Canaan in the second millenium bce

36 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

of the king, my lord: ‘Why do you love the cApiru but hate the mayors?’”) and
recounted in detail his version of the garrison’s episode. He further empha-
sized that he had been elevated to the throne of Jerusalem by the interven-
tion of Pharaoh, that he bore Egyptian titles, and that he was a loyal servant
of Pharaoh (Moran 1975:155–156). Thanks to his background, he had former
connections in the Egyptian court. Four of his letters have postscripts ad-
dressed to the royal scribe, asking him to support his case before the Pharaoh.
Finally, he strove to appear before his lord in order to bypass the barrier of
the Egyptian authorities in Canaan (EA 286:39–47; 288:30–32).

The complaints of Abi-Milki of Tyre are associated with the coastal town
of Usu, once in the possession of Tyre and later captured by Zimredda of Sidon
(EA 149:47–53). The conquest severed the island of Tyre from the continent,
depriving it of its sources of water, grain and wood. Abi-Milki of Tyre wrote
again and again to the Pharaoh, asking him to restore his captured town. He
emphasized the severe situation of his city, deliberately using words and im-
ages derived from the Egyptian vocabulary (EA 147:65–66; 148:11–13; 150:14–
21; 151:37–40; 155). He further tried to denounce his enemy, Zimredda, accus-
ing him of conspiring against the king’s land and against the city of Tyre (EA
147:66–69; 148:38–45; 149:57–70; 151:64–67; 152:7–8; 154:11–23). When at last
Abi-Milki of Tyre appeared before the Pharaoh, the latter ordered the res-
toration of the town to Tyre. However, his order was not carried out by the
commissioner, and Abi-Milki of Tyre reported the non-performance of the
command to his lord (EA 155:7–13, 31–46).

Another set of complaints came from the stylus of vassals who operated
against Egyptian interests in Canaan. In an effort to vindicate themselves,
they blamed certain commissioners of slandering them before Pharaoh. The
accused rulers are ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 62:42–49), Aziru (EA 158:20–31; 161:4–
10, 35–46; 171), and Lab’ayu (EA 252:13–16; 254:10–19). Each of the three had
a commissioner who supported him and who was cited as a witness to his in-
nocence. Thus, ‘Abdi-Ashirta was supported by Paḫamnata (EA 60; 135:34–36;
132:41), and Lab’ayu by an unnamed rābiṣu (EA 253:32–35; 254:10–15). Aziru
was supported by Ḫaip, who was accused of treacherous deeds by the mayors
of Byblos and Tyre (EA 131:47–48; 132:42–43; 149:37–40).

Several letters reflect disputes between mayors and commissioners and
the efforts of the former to persuade Pharaoh that they were justified. The
points of disagreement vary: a failure to execute a commissioner’s order (EA
207) and the arbitrary decisions or unlawful deeds of particular commission-
ers (EA 234, 239, 270, 292, 294). Some of these accusations suggest corruption
on the part of Egyptian officials (EA 161:41–46; 270; 292:41–52; 294:16–26).
However, it is difficult to verify accusations, and, in some situations, we can
do no more than present the conflicting claims of the two rivals.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 37

The many charges directed against the Egyptian officials reflect, above
all, the complexity of the situation in Canaan, where so many elements were
involved in the chain of events. The commissioners were caught in the mid-
dle of many local and external powers, and there was no likelihood that their
decisions would be accepted by all parties to the conflicts. The contradictory
positions of officials on various issues, and the denunciations or approval of
their decisions voiced by rival vassals, were the direct result of this situation.
Corruption and incompetence, which are inseparable from any bureaucracy,
were secondary to the basic problems that emanated from the structure and
political culture of Canaan at that time.

Conclusions

The complex nature of the Egyptian-Canaanite relationship sometimes
worked in favor of those who were able to manipulate it and make the most
of their remoteness from the center of government. It enabled some vassals
to expand their territories and strengthen their power. Pharaoh was slow to
react, but once he made up his mind and decided to operate, he was able to
implement his decision with no real opposition. Following such a decision,
‘Abdi-Ashirta was caught and killed, and ṣumur was restored to Egyptian
hands. At roughly the same time, Lab’ayu was caught and killed on his way
to Egypt. On the other hand, when Egypt was less determined, as in the early
years of Akhenaten, some rulers were able to gain power and even dared
to contact a rival empire (i.e., Hatti). The number of internal conflicts in-
creased at that time, in particular in southern Canaan. Again, once Pharaoh
decided to operate and start organizing a campaign to Asia, internal conflicts
abruptly ended. Only the northernmost vassals were able to carry out their
former plans then, though not openly, because they could rely on the power
of another empire (Hatti). Real power was in the hands of Egypt, and its pol-
icy decided the internal affairs in Canaan.

Egypt concentrated on major issues and the exploitation of its province,
ignoring minor episodes that occurred in many parts of Canaan. The lack of
response to so many vassal letters exactly reflects the order of priorities at
the Egyptian court. The perspectives of the ruler of the empire were entirely
different from those of his vassals, and differences of political perspective,
combined with a unique ideology and distinctive cultural tradition, produced
conceptual gaps between the two sides of the correspondence.

Royal letters played a secondary role in the current administration of
Canaan. They were sent infrequently, when it was deemed necessary to em-
phasize the importance of a message. Verbal orders by officials played a cen-
tral role in the administration of the province, but the majority of these re-
main unknown, other than orders to which vassals referred in their letters.

38 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

The Egyptian officials operated at the juncture of two different cultural
and administrative systems. The center of government was in Egypt, and
these officials functioned as Egypt’s ears and eyes and executed its orders.
The province of Canaan was divided among many entities, each with its own
interests and policy. Each city-state had its social structure, economic re-
sources and cultural background. The set of prohibitions incumbent upon the
vassals was oral and subject to different interpretations and political manipu-
lations. The vassals were able to bypass certain officials, either by direct com-
munication with Pharaoh or through the support of other officials. In such a
multicenterd system, with so many players and no strict rules of the game, it
is no wonder that conflicting voices were always heard and that there was no
consensus about the officials and their functioning.

Different officials sometimes implemented their missions in opposite di-
rections. The job of these officials must have been quite difficult, and the let-
ters clearly illustrate the many problems that confronted the Egyptian au-
thorities in Canaan.

Vassals had a direct line of communication to the Pharaoh, but this line
was quite ineffective in view of the Pharaoh’s silence. Ostensibly, they could
appear before him and submit their claims in person. However, there are no
indications that the direct approach was effective. Also, a long absence from
home might have been dangerous, as is evident from letter EA 263, in which
a mayor complains that he was robbed of everything when he appeared be-
fore Pharaoh. The complaints of many vassals that they were unable to leave
their towns to appear before the Pharaoh, on account of external or internal
threats, are quite understandable. Appearance before Pharaoh and the recep-
tion of gifts might bring prestige in external and internal relations, but dip-
lomatically, it was quite ineffective.

What effective channels were open to the vassals? No single channel
could guarantee success, and vassals operated by combining all channels,
but probably with little illusion. The dispatch of tributes and gifts to Pharaoh
and his officials might occasionally have been effective, but there is no con-
crete data to evaluate its effect on decisions. Moreover, this channel was open
to every ruler, and the gift of one could be neutralized by that of his adver-
sary. The situation invited all kinds of manipulations, and reading the letters
makes it clear that some rulers found their way in spite of the many obsta-
cles, whereas others lost their way and paid the full price for their failure.

The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence 39

References

Arnaud, D. 1992. Les ports de la ‘Phénicie’ à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XIV-XIII
siècles) d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30: 179–
194.

Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kamid el-Loz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al. eds. Kāmid el-Lōz
–Kumidi. Bonn: 55–62.

Liverani, M. 1983. Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus
31: 41–56.

Liverani, M. 1990a. A Seasonal Pattern for the Amarna Letters. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard,
J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in
Honor of William L. Moran. (Harvard Semitic Series 37). Atlanta: 337–348.

Liverani, M. 1990b. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100
B.C. Padova.

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

Moran, W.L. 1985. Rib-Hadda: Job at Byblos? In: Kort, A. and Morschauser, S. eds. Biblical
and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Winona Lake: 173–181.

Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Moran, W.L. 1995. Some Reflections on Amarna Politics. In: Zevit, Z. Gitin, S. and Sokoloff,

M. eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor
of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake: 559–572.
Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–
185.
Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters.
UF 20: 179–193.
Na’aman, N. 1990. Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to
Canaan. In: Abusch, T. Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering over Words:
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. (Harvard Semitic
Series 37). Atlanta: 397–405.
Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-Sheva IV). Beer-sheva.
Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and
Hittite Chronology1

I

The Amarna letter EA 45 was sent by Ammishtamru I, king of Ugarit, to
an unnamed Pharaoh. Some scholars dated it to the late years of Amenophis
III (Kitchen 1962:34–35; Klengel 1969:340; Astour 1981:17–19; Drower 1975:
133). Kitchen (1962:34–35, 40) and Astour (1981:17–19; 1989:72) attributed it
to the time of Shuppiluliuma’s “first Syrian foray.” Houwink Ten Cate (1963:
272–273), on the other hand, attributed it to Shuppiluliuma’s “second Syrian
foray,” hence, to the early years of Akhenaten.

The main problem in the discussion of EA 45 is its fragmentary condition.
Knudtzon (1915) restored LUGAL KUR [ḫa-at-te] in lines 22 and 30, a restora-
tion that makes a good sense and was accepted by other scholars.2 Further ad-
vance in the study of the letter was made by Huehnergard [1989 (see index)]
and by Moran (1992:117–118). I believe that some other parts of the letter
may be reasonably restored and that these restorations may contribute to a
better understanding of its contents and a re-evaluation of its place in the in-
ternational relationships of the Amarna period.

In what follows, I shall suggest first a transcription and translation (fol-
lowed by textual notes) for letter EA 45 (except the introductory lines, which
are omitted), and then examine the letter’s place in the Egyptian-Hittite rela-
tions of the 14th century BCE.

12. [x x x ]x-ni-šu-nu ak-š[u-ud-šu-nu]
13. [ù a-k]ánan-na-am a-na-ku [aq-ta-bi-(ma)]
14. [an]-nu-tu4 šu-nu LÚmeš [KUR Amurri?]
15. am-mi-ni-im-ma a-na [KUR Ḫatti? Illiku?]
16. ù u-še-ser9 an-n[u?-tu4? a-na? . . .]
17. ù i-ra-aš-ši x [. . . ù]
18. ad-din-šu-nu-ma a-[na dUTU-ši EN-ia]
19. ù DUMU ši-ip-ri á[š-ta-par? ù]
20. a-na pa-ni DUTU-ši [EN-ia . . .]

1. Reprinted with permission. Aula Orientalis 14 (1996), 251–257.
2. A different opinion was expressed by Liverani 1962:24.

40

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology 41

21. i-na-an-na ad-di[n-šu-nu]
----------------------------------------
22. [ša]-ni-ta5 LUGAL KUR [Ḫatti iš-pur-ma]
23. am-mi-ni-mi [LÚmeš an-nu-tu?]
24. ta-ṣa-bat-mi [ù DUMU ši-ip-ri-šu]
25. iš-pur-ma 2-šu [a-na ia-ši?]
26. ù ki-ia-am iq-[ta-bi a-na KUR Mitanni]
27. ù a-na KUR mi-iṣ-r[i LÚmeš an-nu-tu?]
28. šum-ma-mi tu-še-bá-[al ù a-na-ki-ir-ka]
29. a-nu-um-ma [ÌR] a-[n]a d[UTU-si EN-ia a-na-ku]
------------------------------------------------------------
30. ša-ni-ta5 as-sú-ri-im-[ma LUGAL KUR Ḫatti]
31. it-ti-ia i-na-ki-ir [ . . . dUTU-ši EN-ia]
32. TI.LAmeš ba-la-a-ṭá ša-a [uzuZI-ia ù uzupi-šu?]
33. li-iq-bi TI.LAmeš uzuZ[I-ia ù dUTU-ši EN-ia]
34. lu-ú i-de4-mi šum-ma-mi [i-na-ki-ir KUR Ḫatti]
35. [a-n]a KUR URUu-/ga/–/ri/-[ta . . .]

[. . . they . . .] them for me (and) I ho[ld them]. [And] I myself [said a]s follows: “These
men are the sons [of Amurru?]. Why should [they go] to [the land of Ḫatti?]? So I shall
prepare th[ese? for . . . ] and acquire a [ship? . . . , and] hand them over t[o the Sun, my
lord].” So I am s[ending] a messenger to the Sun, [my lord, and] now [indeed?] I shall
han[d them over].

Moreover, the king of [Ḫatti wrote thus]: “Why do you seize [these men.” And] he sent
[his messenger to me] a second time and he sp[oke] thus: “If you sen[d these men to
Mitanni] or to Egy[pt, then I will turn against you].” Now I am [a servant] to the S[un,
my lord].

Moreover, heaven forbid that [the king of Ḫatti] turn against me. [May the Sun, my
lord, send me] the life of [my spirit and may his mouth] speak the life of [my] spi[rit].
[And] may [the Sun, my lord], know (this): If [Ḫatti shall turn against] Ugar[it . . .

Notes:

Line 12: The signs ak-š[u] are quite clearly seen in Schroeder’s facsimile
(1915:Pl. 17). The first sign in the line is certainly not an [i]n (as suggested by
Knudtzon). Tentatively, it may be read as a [d]u and, thus, restored — (with a
big question mark) — [ir?-(te)?-d]u?-ni-šu-nu (“pursued them for me”).

Lines 14–15: The extradition to Egypt indicates that the men must have
come from one of its vassal kingdoms. Amurru is, therefore, the one possi-
ble candidate for a country whose messengers could have been detained on
their way by the king of Ugarit and extradited to Egypt and whose extradi-
tion could have pushed the king of Ḫatti to utter such violent threats. In this
light, I restore “Ḫatti” as the assumed destination of the Amurrite delega-
tion.

42 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Line 17: The last broken sign may tentatively be read GI[Š] (i.e., a deter-
minative for “ship”).

