 1987:89–111; Neef 1989:28–49.

312 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

better known to his readers. Thus, Mount Tabor took the place of Sarid, and
Harosheth-ha-goiim replaced the poetic “Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo.”
Other details are not dissimilar in the two sources. It is only the late redaction
of both the prose and the song that has blurred the similarity and changed
the course of events in the two descriptions of the battle.

3. A Reference to the Battle of Kishon in Isaiah 8: 23b

The textual analysis and historical background of Isa. 8:23b are disputed
among scholars, and various attempts have been made over the years to ex-
plain its meaning and determine its historical background. V. 23b (or v. 23)
was generally regarded as an introduction to the prophecy of Isa. 9:6, the lat-
ter being attributed either to Isaiah himself or to a pre-exilic or post-exilic
author.19

The linguistic background of v. 23b was examined in great detail by J.A.
Emerton (1969:151–175). One would concur with the suggestion that both
hql and hkbd are perfects, though whether both refer to either past or fu-
ture (prophetic future) events is disputed. One may further ask whether
hr’šwn and h’ḥrwn are indeed the subjects of the verbs. After all, the prophecy
may well refer to two different times (compare Jer. 50:17), the first of which
(hr’šwn) would build the hopes for the second (h’ḥrwn) (Barth 1977:141–144).

A. Alt (1950:29–49 = 1953b 206–225) was the first scholar to suggest that
Tiglath-pileser III’s conquests and annexations of 734–32 BCE are the histor-
ical background to the mention of “the way of the sea, the land beyond the
Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” These three entities represent the three prov-
inces of Dor, Gilead and Megiddo established by the Assyrians after the con-
quest of the three districts. However, the relationship of this triad with the
duo of Zebulun and Naphtali involves difficulties. The territories (“lands”) of
the two tribes cover only part of the province of Megiddo, and it is not clear
how this duo may refer to the same territory as that of the triad of Dor, Gilead
and Megiddo.

A reasonable solution to the problem is to assign the duo and the triad to
two different periods, hr’šwn and h’ḥrwn. This was suggested by W. Harrelson
(1962:152) in his discussion of the prophecy:

Thus, despite the probable connection of the oracle with the conquest of the territory
of the tribes by Tiglath-pileser III, the prophet may also be alluding to the “former”
days of darkness and oppression under the king of Hazor (Judg. 4:1–3) and to these
tribes’ turn of fortune as a result of the great victory won by Barak of Naphtali. These

19. Barth 1977:141–177 with earlier literature; Thompson 1982:79–88, with earlier liter-
ature; Kilian 1983:5–10, with earlier literature.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 313

motifs which appear in the old blessings and hymns of early Israel might be consid-
ered stock materials employed by Isaiah in the shaping of his oracle. Their occurrence
would not be significant, perhaps, were it not for the fact that one particular motif in
the oracle is drawn unquestionably from the period of the judges: the “day of Midian”
(9:3).

Harrelson further explained terms and images that appear in the proph-
ecy of Isa. 9:1–6 against the background of “early poems, narratives and tra-
ditions of the period prior to the monarchy” (pp. 152–153). In particular, he
tried to demonstrate the influence of the Gideon tradition on one or another
form of vv. 3 and 5 of the prophecy. His suggestions remained mainly unno-
ticed in subsequent discussions of the prophecy.20 It seems to me, however,
that Harrelson was on the right track in suggesting that there is a connec-
tion between the mention of Zebulun and Naphtali in Isa. 8:23b and the bat-
tle against Sisera of Judg. 4–5. The event in which the Lord (who is the subject
of the two verbs in v. 23b) had delivered the “lands” of Zebulun and Naphtali
is presented by the prophet as a basis for future hopes — the “making glori-
ous” of the districts of Dor, Gilead and Megiddo. The mention of the “day of
Midian” (Isa. 9:3) is likewise presented as an example for the power of the
Lord, who will break the Assyrian yoke.

The mention of gelîl haggôyîm in v. 23b may well represent another hint of
the episode of the battle of Kishon. It was suggested above that ḥărōšet hag-
gôyîm was misinterpreted as another name for gelîl haggôyîm. Provided that
the prophecy reflects the same misunderstanding of the archaic designation,
the latter appellation may well be a veiled allusion to the battle against the
Canaanites in the period of the judges.

The battles against Sisera and against Midian are combined together
for a second time in Ps. 83:9–10: “Do to them as thou didst to Midian, as to
Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who were destroyed at En-dor, who be-
came dung for the ground (’dmh).21 It is hardly accidental that Ashur is the
last mentioned in the list of Israel’s traditional enemies (vv. 6–8). Just as in
Isa. 8:23b–9:6, so in Ps. 83 the episodes of the period of the judges build the
hopes for future breaking of the Assyrian yoke.22

One may further ask why these particular past events were selected as ex-
amples for the breaking of the Assyrian yoke. After all, there are other epi-

20. Harrelson’s article is not mentioned in the works cites in n. 19; but see Carlson 1974:
131.

21. For a historical-topographical analysis of Ps. 83:9–10, see Na’aman 1986:139–140,
with earlier literature.

22. The attachment of the deliverances from the Canaanites and the Midianites in both
Isa. 8:23b–9:6 and Ps. 83:9–10 is an additional argument against Werner’s recent claim that
Isa. 8:23b is a redactional bridge between 8:21–23a and 9:1–6; see Werner 1982:21–25, 42–4.

314 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

sodes in which the Lord delivered his people from foreign subjection. The an-
swer may be found in the reality in which the prophecy of Isa. 8:23b–9:6 was
spoken. There were only few events in the early history of Israel that have
been memorized over the years in connection with those north-Israelite ter-
ritories that were conquered by the Assyrians in the years 734–732 BCE. It is
for this reason that the battle against the Canaanites in the north and the bat-
tle against the Midianites conducted on both sides of the Jordan have been
selected. One, therefore, may date the prophecy of Isa. 8:236–9:6 to the time
between the Assyrian conquest of 734–732 and the Assyrian collapse in the
west in the twenties of the 7th century BCE.

Finally, I suggest the following translation for Isa. 8:23b: “As in the past he
(the Lord) made lighter the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, so in
later (time) he made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan,
the district of the nations.”

References

Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris.
Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Albright, W. F. 1922. Some Additional Notes on the Song of Deborah. JPOS 2: 284–285.
Albright, W.F. 1923. Contribution to the Historical Geography of Palestine. AASOR 2–3: 21–

22.
Albright, W.F. 1936. The Song of Deborah in the Light of Archaeology. BASOR 62: 29–30.
Alt, A. 1937. Galiläische Probleme. PJb 33:52–88. (Reprint: Alt 1953b: 363–395).
Alt, A. 1941. Meroz. ZAW 58: 244–247 (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 274–277).
Alt, A. 1944. Megiddo im Übergang von kanaanäischen zum israelitischen Zeitalter. ZAW

60: 67–85 (Reprint: Alt 1953a: 256–273).
Alt, A. 1950. Jesaia 8, 23–9, 6. Befreiungsnacht und krönungstag. In: Baumgartner, W. et al.

eds. Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag: gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden.
Tübingen: 29–49 (Reprint: Alt 1953b: 206–225).
Alt, A. 1953a. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. München.
Alt, A. 1953b. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München.
Amit, Y. 1987. Judges 4: Its Contents and Form. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39:
89–111.
Barth, H. 1977. Die Jesaia-Worle in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven
Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten
und Neuen Testament 48). Neukirchen-Vluyn.

V 23b is the logical opening to the prophecy of 9:1–6, as was pointed out by scholars who
have analyzed its structure and contents. See Barth 1977:141–177 with earlier literature;
Thompson 1982:79–88, with earlier literature; Kilian 1983:5–10, with earlier literature;
Emerton 1969:151–175; Kaiser 1972:123–130; Wildberger 1972:362–389.

Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4–5) 315

Budde, K. 1897. Das Buch der Richter. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alte Testament).
Freiburg.

Burney, C.F. 1918. The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. London. (Reprint: New York
1970).

Caquot, A. 1986. Les tribus d’Israël dans le cantique de Débora (Juges 5, 13–17). Semitica
36: 47–70.

Carlson, R.A. 1974. The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. ix 1–6. VT 24: 130–135.
Coogan, M.D. 1978. A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah. Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 40: 143–166.
Cooke, G.A. 1918. The Book of Joshua. (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).

Cambridge.
Emerton, J.A. 1969. Some Linguistic and Historical Problems in Isaiah viii. 23. Journal of

Semitic Studies 14: 151–175.
Garstang, J. 1931. The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua Judges. London.
Globe, A. 1975. The Muster of the Tribes in judges 5, 11e–18. ZAW 87: 169–183.
Gottwald, N.K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–

1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, New York.
Halpern, B. 1983a. Doctrine by Misadventure: Between the Israelite Source and the Biblical

Historian. In: Friedman, R.E. ed. The Poet and the Historian. Chico: 41–73.
Halpern, B. 1983b. The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite

Historiography. Harvard Theological Review 76: 379–401.
Halpern, B. 1988. The First Historians. The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco.
Harrelson, W. 1962. Nonroyal Motifs in the Royal Eschatology. In: Anderson, B.W. and

Harrelson, W. eds. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. London:
147–165.
Hillers, D.R. 1965. A Note on Judges 5,8a. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27: 124–126.
Ikeda, Y. 1979. The Song of Deborah and the Tribes of Israel. In: Rabin, C. et al. eds. Studies
in the Bible and the Hebrew Language Offered to Meir Wallenstein. Jerusalem: 65–79.
(Hebrew).
Kaiser, O. 1972. Isaiah I–12: A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). London.
Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel Jerusalem and
Leiden.
Kaufmann, Y. 1962. The Book of Judges. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Kilian, R. 1983. Jesaia 1–39. (Erträge der Forschung 200). Darmstadt.
Kochavi, M. 1963. Khirbet Kedesh — Kadesh Naftali. BIES 27: 165–172. (Hebrew).
Mayes, A.D.H. 1974. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London.
Mazar, B. 1950. Elon-bezaanannim. Enc. Miqr. I: 328. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1952–53. Beth She‘arim Gaba and Harosheth of the Peoples. Hebrew Union College
Annual 24: 75–84.
Moore, G.F. 1895. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. (International Critical
Commentary). Edinburgh.
Murray, D.F. 1979. Narrative structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story (Judges
IV 4–22). Supplement to Vetus Testamentum 30: 155–187.
Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical
Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem.
Na’aman, N. 1988. Canaanites and Perizzites. Bibliche Notizen 45: 42–47.
Na’aman, N. 1988b. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In:
Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–
1000 B. C.). Leuven: 177–185.

316 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Neef, H.-D. 1989. Der Sieg Deboras und Baraks über Sisera. Exegetische Beobachtungen
zum Aufbau und Werden von Jdc. 4,1–24*. ZAW 101: 28–49.

Noth, M. 1930. Das System der zwöIf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart.
Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. (2nd revised ed.). (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7).

Tübingen.
Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel. London.
Press, I. 1950. Elon-bezaanannim. Enc. Miqr. I: 327–328. (Hebrew).
Rabin, C. 1955. Judges V, 2 and the ‘Ideology’ of Deborah’s War. Journal of Jewish Studies 6:

125–134.
Rainey, A F. 1983. Toponymic Problems (cont.): Harosheth-Hagoiim. Tel Aviv 10: 46–48.
Rainey, A.F. 1981. The Military Camp Ground at Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo. Eretz

Israel 15: 61*–66*.
Richter, W. 1963. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. (Bonner

Biblischer Beiträge 18). Bonn.
Simons, J. 1959. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden.
Soggin, J.A. 1981. Judges: A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia.
Stern, E. and Beit Arieh, I. 1976. Excavations at Tel Kedesh (Tell Abu Qudeis). Tel Aviv 6: 1–

25.
Tadmor, H. 1985. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical

Considerations. Zion 50: 65–80 (Hebrew).
Täubler, E. 1958. Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter. Tübingen.
Thompson, M.E.W. 1982. Isaiah’s Ideal King. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24: 79–

88.
de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London.
Weiser, A. 1959. Das Deboralied. Eine gattungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studie. ZAW

71: 67–97.
Werner, W. 1982. Eschatologische Texte in Jesaia 1–39: Messias, Heiliger Rest, Völker. (Forschung

zur Bibel 46). Würzburg.
Wildberger, H. 1972. Jesaja. 1. Jesaja 1–12 (Biblischer Kommentar X/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and
in History1

Introduction: The Development of Historical Writing in Israel

From the early days of modern research, scholars have discussed the date
of the rise of historical writing in Israel. The original documents that served
biblical authors in their work have perished, and the original scrolls, upon
which the authors composed their histories of Israel and which would have
helped us to fix the date of composition, are no longer available. The dat-
ing of the emergence of historical writing and reconstruction of the early
sources available to the scribes are entirely dependent on the analysis of the
Old Testament.

1. Systematic writing for administrative purposes was introduced in the
tenth century BCE, following the institution of monarchy in Israel. This is ev-
ident from the installation of the office of scribe in the courts of David and
Solomon (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3). Noteworthy also is the census con-
ducted by David throughout his kingdom, which, according to the story,
lasted for nine months and twenty days (2 Sam. 24:8). A census was usually
conducted for many purposes, i.e., a register for military service, for labor
conscription and for levying and collecting taxes. David’s census necessarily
entailed an extensive registration for the establishment of the young king-
dom on firm foundations. Furthermore, even a superficial glimpse at the re-
corded histories of David and Solomon indicates that their authors had be-
fore them original documents dating to the time of the two kings. These
sources described wars and conquests, building and fortifying operations,
administrative apparatus, cultic regulation, etc. Thus, it is clear that writing
in the court for administrative purposes was introduced in Israel by the tenth
century BCE and that documents composed at that time were available to the
authors who portrayed the history of the United Monarchy.

However, recording for administrative purposes is one thing and writing
history is another. In all ancient cultures, there is a considerable gap between

1. Reprinted with permission. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to
Monarchy, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 218–281.

317

318 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

daily registration and the emergence of historiography. Was Israel such an
exception that historiography started there contemporaneously with the
adoption of alphabetic writing for practical purposes? Indeed, this is the as-
sumption of those scholars who advocate a tenth century date for the begin-
ning of historical writing in Israel.2

2. Alphabetic writing developed slowly and gradually in Canaan over a
period of several hundred years, and its scope in the Late Bronze Age was
very limited: Only about thirty inscriptions (most of them short) have been
discovered so far, most of them in southern Canaan.3 It matured and crys-
tallized in Phoenicia in the late eleventh-tenth centuries BCE and from this
region spread widely in Syro-Palestine during the ninth century (e.g., the
Kmšyt, Mesha, Melqart, Hazael and Hdys‘y inscriptions).4 Apart from the Gezer
calendar, which apparently belongs to the ninth century BCE (for the Gezer
inscription, see Donner and Röllig 1968:181–182; Young 1992:362–375, with
earlier literature), no pre-eighth century BCE alphabetic inscription has been
discovered in the territories of Israel and Judah. The earliest North Israelite
inscriptions (i.e., the Samaria ostraca, the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions and
the Balaam plaster inscription) are dated to the first half of the eighth cen-
tury BCE,5 and it is hardly coincidental that the earliest recording of prophe-
cies, i.e., the “words” of Amos and Hosea, is dated to about the same time. The
spread of alphabetic writing in the kingdom of Judah took place even later
and hardly antedates the mid-eighth century BCE.6 Most of the early Judahite

2. For a tenth century date for the beginning of the Israelite historiography, see,
e.g., Rost 1926; von Rad 1944:1–42; 1953:120–127; 1962:48–56; Herrmann 1953–54:51–
62; Mowinckel 1963:4–26; Liver 1967:75–101; Gray 19702:14–22; Weippert 1973:415–442;
Mettinger 1976; Langlamet 1976:518–528; McCarter 1980a:489–504; 1980b:23–30; 1984:9–16;
Schmidt 1982:55–73; Ishida 1982:175–187; Lemche 1984:106–109 (but see 1991:161–169).

3. For the Proto-Canaanite inscriptions, see recently Puech 1986:161–213; Sass 1988.
4. For the Syrian and Moabite inscriptions, see Donner and Röllig 1968:168–179, 203–204,
with earlier literature; Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard 1982; Kyrieleis and Röllig 1988:37–
75; Pitard 1988:3–21, with earlier literature; Dearman 1989 with earlier literature; Eph‘al and
Naveh 1989:192–200; Bron and Lemaire 1989:35–44; Puech 1992:311–334; Smelik 1992a:59–92.
5. For the recently discovered inscriptions, see the detailed literature cited by Lemaire
1988:225–226, notes 1, 14. For the Samaria ostraca, see Lemaire 1982:23–81, with earlier lit-
erature on pp. 23–24; Kaufman 1982:229–239.
6. Noteworthy are the three identical labels written on three jugs unearthed at
Eshtemoa, in the southernmost Judean hill country. See Yeivin 1972:45–46; 1990:43–57. The
jugs contained a large hoard of silver and the word ḥmš (“five”) probably defined their con-
tents. Paleographically, the three letters look similar to the script of Arad IX-VIII (note the
paleographic observations of Cross, in Yeivin 1972:48, n. 20). Ceramic parallels also indicate
a date in the eighth century (Lachish III, Tell Beit Mirsim A, Tel Beer-sheba II). Thus, the in-
scriptions should best be dated to the eighth century BCE (contra Yeivin).

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 319

inscriptions are dated to the late eighth century (e.g., the Arad, Khirbet Beit
Lei, Khirbet el-Qom, the Siloam inscriptions, and the lmlk stamps).7 In light
of the large-scale excavations and surveys conducted in all areas of the two
kingdoms, this finding hardly can be regarded as accidental. To illustrate this
point, let us take Jerusalem as an example. Scores of large- and small-scale
excavations conducted in all parts of ancient Jerusalem during the last 150
years have yielded not a single inscription that antedates the late eighth cen-
tury BCE.

How can we match these data to the assumption that full-scale writing,
including historiography, developed in Jerusalem from the time of Solomon
(whose reign was sometimes regarded as a period of “enlightenment”; see
von Rad 1944:41)? It is no coincidence that so many seventh century inscrip-
tions have been discovered in all parts of the kingdom of Judah, including
Jerusalem. At that time, alphabetic writing spread throughout the country,
and the amount and scope of written material revealed in archaeological ex-
cavations and surveys accurately reflect the extent of literacy. The date and
distribution of written material, as evident from archaeological research, is,
in my opinion, our most important evidence for dating the rise of historiog-
raphy in the two neighboring kingdoms.

3. The reasons for the slow development of alphabetic writing in the an-
cient Near East is not my concern here, but one may note that other impor-
tant inventions (e.g., the war chariot, cavalry, iron smelting, the domestica-
tion of the camel) likewise spread slowly and gradually during a protracted
period until their sudden diffusion throughout the ancient Near East. It is
clear that until the eighth century BCE, writing was practiced only in the
courts of Jerusalem and Samaria and was restricted to a few professional
scribes. It is for this reason that scribes were ranked so highly in the admin-
istrative apparatus of David and Solomon, as is evident from the three lists of
officials of their time (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26; 1 Kgs. 4:2–19). On the other
hand, the development of historiography necessarily is connected with the
emergence of a wide circle of readers who can appreciate the literary quality
of the composition and understand its meaning and objectives.

To illustrate this point, I will take a well-known and extensively discussed
example — the history of David’s rise to power (henceforth HDR). Many
scholars dated its composition to the time of the United Monarchy, regard-
ing it as the “defense” of David written by one of his supporters to throw fa-

7. For the recently discovered inscriptions, see the literature cited by Lemaire 1988:226,
nn. 12–13; for the lmlk stamps, see Lemaire 1988:227, n. 31; for the Arad inscriptions, see
Aharoni 1981; for the Siloam inscription, see Donner and Röllig 1968:186–88; Puech 1974:
196–214, with earlier literature.

320 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

vorable light on his rise to power and to clear him of accusations regard-
ing the deaths of his major opponents (Nabal, Saul, Abner and Ish-Baal). The
composition was compared with several inscriptions written in the courts of
ancient Near Eastern rulers as a kind of “apology” for what they had done
in their tenure of kingship.8 However, all these compositions are royal in-
scriptions, whose addressee is first and foremost the god before whom the
king reported of his deeds. In their form and genre, they are identical to all
other ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions and, thus, are entirely different
from the HDR. Moreover, an apologetical text written to persuade a contem-
porary audience calls for a circle of readers acquainted with the events and
able to appreciate both the literary qualities of the composition and the ar-
guments raised by its author. One hardly could expect to find such an audi-
ence in Jerusalem during the tenth-ninth centuries BCE. It is evident that the
HDR was written long after the time of David, during a period when literacy
spread in Judah and there emerged an audience that was able to appreciate
its subtle literary and religious messages. Once we define the HDR as a liter-
ary composition written long after the termination of the events described
therein, we must treat it with caution and may question the historical reli-
ability of many of its details.

It was noted above that in all ancient cultures, a long period separated the
development of a system of writing from the emergence of historiography;
and it is clear now that Israel was no exception. The spread of literacy in the
course of the eighth century BCE, about two centuries after the introduction
of the alphabetical system to the court of Jerusalem, marked the earliest pos-
sible date for the onset of historical writing in Israel.

4. These conclusions fit the widely accepted analysis of the date of com-
position of the Deuteronomistic (henceforth Dtr) history. It is clear that the
comprehensive history of the nation from Moses to the reform of Josiah or
the Babylonian exile was composed either in the late seventh century BCE or
immediately after the destruction and exile of 587/586. More complicated
is the problem of the sources on which the author based his composition.
Noth (1943) assumed that significant parts of the Books of Joshua, Judges and
Samuel had been written at a very early date and, thus, served as reliable an-
cient sources for the historian. Other scholars followed this line of thought,
and there is a great variety of opinion regarding the scope and date of the

8. For the genre of autobiographical apology, see Tadmor 1983:36–57. For comparison
of the HDR with the ancient Near Eastern apologetic compositions, see Tadmor 1983:56;
McCarter 1980a:493–499; Whitelam 1984:71–76.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 321

early literary sources underlying the present text of Joshua-Samuel.9 In any
event, in light of the discussion above, these early hypothetical compositions
hardly can antedate the eighth century BCE and are, thus, hundreds of years
remote from the time when the events described therein took place. Van
Seters, on the other hand, suggested that no comprehensive account of the
history of Israel was available to the Dtr historian and that he wrote his com-
position solely on the basis of source material and popular traditions that he
collected and integrated into his work. The author developed a distinctive
narrative style and by means of a chronological framework created blocks
of material, such as the stories of Saul, David’s rise to power, and the Ark
Narrative. These literary blocks had no independent existence of their own
and were all integral parts of the larger Dtr work (Van Seters 1983). Be that
as it may, it is clear that a gap of several centuries separates the date of com-
position of the conquest narratives from the time to which they are assigned
(the early Iron Age).