Lines 23, 27: In place of [an-nu-tu], it is possible to restore [KUR Amurri].
Line 25: The restoration was suggested by Huehnergard 1989:200.
Line 26: Mitanni is the other possible destination for the extradition, as
well as Egypt.
Line 28: The restoration [a-na-ki-ir-ka] is self-evident in view of Ammish-
tamru’s fears, as expressed in line 31.
Line 29: Another instance in which the king of Ugarit expresses his subor-
dination to the Pharaoh appears in letter EA 46:22–26. I suggest restoring the
broken passage thus: “O Sun, my lord: J[ust as] (k[i-ma]) [formerly] my ances-
tors [sent things] and the Sun (was) th[eir] lord (be-li-š[u-nu]), [so] I am a ser-
vant of the Su[n, my lord, and] to the Sun, my lor[d I will send things].” For
the kima . . . kinanna . . . pattern, see CAD K 380b. For the restoration of unūtê
(“things”) in lines 23 and 26, see line 12; for the restoration of the verb šūbulu
(“to send”) at the end of these lines, see line 13.
Assuming that the suggested restorations are acceptable, the following
scenario may be proposed: The ruler of Amurru sent messengers to Ḫatti, and
they were detained by Ammishtamru I of Ugarit. He started organizing their
extradition to Egypt. News of their detention reached the king of Ḫatti, who
then sent two urgent messages to Ammishtamru, warning that he would at-
tack him if the messengers were extradited either to Mitanni or to Egypt. As
a result of these warnings, Ammishtamru became afraid and sent a full report
to the Pharaoh, seeking his help against a possible Hittite assault.

II

What is the date of Ammishtamru’s letter, and under what circumstances
was it written? As noted in the introduction, some scholars dated it immedi-
ately after the Hittite campaign against Mitanni, mentioned in letter EA 75.
As the date and historical background of EA 75 are disputed by scholars, I will
analyse them in some detail.

First to the text of lines 35–42: Of the various attempts to clarify this dif-
ficult passage,3 Moran’s translation (1992:145–146) makes the best sense. My
translation will follow that of Moran, with some minor changes.

May the king be informed that the king of Ḫatti has seized all the countries (KUR.KUR)
(that are) the ‘dwelling (KUŠ = āsibāt) of life’ (TI.TI = balāṭi) of the king of Mitta<ni>.

3. For a survey, see Singer 1990:124-125.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology 43

Behold, the king of Nah<ri>ma [loses?] the land of the Great Kings (LUGAL.LUGAL),
[whereas] ‘Abdi-Ashirta, [the servant] and dog, is tak[ing the land of the king].

For the writing of balāṭu by the logogram TI in Rib-Hadda’s early letters,
see EA 74:15 and 89:14 (sic!). The exceptional writing of balāṭu by TI.TI does
not differ from the exceptional writing of šarrāni by LUGAL.LUGAL. The noun
balāṭu has the double connotation of “life” and “nourishment.”4

The restoration “[loses]” in line 39 is ad sensum. Did the scribe intention-
ally play on the similarity of sounds of the verbs ḫalāqu and leqû? Be that as it
may, the reference to the defeat of the king of Mitanni was deliberately cho-
sen by Rib-Hadda to emphasize the misdeeds of his arch-enemy, ‘Abdi-Ashirta
of Amurru.

What is the date of the Hittite victory over Mitanni mentioned in EA
75? Some scholars erroneously dated it to the early years of Akhenaten.5
However, by the late 60s, Moran isolated a group of letters, all dated to the
time of Aziru, in which Rib-Hadda recalls the campaign conducted by the
Pharaoh’s father (i.e., Amenophis III) against ‘Abdi-Ashirta and urged the
young king to treat Aziru as his father treated ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 108:28–33;
117:21–28; 121:41–44; 131:30–34; 132:12–18; 138:28–34; 362:16–20; note also
116:61–62).6 This point was noted in my Ph.D. dissertation as the safest an-
chor point for dating Rib-Hadda’s letters (and, by inference, many other
Amarna letters).7 The earliest of these letters is EA 108, in which the follow-
ing passage (lines 25–33) appears :

Who are they, the dogs, that they should res[ist] the archers of the king, the Sun? I
wrote to your father (ana abika), and he he[eded] my words, and he sent archers. Was
not ‘Abdi-Ashirta taken to h[im]?

Letter EA 108 was written after the appointment of Yanḫamu as com-
missioner of Ṣumur, when the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta started blockading this
Egyptian garrison city. Also noteworthy are lines 8–10: “Moreover, is it pleas-
ing in the sight of the king, who is like Ba‘al/Haddu and Shamash in the sky,
that. . . .” Evidently, news of the religious reform had not yet arrived, and Rib-
Hadda innocently mentions the classical pair of the storm god and the sun
god. In his later letters, however, only the sun god is mentioned.8

4. For a detailed discussion, see Liverani 1983:51-53; 1990:230–239.
5. Kitchen 1962:26-27, 41; Klengel 1964:71 n. 79; 1969:39, 186–187, 256; Astour 1981:19-
20; Wilhelm and Boese 1987:85-86; Bryce 1989:22-23; Singer 1991:148.
6. Moran 1969:98*; see recently, Moran 1992:xxxv-xxxvi, n. 127.
7. Na’aman 1975:207 (Hebrew); English summary p. xv.
8. See Na’aman 1990:250–252; Galan 1992:289-291. For a late reference to Akhenaten’s
accession, see EA 116:63-64.

44 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Letter EA 104, on the other hand, was still dispatched to Amenophis III.
This is indicated by lines 24–29:

Previously (pānānu), they would take cities of your mayors, and you did nothing. Now
they have driven out your commissioner and taken his cities for themselves.

Rib-Hadda complains about the Egyptian impotence that enabled Pu-
Ba‘lu, the son of ‘Abdi-Ashirta, to conquer the Egyptian garrison city of Ullasa
and drove many coastal towns to cooperate with the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta
(lines 6–13, 30, 40–43). The words “previously, they would take . . . and you
did nothing” were necessarily directed to Amenophis III and do not apply to
his young heir, Akhenaten. It was only after the death of Amenophis III (1353
BCE) that Rib-Hadda made him an example of leadership, urging Akhenaten
to do the same and launch a campaign against Amurru.

Letter EA 106 was probably sent to Akhenaten, as suggested by the king’s
annoyance at the influx of Rib-Hadda’s letters (lines 13–16, 30–32). This is a
distinctive mark of Akhenaten’s messages to Rib-Hadda (note e.g., EA 117:8–
9; 124:35–37), unlike his predecessor, Amenophis III, who showed no annoy-
ance at the flood of letters.9

In lines 16–18 of EA 106, Rib-Hadda wrote as follows: “Look, in my case,
there has been a war against me for five years. Accordingly I keep writing to
my lord.” The reference to five years of hostility may be compared to similar
statements in two of Rib-Hadda’s earlier letters:

(a) “Since he has attacked me three times this year, and for two years I have been re-
peatedly robbed of my grain, we have no grain to eat.” (EA 85:8–11).

(b) “For three years I have been constantly p[lundered] of our grain.” (EA 86:38–39).

Letters EA 85–86 were written immediately after the arrival of the troops
of Mitanni in Amurru (EA 85:51–55; 86:8–12; see below), shortly before the
dispatch of an Egyptian task force to Amurru, to put an end to ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s
reign. It goes without saying that Rib-Hadda’s references to time spans
should not be taken literally.10 Yet the difference of two years between the
events mentioned EA 85–86 and those mentioned in EA 106 fits all the known
data quite well. This is indicated by an analysis of Rib-Hadda’s letters written
in the period between these letters.

9. The different reactions of Amenophis III and Akhenaten to Rib-Hadda’s letters is a
clear indication of their personal involvement (or, at least, of Akhenaten’s involvement) in
the vassal correspondence.

10. The words of EA 85:8–10 show a clear literary pattern, a play on a graduating nu-
merals of three and two.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology 45

The following episodes occurred between the Egyptian campaign against
Amurru (which, as noted above, took place shortly after the dispatch of let-
ters EA 85–86), and the beginning of Akhenaten’s reign (i.e., the writing of
letter EA 106):

(a) The return of the archers to Egypt (EA 105:17–21).
(b) The establishment of ‘Abdi-Ashirta’s sons in Amurru and the resumption

of their offensive (EA 103:8–13; 104:10–13).
(c) The capture of the garrison city of Ullasa by Pu-Ba‘lu, son of ‘Abdi-Ashirta

(EA 104).

We may conclude that the reign of ‘Abdi-Ashirta ended about 1355 BCE.11
Amenophis III lived one or two years more and, when he died, was succeeded
by his son Akhenaten (1353 BCE). Letter EA 75 was doubtless written in the
last years of Amenophis III, as correctly suggested by Campbell in his work on
the chronology of the Amarna letters (Campbell 1964:77–89, 134).

Letter EA 75, together with EA 17, should be dated to an early stage of
the struggle between Ḫatti and Mitanni. Following the loss of some of his
territories (“the king of Ḫatti has seized all the countries . . . of the king of
Mitta<ni>“), the king of Mitanni conducted campaigns to Syria, in an effort
to curb rebellions and to re-establish his power and prestige in the kingdoms
under his rule, reaching southward as far as the land of Amurru (EA 85:51–55;
86:10–12; 90:19–22; 95:27–31; 101:6–10). Evidently, neither Ḫatti nor Mitanni
won a decisive victory at that time. Ḫatti remained a remote power that did
not make a great impression on the Egyptian vassals in Canaan. This is indi-
cated by two letters of Rib-Hadda, in which he draws a negative comparison
between the deeds of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and those of the kings of two great north-
ern powers, Mitanni and Babylonia (EA 76:14–16; 104:17–24), while ignoring
the king of Ḫatti.

Following Shuppiluliuma’s victories over Mitanni in Rib-Hadda’s late
years, the political situation was entirely changed, and Ḫatti won a place of
honor in the great powers’ “club.” This newly acquired prestigious position is
indicated in two letters (EA 116:70–71; 129:74–79), in which the deeds of the
sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta are again compared with those of the kings of the great
powers, including Ḫatti.

11. The dates attributed by Singer (1991:141, 148) for the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and his
sons’ accession must be raised by ten years.

46 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

It remains unclear whether letter EA 75 refers to events in the reign of
Shuppiluliuma, or to the time of his predecessor, when he was commander
of the troops under his father. The Hittite victory mentioned in EA 75 had no
lasting results and was reversed shortly afterward by the campaigns of the
king of Mitanni; thus, it is unlikely that the messengers of Amurru were sent
to Ḫatti on that occasion. Houwink ten Cate (1963:271–273) was correct in dat-
ing letter EA 45 later than EA 17 (and later than EA 75 as well). The episode dis-
cussed in EA 45 is best dated some time after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. For its
historical background, we must look into the reign of Aziru of Amurru.

The treaty concluded between Aziru and Niqmaddu II of Ugarit includes
the following passage (lines 5–19) (Nougayrol 1956:284–286):

The claims of Aziru against Ugarit, those formerly of Niqmepa against Ammishtamru,
those of Ba’luya against Niqmaddu, against ‘Abdi-Ḫebat (and) against Siannu, will not
be in force from the day the oath is sworn. Of all claims, just as the Sun is pure, so
Aziru is clean concerning Niqmaddu and ‘Abdi-Ḫebat, concerning Ugarit and concern-
ing Siannu. Moreover, 5,000 (shekels) of silver are paid to Aziru and he is as clean as
the Sun.

Ba’luya was probably Aziru’s son, who, with his brother Beti-Ili, con-
ducted the affairs of Amurru when Aziru was held in Egypt (EA 170). That
Beti-Ili was Aziru’s son is evident from EA 161:20, where Aziru mentions that
“my brothers and Beti-Ili were at his service” (Izre’el 1991:18). It seems to me
that the two brothers were originally mentioned, together with their father,
in letter EA 165:5–9:

What m[ore should I seek]? I seek [the sweet and] gracious face of the king, my lord. [I
am your servant] forever and [Beti-Ili] and Ba’luya are [yo]ur [servants].12

To judge from EA 170, Ba’luya was the senior of the two brothers, so he
must have sent letter EA 169 (note the references to “your father” in lines
19, 32).13

In letter EA 170, the two brothers report to Aziru of the military cam-
paign of the Hittite general Lupakku and that another general, Zitana, with
90,000 infantrymen, is about to arrive to Nuhašše. If the report of the arrival
of Zitana is verified, “I (i.e., Ba’luya) will send Beti-Ili to him.” Amurru’s dele-

12. For recent treatments of EA 165, see Izre’el 1991:40-43; Moran 1992:252–253. The
facsimile published by Schroeder (VS 11, 1915, Pl. 89) indicates that the lines are longer
than the two scholars assume. The text of lines 6–9 may be restored as follows: (6) pa-
ni LUGAL EN-i[a DÙG.GA-ta ù] (7) ba-nu-ta ú-ba-’-[i a-na-ku ÌR-ka] (8) a-di da-ri-ti ù [mbe-ti-
DINGIR] (9) ù mba-a-lu-ia LÚmeš [ÌR-k]a. For the restoration of line 6, compare EA 164:6.

13. For different suggestions, see Klengel 1964:75 n. 102; 1969:280–281; Izre’el 1991:18.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology 47

gation to the Hittite general would be headed by a senior personage, Beti-Ili,
the son of Aziru.

In this light, we may interpret the above-cited passage from the treaty
of Aziru and Niqmaddu. The claim of Aziru against Niqmaddu of Ugarit and
‘Abdi-Ḫebat of Siannu in reference to Ba’luya probably refers to an episode in
which Aziru’s son was either killed in battle or detained in Siannu and later
extradited by Niqmaddu to Egypt. I believe that the episode of Ammishtamru
I and Niqmepa is the one mentioned in letter EA 45. Niqmepa must have been
Aziru’s brother, who headed a delegation to Ḫatti and, following his deten-
tion, was extradited to Egypt.14 The treaty refers to two members of the fam-
ily of Aziru who suffered from the intervention of the rulers of Ugarit and
Siannu, hence, the compensation of 5,000 shekels of silver that Aziru received
in return for dropping his claims against the two kingdoms.