5. This enormous hiatus explains the many discrepancies between the
conquest stories and the archaeological evidence. These discrepancies may
be illustrated by the following examples:

(a) Many sites either ostensibly conquered by the Israelites (Heshbon, Arad,
Ai, Hebron) or mentioned in the conquest stories (Gibeon, Jarmuth) were
not occupied in the Late Bronze Age; some were deserted throughout the
second millennium BCE (Heshbon, Arad, Ai, Jarmuth).

(b) The Late Bronze urban culture was gradually destroyed in a process that
lasted for more than a century. For example, the city of Hazor was de-
stroyed in about the mid-thirteenth century, whereas the city of Lachish
was razed in the second half of the twelfth century BCE. These data
contradict the biblical description, according to which Canaan was con-
quered in a single campaign conducted by the Israelite tribes under the
leadership of Joshua.

(c) During the thirteenth and most of the twelfth century BCE (until the reign
of Ramesses VI — 1143–1136 BCE), Egypt was deeply involved in Canaan,
and cities in the southern and central parts of the lowlands continued
to develop under the Egyptian military and administrative umbrella.

9. For the assumed pre-Deuteronomistic material in the Book of Joshua, see, e.g., Alt
1927:13–24; 1936:18–29; 1958:85–109; von Rad 1951; Bright 1960:142–151; Otto 1979:95–103;
Mayes 1983:40–57, 133–134, with earlier literature; Sanmartín Ascaso 1986:261–282. For the
Books of Judges and Samuel, see the literature cited above, n. 2; Mayes 1983:58–105, with
earlier literature.

322 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Many archaeological findings indicate the strong Egyptian influence on
the material culture of Canaan at this time. However, Egypt is mentioned
nowhere in the conquest tradition in the Bible.

(d) Many Canaanite cities had been destroyed immediately after the Egyptian
withdrawal from the country in the late twelfth century BCE (Beth-shean,
Megiddo, Ashdod, Tel Sera‘, Tell el-Far‘ah), and this destruction marks
the last stage of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. However, this “conquest”
is entirely different from the biblical conquest tradition: The ruined
towns are all located in the lowlands (the coast, the Shephelah and the
northern plains), outside the territory where the Israelite monarchy was
established in the tenth century, and their fall had no direct effect on the
“Israelite” settlement in the highlands on both sides of the Jordan.

(e) The establishment of the Transjordanian kingdoms of Ammon and Moab,
which, according to the conquest tradition, antedated the penetration of
the Israelite tribes into the Mishor (“the Plain”) and Gilead, was contem-
poraneous with the rise of the Israelite monarchy. The kingdom of Edom
emerged even later, in the mid-ninth century BCE (2 Kgs. 8:20–22). The
conquest tradition of Transjordan was doubtless written at a much later
time, when the historical date of the rise of the Transjordanian states was
entirely forgotten.

6. Discrepancies between historical reality and biblical narratives are not
restricted to the stories of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. Some ex-
amples of anachronisms that appear in stories referring to the early monar-
chic period are presented here to illustrate the enormous time-span that sep-
arates the assumed “events” from the date of composition.

(a) The city of Mizpah was built and fortified under King Asa (1 Kgs. 15:22) and
played an important role as a border fortress of the kingdom of Judah until
its destruction in 587/586. Subsequently, Mizpah became the seat of the gov-
ernor of Judah (Jer. 40–41), playing a central role in the Judean cummunity
of the sixth-fifth centuries BCE (Neh 3:7, 15, 19).10 Mizpah’s prominent role

10. For the excavation of Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), see Broshi 1977:912–918, with ear-
lier literature; McClellan 1984:53–69; Finkelstein 1988b:61–63. The site was almost com-
pletely excavated, but the excavators were able to distinguish only two periods, each
covering a very long time. The entire Iron Age city was uncovered; its fortifications and
dwellings were well preserved. However, the date of the buildings and fortifications re-
mains unknown. I very much doubt the assumption that the Iron Age I village of the elev-
enth century, with its buildings and granaries, survived with minor changes for about 600

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 323

in the stories of the pre-monarchic (Judg. 20:1, 3; 21:1, 5, 8) and early monar-
chic periods (1 Sam. 7:5–12, 16; 10:17–25) is an anachronistic reflection of the
city’s important position at the time when the stories were composed.

(b) The material culture of Beth-shemesh in Iron Age I was distinctively
Philistine; the town was certainly included at that time within the ter-
ritory of the nearby center of Ekron.11 However, according to the Ark
Narrative, Beth-shemesh was an Israelite town in the late eleventh century
BCE (1 Sam. 6:9, 12–21). It is evident that this narrative anachronistically
reflects the situation of the ninth-seventh centuries, when Beth-shemesh
was a Judahite town on the border with Philistia (2 Kgs. 14:11).12

(c) Archaeological excavations conducted in major Philistine sites made
it clear that a goddess played a major role in the cult of Iron Age I
Philistia, whereas, at that time, male god(s) were of minor importance
(Dothan 1982:21, 229–251; Gitin and Dothan 1987:202–204; Singer 1989:
26–29, with earlier literature). This deity, having the remarkable traits of
a Mother Goddess, was brought by the Philistines from their homeland in
Anatolia,13 and subsequently was identified with the Canaanite fertility

years, and that only the fortification and four-room buildings were added later. On the con-
trary, in all other Judahite and Israelite Iron Age II sites excavated to date, there is a signif-
icant development in scope, plan, density of settlement and quality of building relative to
the Iron Age I level. The assumption of a very long stagnation in the development of the
town is not convincing. It is preferable to assume that (a) the casemate defensive system
served during the ninth-eighth centuries BCE (see McClellan 1984:68–69); (b) that the Great
Wall was built by the Babylonians in the early sixth century BCE and served until the fifth
century; and (c) that only few buildings of Iron Age I were uncovered in the excavations
(see McClellan 1984:54).

11. For the Philistine character of Stratum III at Beth-shemesh, see Wright 1975:252
with earlier literature; Ahlström 1984:144. For the city of Ekron in Iron Age I, see Gitin and
Dothan 1987:200–205; Dothan 1989:1–22. In light of the new excavations at Ekron and the
material culture of Stratum III at Beth-shemesh, it is clear that the latter was included in
the eleventh century BCE within the territory of Ekron. Beth-shemesh Stratum III was con-
quered and destroyed in the course of the Philistine-Israelite struggle at the beginning of
the tenth century BCE. The city was then rebuilt and included within the Solomonic ad-
ministrative system (1 Kgs. 4:9).

12. For the place of Beth-shemesh in the boundary system of the separate kingdoms of
Judah and Israel, see Na’aman 1988:74. For the post-Exilic date of the Ark Narrative, see Van
Seters 1983:346–353; Smelik 1989:128–144; 1992b:35–58.

13. Singer (1989:36–42) has suggested that the Philistine deity should be identified with
Kubaba/Kybele, the Magna Mater of Asia Minor in the second and first millennia BCE, and
that various attributes of the Anatolian goddess can be detected in Iron Age I strata through-
out the coast of Philistia. See also Mendenhall 1986:539–541. For the cult of Astarte/Atargatis
at Ashkelon, see Macalister 1911:93–99; Hörig 1979:172, n. 4, 249–254; Delcor 1980:83–92.

324 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

goddess Astarte (Atargatis of the classical sources). Indeed, the temple
of Astarte in Philistia is mentioned as the place where the armor of Saul,
the Philistines’ archenemy, was deposited after he was slain in the battle
of Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:10).14 In the Ark Narrative, on the other hand, the
god Dagon appears as the supreme god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:1–7;
cf. Judg. 16:23; 1 Chr. 10:10). The central place of Dagon in the Philistine
pantheon most probably reflects the Iron Age II period, when Dagon was
acknowledged as head of the Philistine pantheon, possibly under the in-
fluence of the neighboring West-Semitic kingdoms, which had a male god
at the head of their pantheons. It is clear that at the time when the Ark
Narrative was written, the supreme role of Astarte in the cult of Iron Age
I was no longer remembered, and the author naturally assumed that the
divine hierarchy in the early history of the Philistines was the same as
that in his own days.

(d) Camels are not mentioned at all in ancient Near Eastern sources of the
second millennium. They were domesticated in a long and gradual process
that took several hundred years and reached an advanced stage in the last
third of the second millennium BCE.15 On the basis of the biblical narratives
of Gideon and the Midianite pillage of central Palestine (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; 8:
21, 26) and of David and the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:17), it was assumed that
large-scale use of camels for trade and military purpose was current at the
end of Iron Age I.16 However, excavations of Iron Age I sites throughout the

14. The “house of Astarte” of 1 Sam. 30:10 doubtless refers to a major Philistine temple
in Philistia, where the armor of the enemy was consecrated. Indeed, consecration of an un-
usual or precious booty is well known from ancient Near Eastern documents. According to 1
Samuel 21:10, Goliath’s sword was deposited in the temple of Nob (see also 2 Sam. 8:10–12);
see Delcor 1980:84–86, with earlier literature. The suggestion that the “house of Astarte”
was located in Beth-shean is, in my opinion, untenable. The temple of the Canaanite city
of Beth-shean was hardly a suitable place for depositing the armor of the defeated archen-
emy of the Philistines. For this opinion, see Stoebe 1973:530; McCarter 1980a:443, with ear-
lier literature; Singer 1989:19–20.

15. For the domestication of the camel, see Bulliet 1975:28–86; de Vaux 1978:221–225;
Knauf 1983:147–162, with earlier literature; 1988:9–15; Finkelstein 1988a:246–247.

16. The assumption of a large-scale utilization of camels in the Arabian trade and in
combat already in the second millennium BCE is widely accepted. See, e.g., Albright 1970:
198–205; Eissfeldt 1973:94–105; Knauf 1983; Nielsen 1986:22–23; Finkelstein 1988a. Note the
cautious and well balanced conclusions of de Vaux (1978:223): “There is sufficient reliable
evidence for us to conclude that the camel was known and that it was domesticated in the
Near East at least from the end of the second millennium B.C. onwards. On the other hand,
there is no evidence before the end of the second millennium of the breeding and keeping
of cattle or small livestock and of the use of the camel for caravans and war.”

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 325

country revealed only a small number of camel bones. The main excep-
tion is cIzbet Ṣarṭah, where 102 bone fragments of a minimum number of
five individual animals have been discovered. However, because the camel
skeletons blocked silos of Stratum II, it is possible that they were a later
intrusion (Hellwing and Adjeman 1986:147). Remarkable is the absence
of camel bones from Iron Age I strata in major Negebite sites, such as Tel
Masos, Tel Beer-sheba and Tell Jemmeh (Wapnish 1981:101–120, and n. 93;
Tchernow and Drori 1983:215–221; Hellwing 1984:105–115 [esp. p. 114]).
In Tell Jemmeh, a substantial increase in the number of camel bones was
detected only in the seventh century BCE (Wapnish 1981:115–120). Thus,
one may question the commonly held assumption that the large-scale use
of camels by nomadic groups living on the eastern and southern borders of
Palestine had already come about in the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE.

It seems to me that the wide employment of camels in caravans and for
war was contemporaneous with the appearance of the Arabs in the ninth
century BCE. The Akkadian word gammalu (“camel”) appears in Assyrian
texts from the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) onward; the oldest in-
scription mentioning Arabs is the inscription listing Gindibu’ the Arab and
his 1,000 camels among the participants in the Syro-Palestinian coalition that
opposed Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853 BCE (CAD G 35b–36; Lambert 1960:
42–43; Eph‘al 1982:21, 75–77, with earlier literature; Na’aman 1992:86, 88).
The camels were brought to the battlefield as a fighting force, though it is
not clear what their role might have been in a battle that was mainly fought
by chariots and infantry. Another recently published inscription was written
by the governor of Suḫu and is dated to about the mid-eighth century BCE
(Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990:339, 346, 351, 357). It mentions a south Arabian
caravan of 200 camels and 100 people that was robbed by the governor in the
land of Ḫindanu, on the Middle Euphrates. The list of booty does not include
typical Arabian artifacts and it is clear that the caravan brought the merchan-
dise from a non-Arabian region, possibly Syro-Palestine. We may conclude
that the domestication of the camel and the development of the cushion-
saddle, which allowed the camel-drivers to ride camels in long-distance car-
avans and in battle, should be dated to the beginning of the first millennium
BCE. These developments opened the desert areas of northern and south-
ern Arabia to “proto-Beduin” nomadic groups. It seems to me that the men-
tion of large groups of camel-drivers in the narratives of Gideon and David is
an anachronism, reflecting the reality of the time in which these stories had
been composed.

7. The problems involved with oral history and the constant change and
reinterpretation of oral traditions in the course of transmission, along with

326 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

the great difference in the concept of history between Israel and western civ-
ilizations and the obstacles involved in the use of biblical stories for histor-
ical research, have been discussed in great detail in recent research and are
not my concern here. They will be taken into account in the course of my
analysis of the conquest stories in the Book of Joshua. Hundreds of years sep-
arate the “conquest events” from the period in which the conquest stories
were composed in writing, and written transcription of presumed oral tales
may be more informative with regard to the period in which these tales were
transcribed than to the time in which they were presumed to have been com-
posed (Kirkpatrick 1988:117). Thus, it is clear that our “sources” (i.e., oral tra-
ditions) for the “conquest period” are extremely problematic and should be
treated with utmost caution.

However, the problems involved with the source material and the liter-
ary and theological character of many parts of the Dtr composition should
neither lead us to deny its definition as history nor to reject the title “histo-
rian” for its author. The Dtr historian tried to reconstruct the remote past of
Israel by narrating it according to his belief in the divine course of history
and by either using whatever sources he had, or is assumed to have had, for
his work. Reconstructing history (i.e., a continuous and contingent chain of
past events) by narrating it is a great historiographical achievement, and
this exactly is what the Dtr historian has accomplished. The genre selected
for the description is a poor criterion for deciding whether an author was
interested in “historical” reality (contra Lemche 1988a:53–54, 68; 1988b:62–
65; 1991:158–160). Nor is reliability of the chain of events the sole criterion,
becuase, to a great extent, it depends on the source material available to the
author. Crucial are the questions of whether he used whatever sources he
had for his description and whether he integrated them more or less faith-
fully within his work.

There are various indications that the Dtr historian tried to collect all
available sources for his historical reconstruction and that he integrated
them within his history. A good indication is the parallel accounts of the
same event. Thus, there are several parallel stories of the occupation of the
cities of Hebron (Josh. 10:36–37; 14:6–14; 15:13–14; Judg. 1:10; see Josh. 11:21)
and Debir (Josh. 10:38–39; 15:15–19; Judg. 1:11–15; see Josh. 11:21) in the con-
quest narratives. Even if we assume that Judges 1 is a post-Deuteronomistic
composition (see below), there still remain enough parallel accounts of the
same event, describing the occupation of the Judean hill country by ei-
ther Joshua or certain Judahite clans. The history of the tribe of Dan in the
Shephelah and its migration northward appears in three different accounts
(Josh. 19:47 [note the LXX]; Judg. 1:34–35; Judg. 18). Admittedly, the last two
may have been written by post-Deuteronomistic authors.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 327

In the book of Samuel we find three different accounts of how Saul was
made king (1 Sam. 9:1–10:16; 10:17–26; 11). Two narratives explain the prov-
erb “Is Saul, too, among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:10–12; 19:18–24). There are
also parallel accounts of David’s arrival at the court of Saul (1 Sam. 16:14–23;
17),17 how he spared Saul’s life (1 Sam. 24; 26), and how he was able to find
refuge in the court of Saul’s bitter enemy, the king of Gath (1 Sam. 21:11–16;
27). The Dtr historian placed all these parallel narratives one after the other,
in spite of the fact that there are many contradictions and disagreements be-
tween them, and did not try to impose a single reconstruction of the chain
of events.