Dating letter EA 45 is important because it marks the earliest stage in
Amurru’s contacts with Ḫatti. I agree with Singer (1990:124–128) that the
shift in Amurru’s allegiance did not occur before Aziru’s time. The natu-
ral date for the letter is after Shuppiluliuma’s decisive campaign against
Mitanni, a campaign that is mentioned in several Amarna letters.15 This cam-
paign must have taken place not long after the accession of Akhenaten (1353–
1337), as not many years passed between his accession (shortly after the writ-
ing of letter EA 104) and the first explicit mention of the Hittite offensive in
Rib-Hadda’s letter EA 126:51–52 (“<A>nd16 the Hittite troops have indeed set
fire to the countries”). Ammishtamru I must have died shortly afterward and
was succeeded by Niqmaddu II. The latter’s entanglement with Ba‘aluya must
be dated to the late years of Akhenaten, toward the end of the Amarna let-
ters.

As for the chronology of Shuppiluliuma, much depends on our evalua-
tion of letters EA 17 and 75. Scholars who attribute them to an early stage in
the career of Shuppiluliuma should accordingly date his accession to the late
years of Amenophis III. Conversely, those who attribute them to the reign
of Shuppiluliuma’s predecessor should date his accession to the early years

14. Nougayrol (1956:282) suggested that Niqmepa was an older brother of Aziru who
ascended the throne of Amurru after the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. He is perhaps included in
the general denomination “the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.” A similar opinions were expressed by
Houwink ten Cate (1963:273) and by Klengel (1969:204–205). Astour (1989:72), on the other
hand, suggested that “it is more plausible to view Niqmepa not as the successor but the
predecessor of ‘Abdi-Ashirta in the earlier part of the fourteenth century.”

15. See the references in Moran 1992:390, s.v. Ḫatta/i.
16. The sign in question (see Moran 1992:207, n. 8) is probably a ù, whose first part was
omitted due to haplography.

48 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

of Akhenaten. It is clear that the date for Shuppiluliuma’s accession (1344
or 1343 BCE) attributed by Wilhelm and Boese (1987:105–109) and by Bryce
(1989:30) is too low. His offensive against Mitanni took place not many years
after the accession of Akhenaten, so that his accession to the throne pre-
ceded it by, at least, some years. Thus, Shuppiluliuma must have ascended
the throne either in the late years of Amenophis III or in the early years of
his heir, Akhenaten.

References

Astour, M.C. 1981. Ugarit and the Great Powers. In: Young, G.D. ed. Ugarit in Retrospect:
Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Winona Lake: 3–29.

Astour, M.C. 1989. Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age. Partille.
Bryce, T.R. 1989. Some Observations on the Chronology of Šuppiluliuma’s Reign. AnSt 39:

19–30.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Drower, M.S. 1975. Ugarit. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2. 3rd edition. Cambridge:

130–160.
EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II.

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Galán, J.M. 1992. EA 164 and the God Amun. JNES 51: 287–291.
Houwink ten Cate, P.H.J. 1963. Review of K.A. Kitchen. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna

Pharaohs, Liverpool 1962. BiOr 20: 270–277.
Huehnergard, J. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. (Harvard Semitic Studies 34). Atlanta.
Izre’el, S. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study I. (Harvard Semitic Series 40).

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

(Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies). Liverpool.
Klengel, H. 1964. Aziru von Amurru und seine Rolle in der Geschichte der Amarnazeit.

Mitteikungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 10: 57–83.
Klengel. H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyrien,

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

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Liverani, M. 1962. Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici. Rome.
Liverani, M. 1983. Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus

31: 41–56.
Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–

1100 B.C. Padova.
Moran, W.L. 1969. The Death of ‘Abdi-Aširta. Eretz Israel 9: 94*–99*.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz Israel

According to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Na’aman, N. 1990. On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the Amarna Letters. Ugarit-

Forschungen 22: 247–255.

Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and Hittite Chronology 49

Nougayrol, J. 1956. Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des Archives Sud (Archives
Internationales). (Missions de Ras Shamra IX). Paris.

Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der
Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig.

Singer, I. 1990. Aziru’s Apostasy and the Historical Setting of the General’s Letter.
In: Izre’el, S. and Singer, I. The General’s Letter from Ugarit. A Linguistic and Historical
Reevaluation of RS 20.23 (Ugaritica V, No. 20). Tel Aviv: 113–183.

Singer, I. 1991. A Concise History of Amurru. In: Izre’el, S. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic
Study II. (Harvard Semitic Series 41). Atlanta: 134–195.

Wilhelm, G. and Boese, J. 1987. Absolute Chronologie und die hethitische Geschichte
des 15. und 14. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In: Åstrom, P. ed. High, Middle or Low (Acts of
an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of
Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987). Gothenburg: 74–117.

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment1

In the vassal letters from Amarna, the noun dīnu (“verdict, case, claim”)
appears only in the correspondence of Rib-Hadda of Byblos.2 It appears eight
times in reference to the dispute over the property of Rib-Hadda, which has
been seized by Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut, and the appeal to the Pharaoh to in-
tervene and settle the matter (EA 105:34,80; 117:64; 118:13; 119:45; 120:30,39).
An isolated reference appears in letter EA 89 (line 14). Knudtzon read it ú-ul
di-na a-na-ti-šu-nu (“Nicht würden ihre Vergehen gutgeheissen sein”). Ebeling
read it ú-ul ki-na a-na TI-šu-nu, and translated lines 13–14 “O König, sind
meine Worte nicht recht? Wenn der König fur ihr Leben sorgt, so . . .” (Weber
in Knudtzon 1915:1591). In their article on letter EA 89, Albright and Moran
(1950:165) read line 14 ú-ul ki-na a-na-ti-šu-nu (“Their words are not true”),
suggesting a scribal error of na for wa. This interpretation was accepted by
other scholars (Youngblood 1961:322, 330–331; Moran 1992:162; Rainey 1996:
174). However, the sign in Schroeder’s facsimile is definitely di, as Knudtzon
read it. In my opinion, line 14 should be rendered ú-ul di-na a-na TI (balāṭi)-
šu-nu, and translated as a rhetorical question: “Is there no judgment on their
lives?” Rib-Hadda requests that the Pharaoh intervene and punish the mur-
derers.

In what follows I shall analyze the two episodes in an attempt to clar-
ify their course and shed more light on the way the Pharaoh handled the re-
quests when making decisions in political-judicial incidents.

The Coup d’état in Tyre

Letter EA 89 was studied in detail by Albright and Moran (1950:163–168;
see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1178–1181). According to their analysis, the
prince of Tyre married Rib-Hadda’s sister and is described either by the title

1. Reprinted with permission. Revue d’Assyriologie 90 (1996), 145–159.
2. For the publication of the Amarna letters see Knudtzon 1915. The second volume is
a commentary by Weber and glossaries by Ebeling, with additional remarks by Knudtzon.
A facsimile of the texts from Berlin was published by Schroeder 1915. A new translation of
the Amarna letters, with many notes and remarkable progress in the decipherment and
understanding of the letters, was published by Moran 1987. The English translation pub-
lished five years later (1992) is the basis for the translation offered in this article.

50

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 51

“mayor” (ḫazannu) or as “my brother.” His wife and sons were also killed, but
“the daughters were valuable property and, hence, presumably escaped the
massacre.” Rib-Hadda gives his own version of the event and warns the king
against accepting the version emanating from the usurper and his followers.

However, some of their readings and part of the interpretation are not
free of doubts. First, they render lines 22–24 thus: “My sister’s daugh<ter>s (a-
ḫa-<ti>-ia) I had sent to Tyre away from ‘Abdi-Ashirta.” How could Rib-Hadda
send his sister’s daughters from his town to the island of Tyre, the place
where they were born and lived safely, away from ‘Abdi-Ashirta? Second,
in lines 39–42, Rib-Hadda wrote thus: “But if you make inquiry about my
brother, then the city will say: This man is not a mayor! Inquire, O king, about
him!” How should we interpret the city’s claim that the murdered ḫazannu
(who is called “brother,” according to Albright’s and Moran’s interpretation)
is not a mayor?

These difficulties disappear once it is understood that the Tyrians had
murdered both their ruler and his family and Rib-Hadda’s brother, who was
staying then in the town. The former is called by the title ḫazannu and once
(line 33) by the appellation aḫu (a ruler of equal status; see EA 92:44; 106:15,20;
137:13); the latter is called by the familial affiliation aḫu (lines 13,22,39). Line
22 should not be corrected (as did Knudtzon and his followers), but read a-ḫa-
ia (“my brother”). The misunderstanding of the text is due to the use of the
noun aḫu in two different meanings and by the omission of the sign u (“and”)
in lines 13 and 22. Indeed, there is a relatively large number of small errors in
this letter, as will be apparent from the rendering of the text.

Following is a new translation of the letter (except the introduction) and
a commentary. These will be followed by an analysis of the letter and the pre-
sumed reaction of the Pharaoh to the act of usurpation.

(7–17) [Though] I keep writing like this [to the pal]ace, my words are not [taken to
he]art, and they go utterly un[hee]ded. Look at the deed in Tyre. On this account I am
afraid. Even now the king makes no inquiry about his mayor <and> my brother. May
the king h<eed> my words. Is there no judgment on their lives? If the king makes in-
quiry, we will devote ourselves to your service.

(17–32) I made connubium with Tyre; they were on good terms with me. Behold, they
have killed their mayor, together with my sister and her sons <and> daughters. I had
sent my brother to Ty[re], away from ‘Abdi-A[shirta, and they killed] him alo[ng with . . .
If the king remains silent about my brother, then all lands will be joined to the ‘Apiru??.
But if] the king [makes inquiry about my brother], then all lands [will be joined to the
king, my lord].

(33–39) Will the king not [make inquiry] about [my] brother, [for] the <c>ity (<U>RU)
[is] without a g[rown heir] (e[ṭ-lu]). [Indeed], he sent again and again to the king, [but
h]is words went unheeded. And so he died. I know it!

52 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

(39–43) But if you make inquiry about my brother, then the city will say: “This man is
not the mayor. Inquire, O King, about him. We are unable to do anything.” And they
are afraid of me!

(44–59) Will the king not make inquiry about the mayor of Tyre? For his property is as
great as the sea. I know it! Look, there is no mayor’s residence like that of the residence
in Tyre. It is like the residence in Ugarit. Exceedingly great is the wealth in it. May the
king heed [the word]s of <his> servant. May he send [P]N? that he will stay [in the l]and,

and [appoint a man] ([šu-ku-un LÚ]) for the office of mayor (a-na ḫa-za-nu-ti). May [no]

property be handed [over to] them.

(59–63) Also [make inquiry? about the com]missioner of the king. He is t[aking fr]om
the king [the property] of the lands [of the king]. I know <it>!

(63–67) Does the king approve [that ‘Abdi-A]shirta has taken the sea [in] front of them,
and so they are at peace? May the king [ter]rify them! Do I not continue to write about
<the>ir crime to the king?

Notes to the text:

Line 14: The subject of the plural pronoun -šunu is the mayor of Byblos
and Rib-Hadda’s brother mentioned in line 13.

Line 25: It is possible that some other members of the brother’s family
have been killed and were listed after qa[du].

Lines 26–32: The long restoration, which is naturally quite uncertain, is
based partly on the similarity in structure to lines 33–43 and partly on the
stock of phrases repeated many times in the letters of Rib-Hadda.

Line 33: To judge from Schroeder’s facsimile, it is possible that the signs a-
ḫi are written over an erased ḫa-za.

Lines 34–35: I restore [ù i-ba-ša-at] URU i-na ba-li e[ṭ-lu ù]. The URU sign
was mistakenly written without the first vertical wedge (compare the URU
sign in line 41). For ibaššat in reference to a town, see EA 84:38; 105:10; 116:
9,20. The noun eṭlu appears in another letter of Byblos (EA 74:26) and was dis-
cussed by Moran in his edition (1992:144, note 7; cf. EA 29:154). It refers in the
Amarna letters to a young man, who is grown up and able to sit on the throne
(see Moran’s note 1 to EA 17), like ta/erd/tennu in the texts of Nuzi, Ugarit and
Ḫattusha (see Wilhelm 1970:277–282).

Lines 54–57: For the restoration, see EA 107:11–24. The two texts deal
with a similar situation, the appointment of someone to a vacant post. In let-
ter EA 107, Rib-Hadda advises the Pharaoh about the nomination of a com-
missioner in Ṣumur: “May miḫripita (i.e., the archer-commander) stay (yizziz)
in Ṣumur . . . and then . . . appoint (šukun) as its commissioner someone re-
spected by the king’s mayors.” For the verb šakānu in reference to nomina-
tion to the office of mayor, see EA 161:51–53.

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 53

The plural noun “mayors” (ḫazannūti) is consistently preceded in the
Amarna letters by LÚMEŠ.3 Only two references lack it (EA 89:57; 124:22), and
they refer to the office of mayor (ḫazannūtu; CAD Ḫ 165b–166a). The passage
in EA 124:20–22 is broken, but may be restored thus: “Who is t[his fellow, ser-
vant (and) dog], that he has taken the ci[ties of the king for himself], and
[has cancelled?] the mayorship?” Moran translated “and (even) mayor[s has
killed].” But Aziru is never accused by Rib-Hadda of killing mayors. The accu-
sation appears only in the letters of Ili-rapih, Rib-Hadda’s brother and heir
to the throne of Byblos, who deceitfully attributed to Aziru some misdeeds of
his father, ‘Abdi-Ashirta (EA 139–12–15; 140:10–12).

Lines 59–62: The corrupt mayor is probably Paḫamnata, the commis-
sioner of Ṣumur, who supported ‘Abdi-Ashirta and whom Rib-Hadda accused
of treacherous deeds (see EA 131:34–36; 132:41).

Lines 63–67: The translation and restoration follow Moran’s edition.

Letter EA 89 is well constructed and Rib-Hadda’s case is clearly stated. He
opens with a general account of the event, asking for an inquiry and judg-
ment. He then goes into details and relates how many members of the royal
families of Tyre and Byblos have been killed. Investigation and punishment
are necessary, because if the murder is left unpunished, more towns may fol-
low the example and attack their mayors (compare EA 73:23–33; 74:25–29; 75:
25–34).