We should also note certain short accounts of the same event that the Dtr
historian placed one after the other. For example: the circumstances of the
death of Ish-Baal (2 Sam. 4:6, 7); the court of David (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26);
the prophecy of Jehu son of Hanani on the fall of the house of Baasha (1 Kgs.
16:1–4, 7); the death of Athaliah (2 Kgs. 11:16, 20); the murder of Joash king of
Judah (2 Kgs. 12:21, 22a); and the scope of Jeroboam II’s conquests (2 Kgs. 14:
25, 28a). There are also parallel prophetic stories relating to major events in
the history of Israel and Judah, which were incorporated within the Book of
Kings. Such are the accounts of the deliverance of Samaria from Ben-Hadad
king of Aram (1 Kgs. 20:1–21; 2 Kgs. 6:24–7:20)18 and the miraculous deliv-
erance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian siege (2 Kgs. 18:17–19:9a, 36; 19:9b–
35).19

Finally, I wish to mention the attachment of two descriptions, one in
prose and one in poetry, of the same event. Such are the accounts of both the
battle of Kishon (Judg. 4 and 5) and the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31 and
2 Sam. 1:17–27). It seems to me that, in both cases, the song was the source
for the prose account (Halpern 1983a:379–401; 1983b:41–73; 1988:76–103) and
that it was the Dtr historian who decided to present them side by side, assign-
ing the poetry to the hero of the narrative.

As is well known, Greek historians since Herodotus frequently quote sev-
eral accounts of a single event, remarking that “others tell the following
story” (Licht 1983:107–108). It seems to me that the Dtr historian used this
historiographical device to present before his audience his divergent sources

17. For a more accurate demarcation of the parallel narratives in 1 Samuel, see
McCarter 1980a; 1980b; 1984:passim.

18. For the parallel prophetic legends of the siege of Samaria in 1 Kgs. 20:1–21 and 2 Kgs.
6:24–7:20, see Lipiński 1979:85, 90; Na’aman 1991:86–87.

19. For the parallel prophetic stories of the siege and miraculous deliverance of
Jerusalem, see Honor 1926:35–61; Childs 1967:69–103; Clements 1980:52–63; Gonçalves
1986:331–487.

328 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

on whose authenticity he either did not wish to decide or was unable to do
so. He used part of his sources more or less as he found them, and his nar-
rative presents his own harmonistic solution to the diversity of the sources.
Admittedly, some of the examples presented above may have come from the
pen of post-Dtr authors. There are, however, enough undisputed examples to
demonstrate that the “double account” was the result of the historian’s au-
thentic interest in describing the event “as it really was.” In this respect, the
Dtr historian had an entirely different historical attitude toward his source
material than the Chronicler, who always gave only one description of a given
event. On the other hand, the authors of the Pentateuch used the same nar-
rative technique as the Dtr historian and, thus, are much closer to him than
to the Chronicler.20

Another indication of the genuine antiquarian interest in past events is
the formula “until this day.”21 The use of similar formulae is known from the
writings of Greek historians when they sought to affirm that they were per-
sonal eyewitnesses to what they describe. In the Bible, the formula functions
in a similar manner — as a personal testimony — added to, and confirming, a
received tradition (Childs 1963:292). Admittedly, parts of these formulae were
secondarily added to the stories by late redactors. However, there are enough
original citations in the Dtr history to support the claim that the formula
“until this day” marks a special effort of the author to affirm the authenticity
of episodes portrayed in his composition.

A third indication is the author’s respect for his written sources and the
way in which he drew heavily on their words. The number of original docu-
ments at his disposal that were dated to the time of the monarchy was quite
small, and the information included therein was limited — both in scope and
theme. The way in which he cited these sources is remarkable: He inserted
them in between narratives, even when they interrupted the chain of events,
citing them in full, even though on many occasions they were dull, lengthy
registrations that did not add anything substantial either to the narratives or
to their religious message. Moreover, in many cases, he made far-fetched in-
ferences from his sources to other vague or unknown situations. All these in-
dicate a genuine antiquarian interest in the past and an effort to reconstruct
history “as it really was.”

20. On the double accounts of the same event in the Pentateuch, see recently Whybray
1987:74–80, with earlier literature.

21. For the etiological narratives in the Old Testament, see Seeligmann 1961:141–169;
Childs 1963:279–292; 1974:387–397; Long l968, with earlier literature; Golka 1976:410–428;
1977:36–47; van Dyk 1990.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 329

8. Malamat (1983:303–306) suggested that the historical period of Israel
began about the mid-twelfth century BCE, when the Israelite tribes were es-
tablished in Palestine and Israel first became an integral ethnic and territo-
rial entity. However, in the mid–12th century the settlement process was in
its initial stage, and it is inconceiveable that at this time Israel was already
a vast, ethnically unified entity. The assumed emergence of tribal territories
and the consolidation of the Israelite tribes may possibly be dated to the late
eleventh century, shortly before the foundation of the monarchy. Second,
and even more important, the line between prehistory and history is demar-
cated by the availability of written sources, not by the actual settlement pro-
cess. There are many peoples who settled in their countries for hundreds of
years and established states and institutions, but left no records, so that their
history is entirely obscure. The history of other peoples, on the other hand,
began even before they settled and became territorial nations.

It is evident that the pre-monarchial period is marked by a lack of liter-
ary activity and must be regarded as a prehistorical stage. Israel entered the
proto-historical stage in the time of David and Solomon, when professional
scribes entered the court of Jerusalem and began writing documents for ad-
ministrative purpose. It was only in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE that
Israel entered into the realm of history, when literacy spread in the king-
doms of Israel and Judah and the earliest works of the history of Israel were
composed.

The “Conquest Period” should be included in the prehistory of Israel; the
immense problems involved with the historical investigation of the conquest
narratives are the direct result of this literary situation.

The Settlement in the Hill Country: A Local Development
or Infiltration from Without?

Nomads in the Late Bronze Age

One of the basic concepts in biblical historical consciousness is that the
Israelites entered Canaan from outside (Weippert 1973:418–421; Soggin 1984:
139, 156–157. For a recent discussion of the problem, see Whitelam 1989:19–
42). The claim that the land was conquered by force due to divine guidance
and help is the outcome of this basic concept. The Heilsgeschichte of Israel
from its early beginnings down to its settlement in Canaan depends on this
belief. The claim of a migration and penetration from outside is remark-
able; one would rather expect a nation to emphasize its antiquity in the land,
which better supports its right to this land. One may, of course, suggest that
the concept developed in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods, to emphasize the

330 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

rights of the Returnees of Zion to the land: Like their ancestors, who con-
quered and settled Canaan, they also entered the land from outside and were
entitled to hold it.

The biblical tradition of the origins of Israel and the entrance to Canaan
from without is the opposite of the new interpretations of the settlement and
conquest processes, according to which the Israelite nation emerged from
autochthonous elements of the Late Bronze Age. Details of this process are
disputed among scholars. Some suggested that the highlands population of
Iron Age I originated either from the disintegrating urban-rural population
of Canaan who found shelter in the hill country22 or from the rural-nomadic
population of the hill country (de Geus 1976:164–181; Halpern 1983c:47–106;
Coote and Whitelam 1987:117–138; cf. Stager 1985:3–4). Others hold the view
that the new settlers were semi-nomads who either lived in symbiotic rela-
tions with the Canaanite city-states (Fritz 1981:61–73; 1987:84–100) or wan-
dered in the hill country and its eastern periphery during the Late Bronze Age
and settled in Iron Age I following the destruction of the Canaanite urban sys-
tem (Finkelstein 1988b:336–351; 1990:682–685).23 It goes without saying that
local elements — in particular the urban, rural and pastoral groups who lived
in the hill country — participated in the settlement process and formed part
of the new rural-pastoral society of the early Iron Age. The mixture of old and
new elements is particularly prominent in the hill country of Manasseh, as
scholars suggested long ago (Alt 1939:8–13; de Vaux 1978:635–640; Finkelstein
1988b:80–91, 348–351). However, the remarkable biblical historical memory
of migration from remote areas to the Land of Canaan should be investigated
in detail to determine whether all the groups that settled in the hill country
and its periphery were indeed of local Canaanite origin.

The destruction of the Middle Bronze Age urban culture in the sixteenth-
early fifteenth centuries BCE brought about large-scale nomadization of pop-
ulation groups throughout Canaan. Northern groups (mainly Hurrians) mi-
grated at that time and entered Canaan via the Syro-African Rift Valley (de
Vaux 1967:481–497; 1978:83–89; Na’aman 1982:180–182; Finkelstein 1988:339–
345). The size of the urban population in Late Bronze Age I Canaan had been
drastically reduced, in comparison to the Middle Bronze Age III population,

22. Mendenhall 1962:66–87; Gottwald 1979, passim; Lemaire 1982:20–24; Chaney 1983:
39–90; Callaway 1985:31–49; Lemche 1985:416–437. For a more flexible reconstruction,
which takes into account a movement of Canaanite and non-Canaanite groups into the hill
country, see Ahlström 1986:11–36 (esp. pp. 35–36).

23. It goes without saying that this model is closely related to Alt’s classical model of
peaceful infiltration and gradual sedentarization and occupation of the land. See Alt 1953:
89–125; 1939:8–63.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 331

and the number of nomadic elements considerably increased in these years.
It would be a serious mistake, however, to assume that the number of no-
mads remained unchanged for a long time, until the beginning of Iron Age
I, and that the transition from Middle Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age II is
marked only by a shift in the balance between urban-rural and nomadic pop-
ulations (Finkelstein 1988b:341–345. For a detailed discussion of the problem,
see Bunimovitz 1989:162–178.). This assumption ignores the problem of the
subsistence of the pastoral groups, who are economically dependent on the
settled population. The disruption of the balance between these two sectors
brings about a lack of grain and other food products for the nomadic sector.
Thus, it is clear that the drastic reduction in the scope of the urban sector in
the Late Bronze Age exerted enormous economic pressure on the pastoral
groups, and they were forced either to migrate or to produce grain for their
living. Indeed, ancient Near Eastern documents indicate that following se-
rious crises in the urban culture and temporary growth of the pastoral ele-
ment in the population, the pastoral groups tend to settle down, and the bal-
ance between the urban-rural and nomadic groups is gradually restored. It
goes without saying that the pastoral sector never disappears completely; the
economy of the urban and nomadic populations is symbiotically intercon-
nected and the two elements coexist side by side at all times (Rowton 1973a:
201–215; 1973b:247–258; 1974:1–30).

One may further point out that, according to nineteenth-early twentieth
century CE censuses, the nomadic sector numbered about 10–15% of the pop-
ulation and its size increased steadily in proportion to the growth of the entire
population (Bachi 1977:378–381, 392–395; Shmueli 1980:26–56, 73–74; Avneri
1980:13–31; Ben-Arieh 1988:1–14, with earlier literature in n. 1). It is true that,
in other periods, the ratio between the sedentary and the nomadic populations
could have been different. There are, however, indications that the transition
from Middle Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age II was marked by a drastic de-
cline in the population. Bunimovitz suggested that a shortage of manpower
was a major problem for the city-state rulers in the Late Bronze Age, and he re-
garded attempts at territorial expansion as having been motivated by the de-
sire to control larger human resources (Bunimovitz 1989:153–160).24 This is con-
firmed by the remarkable difference in large-scale public works between the
Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze Age. During the Middle Bronze, enormous
ramparts and stone and earth revetments had been built in all cities of Canaan.
These earth, brick and stone constructions required the lengthy conscription of

24. For the relation of the control of human resources and political power, see Marfoe
1979:16–17.

332 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

thousands of workers, and it is clear that the human resources were abundant.
In the Late Bronze, on the other hand, cities either were totally fortified or had
no more than a renovation of the Middle Bronze defense system. The almost
total lack of new fortification projects in Late Bronze Canaan was the direct re-
sult of the shortage of human resources. We may recall that nomads were liable
for public works, at least in return for food and salary. Thus, the lack of fortifi-
cation works supports the claim of a drastic reduction in the overall population
of Canaan — including the nomadic sector — during the Late Bronze Age.

The gradual growth in the number of settlements during Late Bronze Age
II-III may have been due partly to the integration of some nomadic elements
into the Canaanite city-state system (Gonen 1984:61–73; Bunimovitz 1989:75–
100, 167–175). It seems also that the “northern” elements that entered Canaan
in the sixteenth-early fifteenth centuries BCE adopted the local urban culture
and were gradually absorbed by the local population. For this reason, it is dif-
ficult to find distinct Hurrian names in the large corpus of biblical names (de
Vaux 1967:481–503; 1978:83–89, 136–137; Zadok 1985:397; Na’aman 1988:44).
We may conclude that the balance between the urban-rural and nomadic el-
ements was gradually restored; the latter may well have constituted no more
than 10–15% of the overall population of Late Bronze Age II Canaan.

Archaeological indications for nomads in the Late Bronze Age are scanty:
several cemeteries (Gonen 1992:148–149) and a few cultic sites (Finkelstein
1988b:343–344). Some of the shrines, located near urban centers, may have
functioned as part of the urban cult and should not be taken as evidence of the
presence of independent nomadic groups. This is indicated by comparison to
the Akitu temples in Mesopotamia (Falkenstein 1959:147–182; van Driel 1969:
162–165), or the many out-of-town cultic sites in Anatolia (Gurney 1977:35–
43, with earlier literature). The fact that all Late Bronze Age I outdoor temples
on both sides of the Jordan disappered in Late Bronze Age II (Tell Kittan, Tell
el-Ḥayyat, Shiloh and possibly Tel Mevorakh) is remarkable. It is evident that
the cultic sites were gradually abandoned when the nomadic groups either
migrated or settled down. It was only in the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE
that new outdoor temples were built on both sides of the Jordan (Amman, Tell
Deir cAlla, Mount Ebal, the “Bull Site”) indicating the growth of the nomadic
population in the peripheral areas of Canaan at that time. The overall archae-
ological evidence for pastoral groups in Late BronzeAge II Canaan is poor and
supports my suggestion that the ratio between the sedentary and nomadic el-
ements in the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries was somewhat similar to (or, at
least, not very different from) that in the Middle Bronze.