Of the following three passages, the first and second discuss the possi-
ble results of two opposite reactions of the Pharaoh: if he does not hold an
inquiry, and if he does hold one. The first refers to the situation in Tyre,
which is left without a grown heir; the second describes the embarrass-
ment of the city, in view of the murder of a foreign prince and its fear of
Rib-Hadda’s vengeance. In the third passage, Rib-Hadda alludes to what
the Pharaoh may gain from an intervention in the succession. He em-
phasizes the wealth of the ruler of Tyre, whose residence is “like the res-
idence of Ugarit,” and calls on the Pharaoh to instruct his officer to come

3. Izre’el (1991:118–119) suggested that the final vowel i in LÚMEŠ ḫa-za-nu-ú-ti (EA 162:
13) marks a singular ending. In this light, he translates lines 12–13 as follows: “He was
staying in Sidon, and you have appointed him mayor (lit. you have given him to mayor-
alty) at your initiative.” However, in the next line the Pharaoh wrote thus: “Were you igno-
rant of the treacherousness of the men.” “The men” (LÚMEŠ) doubtless refer back to LÚMEŠ
ḫazannūti, indicating that it is a plural form. Also, an accusation of Aziru of actually ap-
pointing somebody as mayor is unlikely. It is evident that the distinction between plural
and singular forms of the noun, established by Izre’el for the Amurru Akkadian, is not ap-
plicable to Egyptian Akkadian.

54 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

to Tyre and set a new king on the vacant throne. Citizens who killed their
lord should neither enthrone their own candidate nor gain any profit from
their crime.

The last two paragraphs are directed against his arch-enemy, ‘Abdi-
Ashirta of Amurru, and against his supporter, the commissioner of Ṣumur.
Rib-Hadda creates an artificial link between the citizens of Tyre and ‘Abdi-
Ashirta by suggesting that they enjoy his misdeeds and closes the letter with
a reminder of their crime.

At the center of the letter is Rib-Hadda’s plea for judgment on the mur-
derers, who must have been his political opponents. His letter has a distinct
political aspect, namely, a request to promote some other candidate than the
one suggested by the conspirators.

The title ḫazannu (“mayor”), by which the local Canaanite rulers are called
in the correspondence, lacks the concepts of dynasty and succession. There
was only one king, the Pharaoh, and according to Egyptian ideology, he could
nominate his own candidate for every vacant throne. In reality, the dynas-
tic principle was kept in almost every instance, and the Pharaoh would have
confirmed the succession of the heir to the throne. Only in exceptional cases
would the Pharaoh intervene and nominate (through his officials in Canaan)
his own candidate. Such was the situation after the Egyptian campaign to
Amurru and the death of ‘Abdi-Ashirta. His heir, Aziru, appeared with his
brothers in Damascus before the Egyptian authorities (EA 107:26–28). Only
after negotiations and an agreement, which included the dispatch of his two
sons as hostages to Egypt (EA 156), and the nomination of Yanḫamu to su-
pervise his actions from Ṣumur (EA 157; 171), was Aziru able to occupy his fa-
ther’s throne. His recognition as mayor is expressed in one of his letters (EA
161:51–53): “But this is the land of my lord, and the king, my lord, made me
(iškunanni) one of the mayors.” His rival, Rib-Hadda, describes the nomina-
tion in negative terms (EA 103:8–10): “The war of the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta
against me is harsh. They have entered (the throne) of Amurru, and the en-
tire country is theirs.” (For this interpretation of erēbu, see EA 286:13; 316:20;
cf. EA 102:11).

Another example of Egyptian intervention in an unusual succession is re-
flected in letter EA 220. The writer’s father was killed when the city was at-
tacked, and he anxiously awaited the arrival of a commissioner to examine
the case and decide whether to approve his reign. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, the mayor of
Jerusalem, spent his youth in Egypt and was nominated by the Pharaoh, pos-
sibly when circumstances invited a royal intervention in the succession to
the throne (Moran 1975:165–166).

What was the Pharaoh’s reaction to the crisis of succession in Tyre? It
seems to me that the murdered king was [. . .]-DI.KUD, the author of let-

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 55

ter EA 295,4 and that his successor was Abi-Milki of Tyre, the author of let-
ters EA 146–155 (Na’aman 1979:673–676). Indeed, in several letters Abi-Milki
of Tyre emphasizes that he was nominated by a Pharaoh. For example: “My
presence will be as pleasing to the king, my lord, as when the king, my lord,
charged me (ipqidni) with guarding his city” (EA 148:18–22; compare 149:9–
10; 151:6–7; 155:49–51). Abi-Milki of Tyre was a scion of the reigning dynasty
of Tyre (EA 150:34–37),5 and his enthronement took place under Amenophis
III (EA 147:57–60).6 He designates himself by two Egyptian titles: rābiṣu (EA
149:14, 47–48) and “soldier” (EA 149:21; 151:69). Moreover, some of his let-
ters, in particular EA 147, show an Egyptian influence in their vocabulary
and phraseology.7 It may be assumed that Abi-Milki of Tyre was raised in
Egypt, possibly as a hostage (compare EA 156:9–12; 198:27–29; 254:30–35; 296:
23–29), and that, following the murder of the ruler of Tyre, was selected by
Amenophis III and nominated as the city’s mayor. How much he paid for that
from his property, which, according to Rib-Hadda, was “as great as the sea,”
remains unknown. We may also assume that the murderers were punished,
though this cannot be verified. Rib-Hadda’s requested “judgment on their
lives” must have been carried out, and so he got his revenge for the murder
of his relatives.

4. Letter EA 295 possibly refers to the conquest of the town of Usu by Yab[ni- . . . ],
Zimredda’s predecessor on the throne of Sidon. Lines 12–18 may tentatively be restored
thus: “May the king, [my] lord, be i[nformed] of the de[ed that] Yab[ni- . . . , the ruler of
S]idon [d]id to me. W[hen he plotte]d ( i]-[nu-ma i-la-mi-n]a) evi[l, he . . . ] and attacked [the
town of Usu?] along with Ka[lbu, the ruler of Hazor??], along with his brothers [ . . . ].” For
the association of the rulers of Sidon and Hazor, see EA 148:38–44.

5. EA 150 is, in my opinion, Abi-Milki of Tyre’s earliest letter and was sent to King
Amenophis III. It was written shortly after his enthronement, when the Pharaoh sent him
soldiers to guard the city (lines 4–7). In his late letters, on the other hand, Abi-Milki of Tyre
keeps complaining about the absence of the Egyptian military. Lines 33–37 may tentatively
be translated thus: “From the ti[me?] (i-na tar-[ṣi?]) [of P]N? [he br]ought trees. It is much,
O king, my lord, (what) you gave (in return) [t]o my fathers, [un]til my fathers br[ou]ght
across the c[ity’s] gods before the king, my lord.” Provided that the (highly tentative) res-
toration of line 31 is correct, it may be compared with EA 224, in which the author (Shum-
Adda of Shamḫuna) mentions Kusuna, one of his forefathers, in reference to a grain tax.

6. In letter EA 147:57–60 Abi-Milki of Tyre writes thus: “I indeed said to the Sun, the fa-
ther of the king, my lord, ‘When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?’“ For the date of
EA 150, see note 5.

7. For the Egyptian influence on Abi-Milki of Tyre’s letters, see Albright 1937:190–203;
Grave 1982:161–183. For a different opinion, see Gevirtz 1973:176–177; cf. Moran 1975:157,
n. 3.

56 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Royal Judgment on Confiscation of Two Ships

Early in the period covered by the Amarna letters, the relationship of
Rib-Hadda with Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut was ordinary, though certainly not
cordial. Rib-Hadda sometimes complained about the collaboration between
Yapaḫ-Hadda and ‘Abdi-Ashirta and his followers (EA 83:24–26; 85:41–43). In
other letters, he accused the mayors of some coastal cities, including Beirut,
of disobeying the orders of the Egyptian authorities (EA 92:30–41; 101:20–25;
103:16–19; 106:18–21; 114:10–13). Following the dispute over the cargo of two
Byblian ships, the relationship grew into open enmity and did not change
until the dispute was settled. Shortly afterward, Yapaḫ-Hadda died and was
replaced by Ammunira. The latter became Rib-Hadda’s closest ally, with
whom he formed an alliance and in whose city he stayed after his throne was
usurped by his brother (EA 136–138).

What was the background of the dispute, and how did it develop? The
main obstacle to the discussion is the documentation. We have only the let-
ters of Rib-Hadda, who is notorious for his biased accounts of events and the
extremely one-sided picture he paints. A critical approach to Rib-Hadda’s let-
ters, as well as inferences drawn from other sources, are necessary to clarify
the background of the episode and to reconstruct the chain of events.

To introduce the discussion, I will translate sections of two letters in
which Rib-Hadda describes the early stages of the episode.

(A) Letter EA 105 was written some time after Yanḫamu was nominated
to replace the former dead commissioner of Ṣumur (EA 102; 106:21–22, 35–40;
107:11–24). Upon his arrival at Ṣumur, he ordered some neighboring rulers to
send their ships to the place. In the first part of EA 105:5–31, Rib-Hadda an-
swers that he is unable to get there, because of the blockade imposed by the
sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta and the ships of Arwada. A similar excuse appears in a
contemporary letter sent by Yapaḫ-Hadda of Beirut to Yanḫamu (EA 98).

The second part of the letter is partly broken. Following is a translation of
and comments on its text.

(31–45) Yapaḫ-Hadda is at war with me because of [my] property in his possession. Let
us put the case before Amman-m[a]di?, and DUMU-biḫa, and before Yanḫamu, for they
are the ones who know what is my due concerning m[y . . .]. Because my property in
his possession is considerable, therefore he has waged war against me. When I heard
[abo]ut Ullasa, I indeed sent [an offici]al? ([LÚGA]L?-mi to him, but he has [p]lundere[d]
[two] of m[y] sh[ips] ([UGU? 2 GIŠ]M[Á]-i[a]) and too[k t]hei[r property (la-q[a]-a [mi-im-
mi š]a-a-[š]u-ni). He has wa[ged war agai]nst me.

(46–78 broken)

(79–88 [May] the k[ing sen]d [a commissioner that w]e may put the case be[fore him].
May [an]y property of mine in his possession be taken for the king, and let the faith-
ful servant live for the king. The Egyptians who got out of Ullasa are now with me, but

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 57

there is no [gr]ain for them to eat. Yapaḫ-Hadda does not let my ships [in]to Yarimuta,
and I cannot send them to Ṣumur because of the ships of Arwada. Look, he says, “Rib-
[Hadda] ca[me forth?] (a-[ṣa/i]); [he t]ook it.” And so [he is at war?] against me.

Notes to the text:

Lines 34–35: The three commissioners were perhaps known for their sup-
port of Rib-Hadda. He did not mention Ḫaip, one of the commissioners of
Ṣumur, who supported Aziru, his main adversary.

Lines 40–41, 84–85: Ullasa was an Egyptian garrison city that was taken
by Pu-Ba‘lu, Aziru’s brother (EA 104; 109:12–15, 44–50). The Egyptians who
stayed in the town moved temporarily to Byblos, whose ruler was responsi-
ble for their supplies.

Lines 40–42: Rib-Hadda emphasizes his loyalty, as opposed to the disloy-
alty of his opponent, by noting that upon hearing of the fall of Ullasa, he tried
to cooperate with an Egyptian commissioner, whereas Yapaḫ-Hadda took ad-
vantage of the situation and plundered his ships.

Line 43: Half of the MÁ sign is clearly seen in Schroeder’s facsimile. The
restoration 2 elippātiya is supported by the parallel to EA 113:14 and by the ap-
pearance of the dual personal pronoun ša-a-šu-ni (see Moran 1973:50–53).

Line 79: The restoration is supported by EA 113:17; 117:66.
Lines 81–82: Compare EA 113:19–21; 117:67–69.
Line 88: The restoration is ad sensum. I assume that the episode is con-
cluded with words similar to those with which it opened, and restores [(i-ti-
pu-uš) nu-KÚR] at the end (compare lines 31–32, 39–40, 45).

(B) Letter EA 113 is the second of a two-tablet letter. It may have been sent
not long after EA 105. Only the relevant passage (lines 11–23) is translated here.

What have I done to Yapaḫ-Hadda that he plo[ts] evil upon evil against m[e]? Indeed,
he has plundered two of my ships, and my flocks and my property in his possession are
very great. May the king [se]nd his commissioner [to de]cide between the two of you.
[Everything] that [is ta]ken from him [belongs to the king]. [He (the commissioner)
should inquire] concerning [my] property [that] is in [his] possession, [and concern-
ing my? captured?] men. [I]f? ([šum-m]a?) Rib-Hadda [remains silent?, then] [all (of it)]
will be s[old] to the ‘Apiru. But there is no one who [can ta]ke anything belonging to
him from my [hand].

Notes to the text:

Lines 20–21: The restoration [a-na LUGAL] is supported by EA 105:82 and
117:69 and by the dual personal pronoun in line 18.

58 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Lines 21–26: Moran’s translation runs thus: “Concerning [my] property
[that] is in [his] possession [he should inquire of] my [me]n . . . [. . . fr]om Rib-
Hadda [and] for the ‘Apiru has [all of it] be[en acquired].”

A detailed list of the seized “things” (unūtē) appears in letter EA 120:1–23.
The preciseness of the list shows that the cargo of the two ships was recorded
before they sailed. Moran translated line 19 “All of them pertain to [. . .],” and
suggested that it may be a summary remark. In this light, the lacuna may be
restored [GIŠMÁ], “. . . pertain to one [ship].” Of special interest is the note ap-
pended at the end of the list of “things” (lines 22–23): “90–100 maidservants
(and) manservants are missing.”8 In view of this, it may be suggested that one
ship (lines 1–19) carried only merchandise and the other (lines 20–23) carried
servants and some goods.

After the publication of Knudtzon’s edition and Weber’s analysis, in 1915,
the episode of the plunder of the two ships was never discussed in detail, and
the list of goods is missing from all investigations of the trade in the eastern
Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. The ships must have sailed to Egypt or
to Cyprus and stopped on their way in Beirut. The cargo list may be compared
with that found in the wrecks from Cape Calidonia and Ulan Burun. It illus-
trates the craft and metallurgy of Byblos and its exports in the 14th century
BCE, but investigation in these directions is beyond the scope of this article.