Documents of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries mention various
bands and clans that appear in all areas of Canaan and are called by various
names: Shasu (in Egyptian sources), Sutu (in cuneiform sources) and ‘Apiru

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 333

(Bottéro 1954; Greenberg 1955; Giveon 1971; Weippert 1974:265–280, 427–
433; Na’aman 1986:271–288, with earlier literature in n. 1; Knauf 1988:97–
124). These elements operated on many occasions as independent groups
and sometimes attacked and sacked their neighbors; at other times, they co-
operated with local rulers against their neighbors. Sometimes they became
a real threat to city-state rulers and, therefore, were regarded as enemies of
the Pharaoh and the Egyptian authorities in Canaan. Soldiers recruited from
among them served in the armies of the local kingdoms and played an im-
portant role in internal relations. It must be emphasized that almost all the
groups mentioned in the documents operated in the fertile lowlands, within
the framework of Canaanite kingdoms, and should be regarded as part of the
society of the Late Bronze Age. Bands and displaced individual were grad-
ually reintegrated into the Canaanite urban society, whereas other people
were uprooted and sometimes formed new groups of outlaws (Bottéro 1981:
93–106; Na’aman, 1986:272–273).

To sum up, the overall number of Late Bronze nomads on the periphery of
Palestine is unknown. A rough approximation of about 7,000–10,000 (10–15% of
the overall estimated population) may give some general idea of their size. The
number of nomads increased in the thirteenth century, following the destruc-
tion of Canaanite urban centers, and rose to new heights in the twelfth century
with the destruction of the Late Bronze urban civilization in vast Near Eastern
areas (see below). Thus, there is no way to establish the role of the Late Bronze
II nomads in the settlement process of the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE.

Nomadization and Migration in the Twelfth Century BCE

The settlement in the peripheral areas of Canaan was contemporaneous
with the destruction of the urban culture in the entire Aegean-Anatolian-
Syro-Palestinian region and the migration of large population groups to re-
mote areas. The relationship between these historical processes should be
discussed in detail to clarify their possible effect on the growth of settlement
in Canaan in Iron Age I.

Documentary evidence indicates the appearance of large groups of no-
mads on the boundaries of Mesopotamia in the late twelfth-eleventh cen-
turies BCE. An indication of the situation in Syria and southern Anatolia
after the severe destructions of the twelfth century and the massive mi-
gration that followed appears in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I, king
of Assyria (1114–1076 BCE). Shortly after his ascendance to the throne, he
fought large groups (20,000 people according to his annals) of the “Mushki,”
i.e., the Phrygians, who wandered from the Balkans to the east (Herodotus,
VII 73; see Barnett 1975a:417–442), destroying and despoiling on their way
many settlements all over Anatolia and reaching the borders of Assyria in the

334 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

upper Tigris region. Tiglath-pileser described how he defeated them, cap-
tured 6,000 of their forces and settled them in his kingdom (Grayson 1976:6–
7). In the next year, he fought and defeated groups of the Kashka, a tribal con-
federation that migrated eastward from northern Anatolia, near the Black
Sea, where they had lived for hundreds of years in the time of the Hittite em-
pire (Grayson 1976:9. For the Kashka, see von Schuler 1965.).

In the fourth year of his reign, Tiglath-pileser fought the aḫlamu
Arameans (“the Aramean pastoralists”), who spread along the Euphrates
from the Babylonian northern border up to Carchemish (for the Aḫlamu,
see Brinkman 1968:277, n. 1799, with earlier literature; Zadok 1985:59, 65–67;
1991:104–110). According to his annals, he defeated them and pursued them
up to Mount Bishri in northeast Syria (Grayson 1976:13–14). In his later in-
scriptions, he described his campaign against these nomadic groups (possibly
in his seventeenth year), as follows (Grayson 1976:27):

I have crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the
aḫlamu Arameans. I brought about their defeat from the city of Tadmor of the land of
Amurru, Anat of the land Suḫu, as far as Rapiqu of Karduniash (i.e., Babylon). I brought
their booty (and) possessions to my city Ashur.

The aḫlamu Arameans are never mentioned before the time of Tiglath-
pileser I (although the Aḫlameans appear in fourteenth-thirteenth century
Mesopotamian sources); they suddenly appear at the end of the twelfth cen-
tury in vast Syro-Mesopotamian areas, as far as the coast of Lebanon.

The Arameans are mentioned for the first time in an Assyrian chronicle
that describes the events of years 33–34 of Tiglath-pileser I and also in the in-
scriptions of his son Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BCE). They are referred to in
a Babylonian chronicle, in a passage describing events of the days of Adad-
apla-iddina, king of Babylon (1069–1048 BCE).25 From that time, the Arameans
played an important role in the history of Mesopotamia and Syria. The cam-
paigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings conducted against the Arameans in
the course of the eleventh-tenth centuries BCE did not meet significant suc-
cess, and the two kingdoms gradually ceded vast regions in northern and
southern Mesopotamia. The Arameans settled in the evacuated areas and
started establishing independent kingdoms in Upper Mesopotamia and
along the Middle Euphrates.26 Other Aramean kingdoms were established

25. See the references cited by Neumann and Parpola 1987:178–179. For a historical dis-
cussion, see Brinkman 1968:135–144.

26. See the following discussions: Kupper 1957:115–131; Brinkman 1968:124–155, 267–
268, 387–389; Postgate 1974:233–237; 1985:96–101; Garelli and Nikiprowetzky 1974:54–61,
217–229; Zadok 1985:81–85; 1991:113–117.

The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History 335

in southern Syria and northern Transjordan (Aram Zobah, Aram Damascus,
Tob, Geshur and Maacah). Aramaic toponyms and personal names do not an-
tedate the eleventh century, and it is clear that we are dealing with newly es-
tablished groups that started playing an important role in the history of Syria
and Mesopotamia only from the late second millennium BCE (Zadok 1985:59–
70; 1991:104–117).

The Mesopotamian documents indicate that an enormous population dis-
placement was taking place as a result of the destruction of the urban culture
in vast areas of Hither Asia, and that many thousands of people joined the no-
madic sector in the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE. Other well-documented
migrations of large population groups are known from Mesopotamian and
Egyptian documents (and to a certain extent from Anatolian and Syrian doc-
uments) of the third and second millennia BCE. The best known of these
migrating peoples are the Mardu of the UR III Dynasty (Gelb 1961:29–35;
Buccellati 1966), the West-Semites of the Old Babylonian period (Kupper
1957:261–263; Gelb 1961:34–36; Anbar 1985:177), the Kassites (Landsberger
1954:61–72; Rowton 1976:24–30; Brinkman 1976–80:464–473; Zadok 1987:
16–20), the Hyksos (Albright 1954:222–233; Bietak 1980:93–103; 1984:474–
475, with earlier literature in n. 27; 1991:53–62, with earlier literature), and
the Hurrians in the seventeenth-fifteenth centuries BCE (Draffkorn 1959;
Kupper 1978:117–128; Astour 1978:1–9, with earlier literature; Wilhelm 1982:
9–3; Zadok 1987:21–24). The entry of new ethnic groups into a certain region
is usually indicated by the appearance of personal names of foreign origin,
but sometimes also by distinctive archaeological evidence (e.g., the Khirbet
Kerak people,27 the Hyksos [in Egypt], and the Philistines).

The above-mentioned historical episodes point to a clear shortcoming
in the current theory, which argues that the major processes of downfall
of urban cultures, nomadization of large population groups, and the grad-
ual emergence of new urban cultures had taken place in Canaan in isolation
from other areas of the ancient Near East. The main flaw in this assumption
is the exaggerated reduction in the size of the region affected by these large-
scale events. Within the entire region delimited in the south by the Syro-
Arabian Desert and the Sinai Peninsula, in the west by the Mediterranean, in
the north by the Amanus and Taurus ranges and in the east by the Kurdistan
and Zagros ranges, there are hardly any natural barriers that interrupt close
contacts among its inhabitants (Rowton 1973b:248–249). In normal peaceful
situations, contacts between nomads and urban-rural dwellers were made in

27. For the Khirbet Kerak ware, see Mellaart 1966:73–89; Todd 1973:181–206; Burney
1989:331–339; Yakar 1990:94*–100*.