Rib-Hadda’s description of the episode makes little sense. He does not ex-
plain either why Yapaḫ-Hadda suddenly plundered his ships or why the com-
missioners refused to intervene on his behalf. His words “because my prop-
erty in his possession is considerable, he has accordingly waged war against
me” (lines 38–40) do not make sense. Moreover, his immediate willingness
to transfer his property to the Pharaoh does not suit an incident of piracy.
His request for arbitration and judgment also indicates that something other
than piracy is involved in this case.

Yapaḫ-Hadda’s ostensible explanation of the blockade is cited at the end
of letter EA 105: “Rib-[Hadda] ca[me forth?]; [he t]ook it.” The subject of “it”
is intentionally obscure. Yapaḫ-Hadda must have been afraid that Rib-Hadda
would retaliate, and in self-defense cooperated with Aziru, Rib-Hadda’s arch-
enemy.

What could have been the reason for Yapaḫ-Hadda’s aggression? I think
that it was his reaction to an unpaid debt that Byblos owed his city. Beirut
acted as an intermediary in the transport of grain from the land of Yarimuta
to Byblos and Ṣumur. Indeed, following its conflict with Beirut, there was

8. A different translation was suggested by Moran 1992:119–200, note 12.

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 59

a severe shortage of grain in Byblos. Note, for example, EA 114:54–59,
“Previously, my peasantry got provisions from the land of Yarimuta, but now
Yapaḫ-Hadda does not allow them out” (compare EA 105:83–87). Letter EA 98
further illustrates the role of Beirut in the transportation of grain. Yanḫamu,
the Egyptian commissioner, ordered Yapaḫ-Hadda to bring grain to Ṣumur.
The latter answered that Aziru stationed ships of Arwada south of Ṣumur, “so
grain cannot be brought into Ṣumur.”

A passage in letter EA 85:23–30 may further support this assumption.
Although it is broken, it may be restored with the help of a parallel passage
(EA 86:14–22). Letter EA 85 was sent to the Pharaoh, and EA 86 was sent, at
the same time, to the Egyptian officer Amanappa. The two passages are trans-
lated one after the other, so that the similarity of vocabulary and contents is
apparent immediately.

EA 85:25–30: As to Yanḫamu having said: “I [ga]ve grain to Rib-Hadda,” [I ga]ve him [a ser-
vant, and da-x-x an]d skins of . . . (KUŠ\ḫu-ta-ri-ma). [And] 40 men [consumed?] the grain.
W[ha]t did he give m<e>? And indeed, I deposited their money with Yapaḫ-Hadda.

EA 86:14–22: Be[hold], you have [ind]eed said: “Yanḫamu sent yo[u] grain.” Have not
you heard? I g[ave h]im a servant, and d[a-x-x and] skins for his [. . .]. There are not
ma[ny? troop]s? and not m[uch gold? and s]ilver in [my land]. (la ra-b[a-(a) ERÍNḪI.]A? ù la
m[a-id KÙ.GI? u K]Ù.BABBARMEŠ iš-t[u KUR-ia]).

The source of the grain brought from the land of Yarimuta9 was proba-
bly the Pharaonic lands in the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys (Na’aman 1988:
177–185; Liverani 1990:238–239). The transport was organized by an Egyptian
commissioner and sent northward by Canaanite ships via the port of Acco.
Formerly, it was brought to the Egyptian garrison city of Ṣumur, and a cer-
tain amount of the grain was sold to Byblos (and possibly to other coastal
towns) (EA 85:33–39; 86:31–37). When Ṣumur was conquered by ‘Abdi-Ashirta,
the grain was shipped directly to Byblos. The transport under discussion was
brought to Byblos by the ships of Beirut. Rib-Hadda gave certain gifts to
Yanḫamu, who organized the transport, and paid for the grain to Yapaḫ-
Hadda of Beirut, who must have paid earlier for the delivered grain. Rib-
Hadda got his money back from his citizens.

The price of grain must have been quite high at this time, and Rib-Hadda
kept complaining that “our sons and daughters and the furnishings of the

9. For the land of Yarimuta, see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1153, 1159; Helck 1971:253, n.
48; Pintore 1972:114–115. Yarimuta is probably a name for a large area in northern Palestine
and may be identified with the mount/land of Yarmuta, mentioned in Seti I’s stela of Beth-
shean (Wilson 1969:255). Its name possibly survived in the biblical toponym Jarmuth in the
inheritance of Issachar (Josh. 21:29).

60 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

house are gone, being sold in the land of Yarimuta for our provisions to keep
us alive” (EA 75:11–14; compare 74:15–18; 81:38–41; 85:12–15; 90:36–39). It is
evident that some peasants were even forced to give their wives and children
in payment of their debt for the purchased grain. This may explain the large
number of servants mentioned in letter EA 120 (and the large number of per-
sons sent from Canaan to Egypt, according to the Amarna letters) (Dossin
1934:132–133; Na’aman 1981:176–177). In the face of the grave situation, Rib-
Hadda was unable (or unwilling) to pay his debt to Yapaḫ-Hadda. The latter
responded by confiscating two Byblian ships anchored in his harbor, an act
that touched off the conflict between the two neighboring rulers.

This reconstruction, admittedly hypothetical, fits all the known data of
the episode well. It explains why the commissioners refused to intervene in
the dispute and why Rib-Hadda was willing to transfer the confiscated goods
to the Pharaoh. His position was weak, and to regain part of his property, he
was willing to make far-reaching concessions.

Rib-Hadda’s next letters reflect his failure to regain his property. EA 114:
15–17, 54–59 reiterates what had already been said in letters 105 and 113.
In letter EA 116:25–36, he resumes his request for a judicial decision by offi-
cials sent from Egypt. “May what is due to me [be gi]ven; it is very much . . .
If the king gives (it) to his servant, well and good! Or, on the other hand, let
the king take everything for himself ” (lines 28–29, 34–36). The same request
is repeated in letter 118:13–20. It is clear that Rib-Hadda, believing that the
Pharaoh was interested in obtaining his share of the confiscated property, did
not lose hope of regaining part of his property.

Letter EA 117 marks a change in Rib-Hadda’s diplomatic efforts. “I have
litigation with Yapaḫ-Hadda and Ḫa<ip>. May the king send a com[missioner
to] decide between us. Everything that is taken from them belongs to the
king. Let no one else take it for himself. May it please the king” (lines 64–71).
Ḫaip is one of the commissioners of Ṣumur who must have supported Yapaḫ-
Hadda or even decided the case in his favor. The court official who would
come from Egypt is asked to decide against the mayor of Beirut and the com-
missioner of Ṣumur. In view of this development, Rib-Hadda gave up all hopes
for regaining of his property and fought only for justification. The property is
due to the Pharaoh, provided the case was decided in his favor.

His new diplomatic line is clearly expressed in letter EA 119. “Now this
case (dīnu) is a case concerning my justice (dīn kittiya), which I have declared.
All (my) property — may the king, my lord, take [everything] for himself ”
(lines 44–49).

10. The restoration was suggested by Bonkamp 1939: 274, n. 1.

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 61

The arrival of ‘Abdi-Hadda, the Egyptian official who was to hear and de-
cide the case, is discussed in letters EA 119 and 120. To persuade him to de-
cide the case in his favor, Rib-Hadda put the following proposal (EA 119:49–
51): “[Bu]t my lord may give the small [things]10 to ‘Abdi-Hadda, for this is not
to be taken ( ù annû la laqê).”

At this stage, upon the arrival of the royal messenger, Rib-Hadda prepared
a detailed list of his things that were in Yapaḫ-Hadda’s possession (EA 119:55–
59; 120:1–23). The messenger was also sent to handle the sending of an un-
named woman, with her belongings, to Egypt (EA 120:23–37).

Lines 22–31 of EA 120 are badly broken, but may tentatively be restored
thus:

22 90 me SALÌRMEŠ ÌRMEŠ
23 ia-nu /i/-na pa-nu-te UR-ši-[n]a?
24 /at/-te-[e]r yi-tu-ra-na-ši
24 ù li-qi[t]ḪI.A NITAMEŠ
26 1 me KÙ.GI [ù?] la?-q[a?-(a)]
27 ḫa-ba-lu-ma zi-[ka?-re? ù/qa-du??]
28 a-ḫu-še [mIa-pa-dIM? ù]
29 dan-na u ia-nu [LÚ]
30 ša-a yi-pu-šu d[i-nu]
31 it-ta-šu mÌR-dIM [DUMU]

Notes to the transcription:

Line 23: The reading UR (bašta)-ši-[n]a was suggested by Bonkamp (1939:
275). An alternative reading is UR (bašta) S[I]G5 (damqa), “dignified (and)
good-looking (girl).”

Line 24: Bonkamp collated the tablet in 1900, and, in his book (1939:275,
n. 1), he read the third sign as [L]Ú, noting that “Die Niederschrift, die ich
mir damals anfertigte, zeigt ausser den Querkeilen besonders noch die drei
Senkrechten . . .” His observation supports my suggestion to read an ir sign.
For the verbal form attēr, see EA 148:36; 149:13, 31, 72.

Line 25: The mistaken verbal form yitūrāna is probably due to a conflation
of the verbal forms yitūra and yitūrūna.

Lines 26–27: Compare EA 254:16–17 yikalu karṣiya ḫabalūma (“He de-
nounces me unjustly”). See Moran 1992:307, n. 2.

Lines 27–28: The restoration is ad sensum. In letter EA 116, Rib-Hadda com-
plained of Yapaḫ-Hadda’s treatment to his messenger (lines 27–28): “when
my man arrived, he bound him.”

Line 31: As Bin-azimi played no part in the negotiations, I assume that he
was the father of ‘Abdi-Hadda.

62 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Translation of lines 22–39:

90–100 maidservants (and) manservants are missing. Beforehand, I ordered the return
of the best-looking among them, to bring her back. And the gif[t]s of the men is one
hundred (shekels) of gold. [But Yapaḫ-Hadda] to[ok] unjustly the m[en, including?] her
brother, [and] he is powerful, and there is no [one] who will bring a c[ase] against him.
The king sent ‘Abdi-Hadda [son of] Bin-azimi to fetch her, that she will enter service
(tidaggalu pāna). And to ‘Abdi-Hadda the king said, “Send her things to her.” And the
king should know (y[i]-di), upon hearing [the case], no decision was announced.

The connection between the best-looking (or, dignified and good-looking) girl
and “her things” to the episode needs explaining. It seems to me that the girl was
selected as a means by which Rib-Hadda’s property, now in the hands of Yapaḫ-
Hadda, would be delivered to the Pharaoh. Moran (1992:200, n. 13) noted the re-
semblance of this episode to the royal letter EA 99, in which an unknown vassal
was ordered to prepare his daughter for the king. Along with the girl he was to
send her contributions: 20 first-class slaves, silver, chariots, and first-class horses.
The list of objects prepared by Rib-Hadda has exactly the same function: bride-
price (terḫatu) sent by Rib-Hadda with the girl, who is to enter the royal harem.

There was one obstacle to the execution of the plan: the judicial case
had not yet been decided. This is what Rib-Hadda states in line 37–39. There
should be an official hearing and a royal decision in his favor, and only then
can the girl and the property be sent to Egypt.

This is the last reference to the case in the correspondence of Rib-Hadda.
Obviously, the royal judgment was in his favor and so he obtained the justice
which, as he asserted, was the object of his efforts. He made the most of his
lost property: he gained the favor of the Pharaoh as a loyal vassal who sent
him a girl with a rich dowry (compare EA 99:16–20).

But the case did not end there. Yapaḫ-Hadda died shortly after the royal
decision and was replaced by Ammunira. In a letter sent to the Pharaoh, the
new mayor wrote as follows (EA 143:10–35):

The king, my lord, [sent] to his servant and his dirt at his feet. As to his order, wher-
ever that which was commanded by the king, my lord, the breath of my life, may be,
I shall search her o[ut] and send her on to the king, my lord, the breath of my life.
More[ove]r, note how, as soon as the ships of the king, my lord, [th]at have sailed to
Beirut come in, I shall send the maidservant of the king, my lord. Like one dardaraḫ-or-
nament (tar-[t]a-<ra>-aḫ) withi[n a . . .], so is Beirut to the king, my lord, and I am like
a warmer (LÚtaṣraḫu) of the horses of the king, my lord. [. . .] to the king, my lord. [Just
as the king, m]y [lord, the brea]th of my li[fe, ordered?], I shall s[end her i]n the sh[ips
of the king], my lord.

For the construction kima . . . kinanna . . . in lines 23–26, compare EA 105:
8–10; 139:8–9; 195:18–23; 232:16–20.

It is evident that the maidservant was still in Beirut a short time after
Yapaḫ-Hadda’s death. Ammunira, who had just ascended the throne and

Looking for the Pharaoh’s Judgment 63

whose position was delicate, was willing to obey the royal order and send the
maidservant to Egypt. Whether the promise included the whole bride-price,
or only a part of it, remains unknown.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Pharaoh in the affairs of his Canaanite vassals is well
illustrated by the two episodes under discussion. The king had his own order
of priorities and was not interested in the current affairs in his Asiatic prov-
ince. Those he left to his commissioners in Canaan. He may have intervened
in major events, or in affairs that could increase his property or prestige. Rib-
Hadda understood this, and tried to incite the Pharaoh to act by emphasiz-
ing the loss of prestige caused by his silence, in view of what happened in
Canaan. The two episodes discussed in this article show how Rib-Hadda tried
to entice the Pharaoh to make decisions by emphasizing the prospect of an
easy profit. In the first episode, he stressed the great wealth of Tyre, and in
the second he pointed out the way to deliver the confiscated property to the
king. No doubt this was the standard of the time,11 and Rib-Hadda was no dif-
ferent from other mayors in the region. The decisions of the Sun God were,
to a certain extent, motivated by the prospect of profit, and those who knew
how to manipulate him, and what to offer in a given moment, were able to di-
rect his judgment in their favor.

References

Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190–
203.

Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1950. Rib-Adda of Byblos and the Affairs of Tyre (EA 89). JCS
4: 163–168.

Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen.
Dossin, G. 1934. Une nouvelle lettre d’el-Amarna. RA 31: 125–136.
Finkelstein, J.J. 1952. The Middle Assyrian šulmānu — Texts. JAOS 72: 77–80.
Gevirtz, S. 1973. On Canaanite Rhetoric. The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre.

Orientalia 42: 162–177.
Grave, C. 1982. Northwest Semitic ṣapānu in a Break-up of an Egyptian Stereotype Phrase

in EA 147. Orientalia 51: 161–182.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

revised ed. Wiesbaden.

11. A well-known Mesopotamian analogy is the sending of ṭātu, (“bribe”) or šulmānu
(“gift”), for political and judicial objectives. See Finkelstein 1952:77–80; Tadmor and Cogan
1979:499–502, with earlier literature in n. 34; Liverani 1982:61–63.

64 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Izre’el, S. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study I-II. Atlanta, Georgia.
Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorder-

asiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.
Liverani, M. 1982. Kitru, Katāru. Mesopotamia 17: 43–66.
Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Empire. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C.

(History of the Ancient Near East/Studies 1). Padova.
Moran, W.L. 1973. The Dual Personal Pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. BASOR

211: 50–53.
Moran, W.L. 1975. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and

Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the
Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166.
Moran, W.L. 1987. Les lettres d’el-Amarna. (Littératures Anciennes du Proche Orient 13).
Paris.
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters. UF 11:
673–684.
Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–
185.
Na’aman, N. 1988. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer,
M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000
B.C.). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23). Leuven: 177–185.
Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-
Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131.
Rainey, A.F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect
Used by the Scribes from Canaan II. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/25). Leiden.
Schroeder, O. 1915. Die Tontafeln von el-Amarna. (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der
Königlischen Museen zu Berlin XI-XII). Leipzig.
Tadmor, H. and Cogan, M. 1979. Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings:
Historiographic Considerations. Biblica 60: 491–508.
Wilhelm, G. 1970. Ta/erdennu, ta/urtannu, ta/urtānu. UF 2: 277–282
Youngblood, R.F. 1961. The Amarna Correspondence of Rib-Haddi, Prince of Byblos (EA 68–96).
Ph.D. Thesis. Philadelphia.

The Origin and the Historical Background
of Several Amarna Letters1

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that a group of letters that
Knudtzon, in his edition of the Amarna tablets, assigned to the Phoenician
coast, belongs to the southern Palestinian region and that, in addition, one
of the letters assigned by Knudtzon to the Gezer correspondence actually
belongs to the Phoenician coast. Also, the implications of these re-locations
will be discussed in detail in light of the chronology and the history of the
Amarna letters.

I. An Additional Letter from Tyre (EA 295)

Knudtzon combined letter EA 295 with the Gezer correspondence of
dIM.DI.KUD (transcribed by him as Adda-dāni2) on account of the name of its
sender (only partially preserved: [. . .]-DI.KUD). However, he himself noted
that the clay of the tablet is different from the clay of the other three tablets
that he assigned to Adda-dāni, EA 292–294 and is rather similar to the clay of
the Byblos letters (Knudtzon 1915:1345 n. 1). In addition to the type of clay,
we might adduce several other characteristics indicating that the tablet is of
northern origin or, more specifically, that it originated in the city of Tyre.

We shall discuss the revealing features of letter EA 295 in the following
four points.

(a) The arena in which the letter was written can be established from the
following reconstruction of lines 12–15:

ù l[i-il-ma-a]d mLUGAL-ru be-[li-ia] a-na i-pí-[ši ša yi-p]u-uš-mi mIa-ab/p-[. . . LÚ uruṢ]i!-
du-na[ki?] a-na ia-ši

“May the king, my lord, be informed of the deed which Yab/p[. . .], ruler of Sidon,
has done to me.”

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979), 673–684.
2. For the reading of the name, see most recently: Moran 1975b:153–155; Izre’el 1977:
161.

65

66 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Knudtzon (1915:887 n. f) has observed two oblique scratches before the
sign du that were probably obliterated when Schroeder copied the tablet.
They might well belong to the end of the sign zi. uruZI-du-na was the common
way of writing the name of the city in the Amarna correspondence.

(b) The expression [ep-ru ša] šap-li 2 kušE.SÍR mLUGAL-ri EN-ia (lines 4–5) as
part of the introductory lines is found elsewhere only in the letters of Tyre
(EA 147:4–5; 149:1–5; 152:3; 154:4–5; 155:45).

(c) The appearance of the double Glossenkeil \\ (rev. line 7; see presently)
together with the single Glossenkeil \ (line 16) in one and the same letter is
known in the Amarna correspondence only from two letters of Tyre (EA 146
lines 15 and 20; 155 lines 10, 46 and 33).

The double Glossenkeil itself appears mainly in the area to the north of
Palestine (Artzi 1963:33–35). In Palestine, it is known only from tablet EA 65
(line 5) which, as I shall try to show, belongs to the southern Palestinian re-
gion. Also, the double Glossenkeil now appears in two tablets from Tel Aphek
that were written in the 13th century BCE (Rainey 1975:125ff; 1976:137ff).
We should also bear in mind that northern scribal influences were penetrat-
ing Canaan during the Amarna period. The clearest evidence of this comes
from a comparison of the Aziru letters with those of his father ‘Abdi-Ashirta
(Moran 1975a:158 n. 5). Letter EA 65 belongs to the last stage of the Amarna
letters from Palestine (see presently); thus, it is not impossible that the use
of the double Glossenkeil in this letter is due to the penetration of such north-
ern scribal traditions into Canaan. The Aphek tablets may well indicate that
the double Glossenkeil replaced the single Glossenkeil that was common in the
Palestinian Amarna letters sometime between the Amarna period and the
13th century BCE.3

(d) A close parallel between our letter and the letters of Abi-Milki of Tyre
emerges from the elucidation of rev. lines 5–7 of EA 295.4 Winckler (1896:356
n. 1) read in line 7 a-na na-ṣa-ri URUki and suggested that the following sign
is a Glossenkeil denoting a continuation from the end of the previous line.
Knudtzon (1915:889 n. c) read it as uru.kiGam-ti-e-ti, rejecting Winckler’s read-
ing on the grounds that a different kind of Glossenkeil already appears in line
16. Rainey (1970b:92 s.v. Ginti-’eti) has suggested that the signs ki+gam be
combined as a single sign, ginx (= ḪAR). However, the sign ḪAR on this tablet

3. Moran (1975a:159 n. 14) has observed that considerable changes seem to have taken
place along the Phoenician coast in the post-Amarna age with the appearance of northern
features in writing. The Aphek tablets corroborate his observation.

4. In lines 10–11 of EA 295 restore ki-[ma a-bu]-ti-ia iš-tu da-ri-ti “Like my ancestors from
of old.” For abbūtu in the Amarna letters see Knudtzon 1915:1361.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 67

(rev. line 8) looks quite different. Moreover, as the syllable ginx does not ap-
pear in the Amarna letters from the Phoenician coast (Moran 1975a:151 and
162 n. 40), Rainey’s emendation cannot be accepted.

Winckler’s proposal must also be rejected, because the Amarna scribes
used the Glossenkeil to denote the continuation of a line for only a few signs at
the very end of the next line, but in this case, the Glossenkeil is in the middle of
the line. Kundtzon’s syllabic reading of the sign is problematic, too, because
the syllable gam first appears in Mesopotamian tablets dated later than the
Amarna period and is unknown in the West during the second Millennium
BCE (see von Soden and Röllig 1967: No. 210). We noted earlier that the two
kinds of Glossenkeils with exactly the same forms as those in our tablet appear
in two letters from Tyre. For this reason, it is better to regard the sign in ques-
tion as a Glossenkeil explaining the next word, ti-e-ti.

We shall now quote several parallel references from the Tyrian corre-
spondence to clarify the passage under discussion.

EA 148:13–16 littadin šarru bēliya 10 amēl(ūti) šēpē ana naṣāri ālišu
EA 149:17–19
EA 151:14–16 liwaššir šarru 20 amēl(ūti) šēpē ana <na>ṣār ālišu
EA 152:47–48
EA 295: rev. 5–7 liddinni šarru bēliya 20 amēlūti ana naṣāri āl šarri bēliya
liddinni 80 amēl(ūti) w[i-i-ma] ana na-ṣ[a-ri] ti-e-ti-š[u?]5
liddinme šarru bēliya 50 amēlūti . . . ana naṣāri āl (URUki) /
ti-e-ti a-[na šarri]

The similarity among all these passages is clear, but the meaning of the
word ti-e-ti that appears twice (once with a Glossenkeil) remains obscure.
Syntactically, ti-e-ti and āl ti-e-ti stand in place of ālišu (his city) and āl šarri
(the city of the king) in the other passages, and the word seems to denote an
appellation of the writer’s town. The letters from Tyre even contain an inter-
esting parallel of such an appellation. Several times in letter EA 155 the city
of Tyre is called āl míMayāti — “the city of Mayāti (= Merit-aten)”6 (lines 42,
50, 62). See, particularly, lines 49–51: šarru ipqidni ana naṣāri āl Mayāti bēltiya
(BE!-ti-ia) “The king appointed me to guard the city of Mayāti, my lady.”7

5. Following is a tentative translation of the broken passage EA 152 lines 45–50: (45)
And may [the king, my lord], give (46) [his attention(?)] forever to [me/his servant] (47)
[and l]et him give me eighty so[ldiers] (48) to gu[ard] h[is(?)] ti-e-ti [because] (49) the
enmi[ty is str]ong (50) again[st me].

6. For the name Mayāti see Albright 1937:191–194; 1946:16a No. 27; von Soden 1952:
432.

7. The continuation of line 51 is probably a-nu-[ta5 iq]-bi “that is what he said.” It seems,
therefore, that it was the Pharaoh who called the city of Tyre “the city of Mayāti” in his let-

68 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Unfortunately, the meaning of the word ti-e-ti escapes us.8 In the meantime,
the following translation is suggested for rev. lines 5–7 of EA 295: “May the
king my lord give fifty men with an officer x[xx] in order to guard the city of
xxx f[or the king] .”

Summing up the results of our study, it seems to us that there are several
links between letter EA 295 and the correspondence from Tyre. Therefore, we
suggest that [xx]-DI.KUD was Abi-Milki of Tyre’s predecessor on the throne of
Tyre.9 Abi-Milki of Tyre’s rule in Tyre began in the days of Amenophis III, as
is implied by letter EA 147 lines 57–60: “Thus I have said to the sun, the father
of the king, my lord: When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?” The let-
ter belongs to the time of the preparations for the Egyptian campaign against
Hatti and its allies in Syria and should be dated to the late years of Akhenaten
(Na’aman 1975:145–153). Accordingly, the king’s father is Amenophis III.10
It seems reasonable to assume that Abi-Milki of Tyre succeeded the anony-
mous ruler of Tyre who was killed during a rebellion mentioned in EA 8911 and
that our [xx]-DI.KUD is this unfortunate ruler. The hostility between Tyre and
Sidon, which is so well illustrated throughout the correspondence of Abi-Milki
of Tyre, began in the time of his predecessor (and probably much earlier). His
opponent in Sidon is Yab/p[xxx], the predecessor of Zimredda. The latter is
first mentioned in letter EA 83, which was dated to a very late stage in the ca-
reer of ‘Abdi-Ashirta (Campbell 1964:93). We must conclude, therefore, that EA
295 is one of the earliest letters in the Amarna archive and was certainly writ-
ten during the time of Amenophis III.

II. Shuwardata and the Correspondence of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti

The question of the origin of the three letters EA 63–65 has been the sub-
ject of extensive discussion ever since their publication. The name of the

ter, and Abi-Milki of Tyre repeats this appellation in his answer. The same writing, Mayāti
BE-ti-ia, appears again in line 29 (EA 155:27–30: “I will direct myself to serve him [and]
Mayāti, my lady, day and night”).

8. The appearance of a Glossenkeil before the word ti-e-ti indicates that it is a noun and
not a personal name. The writing ti-i-ti (ṭiṭṭu “mud”) in EA 148:34 does not help us solve the
problem at hand. Also, the legendary lady Elissa/Dido of Tyre mentioned in the Greek and
Latin sources (Meyer 1931:111; Katzenstein 1973:187f) can scarcely be considered here.

9. Campbell (1964:101) suggested that the name be restored as Yab[ni-ilu], the last ruler
of Lachish during the Amarna period. The discussion above shows that this reconstruction
no longer can be accepted.

10. Our date is contrary to Redford (1967:220), who wrote that “there is no possibility
that his (Abi-Milki of Tyre’s) rule overlapped with that of Amenhotep III.”

11. For EA 89, see Albright and Moran 1950:163–168.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 69

sender is written in three different variations: Ab-di-aš-ta-<ar>-ti (EA 63:
3),12 ÌR dINNIN (EA 64:3), and Ad-ra-INNIN (EA 65:3). However, Knudtzon was
convinced that all three letters were sent by the same ruler, and, therefore,
he explained the element adra- as a metathesis of arda = abda and read the
theophorous logogram INNIN as Ashtartu.

Knudtzon (1915:1128–1130, 1329 n. 2) has noted the similarity in the clay,
script, and several expressions of these three letters and the late group of
letters of Shuwardata (EA 281–284). Nevertheless, on account of the resem-
blance of names between ‘Abdi-Ashtarti and ‘Abdi-Ashirta, the well-known
ruler of Amurru, Knudtzon decided to combine the three letters with the dos-
sier of the latter ruler by suggesting an exchange of the names of the god-
desses, Ashtartu and Ashera(t). The similarity to the letters of Shuwardata
was explained as the result of the possible movements of scribes from one
place to another.

While copying the whole group of Amarna letters belonging to the Berlin
Museum, Schroeder (1915:293f) noted the similarity of script and formu-
lae between letters EA 65 and 335. Inasmuch as the latter belongs to south-
ern Palestine, Schroeder assigned the former to that area as well, but did
not discuss the question of the origin of the other two letters, EA 63–64.
Schachermeyr (1932:5) noted briefly that the letters of ‘Abdi-Ashirta should
be separated from the letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, and de Koning did like-
wise (1940:§274, §317). Campbell (1964:107, 110), following Schroeder, sep-
arated EA 65 from EA 63–64. He assigned the last letters to ‘Abdi-Ashirta,
and the first, together with EA 335, was connected to the correspondence of
Shuwardata, despite the obvious difference in names.

We must remember that the only argument adduced so far for assign-
ing the three letters to the correspondence of ‘Abdi-Ashirta is the similar-
ity of names. However, the name ‘Abdi-Ashirta is consistently written in the
Amarna letters as ÌR/ab-di-a-ši-ir-ta/i/u. The logographic writing INNIN and
the syllabic writing Ašta(r)tu for the same name proves only the equation
INNIN = Ashtartu. The two goddesses, Ashtartu and Ashera(t), were strictly
set apart in personal names.13 It is suggested, therefore, that the writing of the
goddess’ name Ashtartu by the logogram INNIN was a southern Palestinian
tradition. In any event, it is clear that there is nothing left to connect letters

12. Albright’s (1944:16 n. 20) reading of the theophorous element in this name as aš-ra-
ti is not justified by the original tablet (collated).

13. For the goddess Ashtartu see Herrmann 1969:6–52, and particularly p. 43 n. 157;
Loewenstamm 1971: 406–412. For the goddess Ashera(t) see Patai 1965:37–52; Bernhardt
1967:163–174.

70 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

EA 63–65 with the letters of Amurru. All the criteria mentioned so far (clay,
script, and language) point to a specific area, namely south Palestine, where
the four letters of Shuwardata (EA 281–284) and letter EA 335 originated.

To demonstrate the intimate relationships existing among the four let-
ters of Shuwardata and the four letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, we shall tabulate
several expressions from the formulae at the opening of those letters. We
present the particular expression, its occurrences in our group, and (in pa-
rentheses) in other letters.

mila anna = 64:6; 283:5,15; 284:18
šibi mila = 65:4; 282:4; 284:4 (330:7)
šibi mila anna = 64:6; 283:5
maqtati = 63:6; 65:5; 282:4; 283:6 (336:5)
maqtiti = 64:5; 284:4,5,22 (138:4)
u kabatūma u ṣuḫrūrma = 64:7; 65:6; 335:4; 282:7; 284:5 (see. 306:11)

The above expressions, together with the other similarities, clearly show
that the same scribe wrote all of these tablets. We must now discuss whether
all of these letters were sent from the same place or whether the same scribe
served in two neighboring cities.

Our discussion will begin with a new transliteration, translation, and
commentary on letter EA 335.

[a-na mLUGAL-ri EN-ia qí-bí-ma]
[um-ma mAbdi-Aštarti ÌR-ka]
[a-na GÌRmeš EN-ia 7 ù 7 mi-la]
[ma-aq-ta-ti ù ka-ba-tu-ma ù] ṣú-uḫ-ru-<ma>
5. [a-na GÌRmeš mLUGAL-ri E]N-ia
[li-il5-ma-ad mLUGA]L-ri EN-ia
[ki-ma 1-en i-ba]-šu-ti
li-i[l5-ma-ad mLUGAL-r]i EN-ia
ki-ma G[AZ?m]eš \ mi-ḫi-ṣa
10. mTu-u[r-ba-zu ù?] mla-ap-ti-ḫa-da
ù nu-k[i-ir uruL]a-ki-ši
li-i[l5-ma-ad mLUG]AL-ri EN-ia
ù i[l5 -qé LÚ] ar-ni
gab-bi LÚ! MÍ! SIG5!-ia
15. li-il5-ma-ad
mLUGAL-ri EN-ia ki-ma
na-ki-ra-at uruLa-ki-ši
ù ṣa-ab-ta-at uruMu-ú’-ra-aš-ti
ù [na-ki-r]a-at

20. [uruÚ?-ru?-sa?-l]imki

[ù yu-uš-ši-r]a mLUGAL-ri

[EN-ia ERÍNmeš pí-ṭá-ti?]

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 71

[Speak to the king, my lord; thus says ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, your servant. At the feet of the
king, my lord, I have fallen seven and seven times both on the stomach and] on the
back, [at the feet of the king], my lord.

[May the king], my lord, [be informed that] I am [the only one le]ft. May [the ki]ng,
my lord, be informed] that Tur[bazu and] Yaptiḫ-Hadda have been smitten and [the
city of L]achish has rebe[lled]. May the king, my lord, be informed] that the traitor has
t[aken] all my best men and women. May the king, my lord, be informed that the city
of Lachish has become hostile and the city of Mu’rashti has been taken and [the city of
Jerusa]lem?? has become hostile. [So, may] the king, [my lord, sen]d [task force . . .

Notes on the text

Lines 1–5: For the restoration see Schroeder 1915:293–294.
Lines 6–7: The restoration is based on several parallels from the letters of
Shuwardata (EA 282:8–9; 283:21; 284:6–8); see particularly EA 284:8–9 i-ba-šu-
ti 1-en. The combination of lilmad . . . kima/u is repeated several times in the
letter (lines 6–7, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16).
Line 9: In all the eight letters written by our scribe, u is never used as a
conjunction. Therefore, Winckler’s suggestion to read it as a Glossenkeil seems
preferable (see Knudtzon 1915:948 n. g). My restoration G[AZm]eš\mi-ḫi-ṣa is
based on the analogy to EA 288:41, 45 GAZ de4-ka and EA 245:14 da-ku-šu\ma-
aḫ-ṣu-ú.
Line 13: For amēl arni see CAD A/2 299a. It is not clear whether there is
enough room for the sign LÚ in the gap of this line.
Line 14: My restoration is based on the facsimile of Schroeder; amēlu and
sinništu are regarded here as collective nouns.
Line 17: For the problem of the identification of Mu’rashti with Biblical
Moresheth-(gath), see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1356; Kallai 1971:249.
Line 20: For the tentative restoration [uruÚ-ru-sa-l]im, it should be noted that
the post-determinative ki does not follow the other place names in this letter.
Lines 21–22: For the restoration see EA 281:11–12, 27–28; 282:10–11; 283:
25–26; 284:16–17.
Letter EA 335 is closely connected with letter EA 288 of Jerusalem. For
comparison, the relevant passage in the Jerusalem letter (lines 34–47) is
translated here:
“The strong arm of the king seizes the land of Naḫrima and the land of
Cush; but now the ‘Apiru are seizing the cities of the king! There is not a sin-
gle governor (left) to the king; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain at the
gate of Zilû (but) the king kept silent. Behold Zimredda, the (sons of) Lachish
smote him, slaves who have become ‘Apiru. Yaptiḫ-Hadda was slain at the
gate of Zilû (but) the king kept silent. Why does not the king call them to ac-
count?”

72 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Both letters report to the Pharaoh the death of three rulers (Zimredda,
Turbazu, and Yaptiḫ-Hadda) and the rebellions in several towns in the
Shephelah region (Lachish, Zilû,14 Mu’rashti). Several south Palestinian let-
ters reflect the same state of affairs. Following are translations of the rele-
vant passages.

EA 271:9–21 (Milkilu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed that
the rebellion against me and Shuwardata is strong. So may the king, my lord,
deliver his land from the grasp of the ‘Apiru. If not, may the king, my lord,
send chariots to take us lest our servants smite us.”

EA 298:20–29 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed
that my younger brother rebelled against me and has entered Muḫḫazu and
he pledged himself (lit. gave his hands) to the ‘Apiru. And now [the city of
Ti]anna is hostile to me.”15

EA 299:17–26 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “Now the ‘Apiru are prevailing over us. So
may the king, my lord, take me away (yi-it-ra-ni) from the hand of the ‘Apiru,
so that the ‘Apiru will not destroy us.”16

EA 300:10–22 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “[Behold(?) the deed(?)] of [m]y
[broth]er(?) that l[os]t(?) is my land out of <my hands(?)>. And now nothing

14. Albright (1924:6–8) suggested that uruZi-lu-ú of EA 288 be identified with the Sile sit-
uated on the Egyptian border east of Qantara and mentioned in the Egyptian sources. In
his opinion, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba wrote to the Pharaoh that “two Egyptian governors are slain at the
threshold of Egypt, at the very gate of Selle itself — yet the Pharaoh takes no steps to re-
store the impaired Egyptian prestige in Palestine.” But the fact that two independent rul-
ers, one in Jerusalem and the other in the Shephelah region, connected the death of these
two rulers with the death of Zimredda of Lachish clearly indicates that both belong to the
same area; therefore, it is preferable to locate Zilû somewhere in the Shephelah region,
perhaps even in the neighborhood of Lachish (see Weber in Knudtzon 1915:1341).

15. Notes on the text: For line 26 see Greenberg 1955:49. Lines 28–29: ù i-na-an-na [uruTi]-
an-na[k]i nu-kùr-tu4 UGU-ia. The city name [uruTi-a]n-naki in a similar context appears in EA
306:34 (see note 19 below). The restoration of the place name is based on EA 284:31 uruT[i]-
i[a-n]a on the one hand, and on the place name tnn (which Helck transliterated as tì-n-ni)
mentioned in Papyrus Petersburg, 1116 A, Recto on the other hand (Alt 1916:264f; Helck
1971:166; Artzi 1968:168). Letter EA 298 provides a clue to the location of Tianna: It was
only after Yapaḫu’s brother entered Muḫḫazu that Tianna rebelled. Muḫḫazu/Maḫḫazu
is generally located in the neighborhood of modern Yibneh (Alt 1925:17; Mazar 1963:140–
141; Kutscher 1970:5–18; Rainey 1970a:183–184). Tianna is to be sought in that same area.
We may reasonably assume that letters EA 298 and 306, which both tell of the rebellion of
Tianna (and probably also EA 284, where Tianna is mentioned in a badly broken passage),
were written approximately at that same time. Therefore, Tianna should be located on the
border between the kingdoms of Yapaḫu (Gezer), Shuwardata (Tell eṣ-Ṣafi), and Shubandu
(Ashkelon; see n. 26 below).

16. For this passage, see now Izre’el 1977:163–165;.Rainey 1978:96 s.v. tarû. However, the
fourth sign in line 22 is clearly ni over an erasure and certainly not nu (collated).

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 73

(is left) for me. So may <the king> send his task force. They [will xxx and] will
bring me back to may place. And may I be able to serve the king, my lord, like
my father and his companions.”17

EA 281:8–11,22–26 (Shuwardata): “May the king, my lord, be informed
that my towns have now rebelled against me . . . So may the king be informed
of the rebellion against me. Who will dare [to rebel] against the king; but
those dogs indeed dared [to rebel] against the king.”18

EA 282:8–14 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed (that)
I am the only one left. May the king, my lord, send a very great task force and
may he get me out.”

EA 283:18–27 (Yapaḫu of Gezer): “May the king, my lord, be informed that
thirty towns have rebelled against me. I am the only one left. The rebellion
against me is very strong. . . . May the king, my lord, send a, task force; may
the king, my lord, take me out.”

EA 272:10–17 (Shum-xxx): “May the king, my lord, be informed that lost
are the city-rulers who are in the cities of my lord and all the land of the king,
my lord, is going over to the ‘Apiru.”

EA 273:8–14 (‘Lady-of-the-lions’19): “May the king, my lord, be informed
that war is waged in the land and that the land of the king, my lord, is being
ruined by going over to the ‘Apiru.”

17. The translation is necessarily tentative due to the fragmentary state of the tablet.
The suggested restoration of lines 10–14 is as follows:

(10) [a-mur? ip-ši?] (11) [LÚ.ŠE]Š?-[i]a [i]-n[u-m]a (12) ti-[iḫ?-la?]-qa iš-tu <qati?> (13)
KUR-ia u a-<nu>ma ia-nu (14) m[i-im-m]a a-na ia-ši
Line 11: The facsimile of Schroeder (1915:pl. 171) favors the reading ÌR for the sec-
ond sign ([ša Ì]R-[i]a). The suggestion to read LÚ.ŠEŠ is based on letter EA 298:22 of
the same author.
Line 12: The tentative restoration ti-[iḫ-la]-qa is based on EA 274:14.
Line 18: The subject of the (grammatically mistaken form) tu-šu-ru-ba-ni is the ṣābē
piṭāti, which is regarded here as a fem. sing. (see Albright and Moran 1948:245f).
Further note to EA 300: In line 25 read u iš-ti-mu /gab!/ a-wa-temeš. The sign gab for gabbu
is found several times in the Amarna letters (see Knudtzon 1915:1408 s.v. gabbu and EA 286:
36, 287:4).
18. The suggested restoration of EA 281:23–26 is as follows:
(23) [me-i]a-mi (24) yi-pu-šu [ar-na] a-na LUGAL (25) ù UR.[GI7 a]n-nu-t[u] (26) |ù| t[i]-pu-
[š]u [ar-na] a-na LUGAL
For kalbu as a term of abuse in the Amarna letters see CAD K 72b.
19. For this lady’s name, written logographically as fNIN.UR.MAḪmeš, see Bauer 1920:
210–211. We should like to call attention to the name nṯt = nēšēti, the queen of Ugarit (see
Gröndahl 1967:345, 403). This name may reflect a plural form of Akkadian nēštu “lioness”
(see Weippert 1969:41). Could we read the name of the lady as Bēlit-nēšēti?

74 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

EA 274:10–16 (“Lady-of-the-lions”): “May the king, my lord, rescue his
land from the ‘Apiru. Let not the city of Ṣab/puma perish (be captured).”20

EA 306:12–18,28–35 (Shubandu): “Now the king, my lord, wrote: [‘send(?)]
your charioteers(?) an[d your xxx to the king, your lord’. [With what shall I
[guard(?) my city(?)]? Strong is the rebellion against the servant of the king,
who is inspecting the l[and] of the king, his lord, for [the king(?)] . . . And may
my lord be informed that they have burnt your towns and your places. [And
no]w [the city of Tia]nna [is hostile against] yo[ur servant].”21

Apart from the great similarity of words and expressions among these let-
ters, all of which originated in southern Palestine, there are also some con-

20. Knudtzon transliterated in lines 14–16 la-a te-eḫ-la-aq la-ki-ta uruṢa-bu-maki. Albright
(1943:15–17) suggested the reading la-a te-eḫ-la-aq URUki-ka URU Ṣa-pu-naki “Let not your
city, Zaphon, perish.” Accordingly, he suggested that the sender of this letter was located
in the Jordan Valley. However, such a reading involves several difficulties. Knudtzon (1899:
297; 1915:1328 n. 2) noted that the script and clay of these letters are close to the letters of
Milkilu (EA 267–271) and Shuwardata (EA 278–280). And indeed, letter EA 273 describes in
detail an event that took place on the border of Gezer, a very unlikely report on the part
of a ruler situated in the middle of the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Albright dismissed the
reading la-ki-ta in line 15 by claiming that such a verb does not appear elsewhere in the
Amarna correspondence. However, this same verb in exactly the same form appears in the
letter of Shuwardata EA 284:7. This verb is derived either from West Semitic lakādu (Rainey
1970b:69) or from Akkadian laqātu (CAD L 101a). The verbs teḫlaq lak/qid/ta(t) may have
been repeated to give more weight to this sentence, which tells of the impending destruc-
tion of the writer’s city.

Therefore, it seems that Albright’s suggested emendations are baseless, and we will do
better to follow Knudtzon’s interpretation. Accordingly, Ṣab/puma should be located in the
Shephelah region, not far from the kingdom of Gezer.

21. The suggested transliteration for EA 306:12–18 is as follows:
(12) [i]-nu-ma ša-pár LUGAL b[e-lí] (13) |KEŠDA|-ka-m[e] |ù| [xxx a-na] (14) [LUGA]L be–
1[í]-k[a uššir?? ištu?] (15) [m]a-an-[n]i e-[naṣṣar?? āliya??] (16) da-n[a-a]t-[m]e KÚR-n[u a-na] (17)
ÌR LUGAL ša yi-mur K[UR] (18) LUGAL be-li-ia a-na [LUGAL/EN-šu?]
Notes on the transliteration:
Line 13: The first sign in the line (see the drawing in Knudtzon 1915:1007 No. 165) looks
similar to the two signs appearing in EA 107:42 and 108:15 (see the drawings in Knudtzon
1915:1003 Nos. 92, 93). Moran (1950:166) suggested that they be read as KEŠDA in the sense
of a “charioteer.” Such a meaning fits our passage as well. The enclitic -me here signifies
direct speech (citation from the king’s letter). The next sign, which Kundtzon read as ši,
might also be the beginning of an ù.
Lines 14–15: The restoration is based on several letters from Byblos (EA 112:10, 123:
31–32, 125:11–12), in which ištu manni inaṣṣaruna (“with what shall I guard?”) comes as an
immediate answer to a citation cited from the royal letter (Liverani 1971:262–264; Moran
1975a:165 n. 68).
Line 17: For the verb amāru in this sentence see CAD A/2 15b.
The suggested reading for line 31 is |KISLAḪ| (KI.UD) \ma-aš-ka-n[a-ti-k]a. The restora-
tion maškan[ātik]a was proposed by Albright (1975:106). My translation “places” (and not

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 75

crete facts that would place them in the same group. Milkilu, Shuwardata,
and Shubandu mention rebellions and disturbances in their kingdoms. ‘Abdi-
Ḫeba, ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, and the “Lady-of-the-Lions” describe troubles in neigh-
boring kingdoms, and all the city-states’ rulers bitterly complain of distress
and serious difficulties in their kingdoms and request that the Pharaoh come
immediately to their aid. Most of these letters call the offenders ‘Apiru. This
is not the place to enter into discussion of the vexed problem of their identity.
Suffice is to say that the accepted opinion of the ‘Apiru in the Amarna letters
should be re-examined in this particular context, because none of these let-
ters has ever been discussed as part of a group belonging to a specific period
and area (see Na’aman 1975:145–153).

Another indication of the seriousness of the situation is the disappear-
ance at this time of several rulers, all from the south of Palestine. Milkilu of
Gezer was replaced by Yapaḫu, whose letters reflect the same internal po-
litical difficulties. Zimredda, who was killed during the rebellion, was re-
placed by Shipṭi-Ba‘al. Shuwardata, Shubandu, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, Shum-xxx, and
the “Lady-of-the-Lions” disappear from the political scene, and their fate is
unknown. In the next stage, which is characterized by reorganization of the
Egyptian order in Palestine and by preparations for an expected Egyptian
military expedition,22 the names of new city-state rulers appear (Ba‘lu-
shipṭi23 in Gezer, Yabni-ilu in Lachish, Yidya in Ashkelon, ṣi-x-ib?-ni in the
neighborhood of Gezer,24 Yaḫtiru, and Ḫiziru). The possibility that these new
rulers were the successors of the governors belonging to the former stage
should be kept in mind.25

“granaries” as Albright took it) is based on the parallelism to ālāni (line 30). For maškanu in
the sense of “site,” “place,” see CAD M/1 370f.

Lines 33–35: The restoration is based on a comparison to the roughly parallel passage
in EA 298:28–29, as was suggested by Knudtzon in his edition. For further discussion, see
n. 16 above.

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

23. For the problem of the transcription of the name written logographically as
dIM.DI.KUD, see Moran 1975b:155; Izre’el 1977:161; Winckler 1896:356 n.1.

24. Izre’el (1977:159–163) has recently suggested that the name of the author of EA 294
be read Ṣi-id-qí-lí. However, my collation of the original tablet (now in the British Museum)
shows that such a reading is impossible. (For the correct rendering of the signs see Moran
1975b:155.) The second sign looks like da or ri, and the third sign looks very much like ib.
However, I could not find parallels for the name ṣi-ri/da-ib-ni. (Reading the ṣi as zí seems un-
likely in this area; see Moran 1975b:160 n. 32.)

25. In my doctoral dissertation (1975:137–138), I suggested tentatively that Shubandu
was the predecessor of Yidya in Ashkelon. However, as can be seen from the discussion in
note 28 above, such a conclusion depends on whether Ashdod was a city-state during the

76 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

With this information as background, we may now discuss the relation-
ship between Shuwardata and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti. Shuwardata was in power in
the days of Lab’ayu (EA 366) and his sons (EA 278–280). Initially, he was an ally
of ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem (EA 366), but he later became an ally of Milkilu of
Gezer and an opponent of his former partner (EA 280, 290). The last stage of
his rule is marked by rebellions and disturbances, and his letters show dis-
tress and despair (EA 281–284). As for ‘Abdi-Ashtarti, letter EA 335 speaks of
the same period of rebellions. Two other letters, EA 63–64, refer in general
terms to internal political difficulties and troubles. Letter EA 65, on the other
hand, reflects a new situation. Following is a translation of the relevant pas-
sage (lines 7–14):

And in accordance with the words that the king, my lord, has sent to me, I have heeded;
all the words of the king, my lord, I have heeded. And I am verily guarding the places of
the king (which were) assigned to me. And I am preparing in anticipation of the task-
forces (ṣābē piṭāti) of the king, my lord, m[y Sun(?)].

Letter EA 65 clearly belongs to the group of letters dealing with the orga-
nization of the Egyptian campaign to the north, and, thus, it is later than the
other three letters of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti.

Summing up the chronological discussion, it is evident that the last
of the letters of Shuwardata is approximately contemporary with the
first letter of ‘Abdi-Ashtarti (EA 335). We, therefore, suggest that ‘Abdi-
Ashtarti was the heir of Shuwardata and that the same scribe who wrote
the late letters of Shuwardata remained in office in ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s days.
Shuwardata presumably disappeared as a result of the rebellions of which
he complained so bitterly in his letters. ‘Abdi-Ashtarti faced the same dif-
ficulties after ascending the throne (EA 335, and to some extent EA 63–64),
but he survived those harsh times. It is interesting to note that Yapaḫu of
Gezer, who ascended the throne in that same period, apparently did not
succeed in establishing his throne and was replaced by Ba‘lu-shipṭi. Shipṭi-
Ba‘al of Lachish, who probably ascended the throne after the death of
Zimredda, also disappeared after a short reign and was replaced by Yabni-
ilu. These examples may well indicate how severe the situation was at that
time in southern Palestine.

The last problem we shall deal with is the location of Shuwardata’s and
‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s capital. Several sites were suggested in the early stages of

Late Bronze Age or only a port within the territory of Ashkelon (which would mean that
Ashkelon had a common border with the kingdom of Gezer). The clarification of this ques-
tion is far beyond the scope of this note.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 77

research. Some scholars tried to locate it in Keilah (Qilti),26 but this sugges-
tion is impossible, because Keilah was a border town and not the capital of
Shuwardata. Albright (1942:37 n.31; 1969:487 n. 15) proposed Hebron as a pos-
sible location. Several scholars referred to letter EA 290 as a key to that prob-
lem. We translate the relevant passage (lines 5–13) thus:

Behold the hostile(?) (KUR) deed which Milkilu and Shuwardata committed against the
land of the king, my lord. They have ordered (mu-’ù-ru) troops of Gezer, troops of Gath
(Gimti) and troops of Keilah and they have captured the city of Rubutu. The land of the
king has gone over to the ‘Apiru.27

Riedel (1920:12), the first to discuss this passage, suggested that Milkilu
and Tagu were rulers of Gezer and Gath, respectively, and that, therefore,
Shuwardata was the ruler of Keilah. Bonkamp (1939:301 n. 4), on the other
hand, proposed that Shuwardata was ruler of the above-mentioned Gimtu
(Gath). He was followed by Aharoni (1969:141–145), who suggested locat-
ing this Gath at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi. This was accepted by other scholars (Kallai and
Tadmor 1969:144f; Rainey 1978:105).

A comparison of the lines above with a second and closely related letter
from Jerusalem (EA 289) clearly favors Riedel’s interpretation. Milkilu and
Shuwardata are accused of capturing Rubutu in EA 290. However, in letter EA
289, Milkilu and Tagu are accused of the same deed. Tagu was ruler of Gath-
carmel, and his capital was called either Ginti-kirmil (EA 289:18) or Gimti (EA
289:19). It is clear that this city is identical to the Gimti of EA 290.28

That this Gath was not the capital of Shuwardata is also proved by the end
of letter EA 290 (lines 25–28):

26. Ebeling in Knudtzon 1915:1568; Riedel 1920:13; Meyer 1931:95 n. 1. Weber (in
Knudtzon 1915:1330) and Alt (1924:27 = 1959:162) took a cautious position and without sug-
gesting a specific location, noted that Keilah was a town of Shuwardata.

27. Notes on the translation:
Line 5: Knudtzon in his edition omitted the sign KUR, but this sign is clearly visible in
the facsimile published by Schroeder (1915:No. 166). Furthermore, the same expression,
epšu KUR anni’u, is repeated in line 25 of this letter. KUR seems to be an adjective describ-
ing the “deed.” The translations of Knudtzon (1915:877) and Moran (1975a:152) take KUR
as mātu (“land”), but this does not fit well into the context. One should remember that
KÚR and KUR.KUR (Reading GUDIBIR2) both meaning nukurtu = “hostility.” It seems to me
that here the scribe confused the trio KUR (mātu), KÚR (nukurtu), and KUR.KUR (nukurtu).
Accordingly, epšu KUR is translated as “hostile deed.” A parallel semantic expression ap-
pears in letter EA 137: 95 from Byblos: epši marṣi annû “this evil deed.”
Line 8: For the correct understanding of the verb mu-’ù-ru, see Moran 1975a:151 and n. 42.
28. Aharoni (1969:144), confronting this difficulty, suggested that Tagu and Shuwardata
succeeded one another in the same place. However, such a proposal seems impossible, be-
cause both of them ruled in the time of Lab’ayu (EA 263:33–34,366) and his sons.

78 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

“This hostile(?) deed (was done) at the command of Milkilu and at the
command of [Shuward]ata [and wi]th Gath.”29

The passage clearly shows that the two allies, Milkilu and Shuwardata,
captured Rubutu with the aid of troops sent by Tagu of Gath-carmel.

The unfortunate conclusion, which was reached on the basis of the discus-
sion described above, was that Shuwardata’s capital is mentioned nowhere in
the Amarna letters. The point of departure for locating Shuwardata’s (and
‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s) capital is Keilah, situated on his border with the kingdom
of Jerusalem. This was the basis for Albright’s proposal to locate his seat in
Hebron. But the site of Hebron was hardly occupied during the Late Bronze
Age, and, therefore, it could not be considered as the center of a city-state at
that time (Hammond 1965; 1966; 1968). Furthermore, the survey conducted
in the Judean Hills showed that the whole region around Hebron was al-
most devoid of settlements during the Late Bronze Age (Kochavi 1972:20, 83).
Shuwardata, on the other hand, complained that thirty towns rebelled and
fought against him (EA 283:18–21). It is clear, therefore, that Shuwardata’s
territory was situated in a densely populated area, which eliminates the pos-
sibility of locating this territory in the hill country.

The close connection between Shuwardata and Milkilu of Gezer and their
partnership in the capture of Rubutu points to their geographical proximity
(although we must bear in mind that their third ally, Tagu, was apparently
situated far to the north). Also, Milkilu complains in EA 271:9–21 of strong
hostility against him and Shuwardata, which again alludes to their propin-
quity. Accordingly, Aharoni’s proposal to locate Shuwardata’s seat at Tell eṣ-
Ṣafi, an important site during the Late Bronze Age, seems acceptable.

Shuwardata’s and ‘Abdi-Ashtarti’s neighbors will then be: Gezer in the
north, Jerusalem in the north-east, Lachish in the south, and Ashkelon (and
Ashdod? see note 26 above) in the west.

29. Our transliteration and commentary on these lines is as follows:
(25) ep-šu KUR an-ni-ú (26) a-[n]a KA-i mMil-ki-[li] (27) [ù] a-na KA-i [mŠu-ar-d]a-ti (28) [ù
it]-ti uruGinx-t[iki].
Line 25: see note 27 above.
Lines 26–27: The entity ana pí PN, “after the order of PN,” appears several times in the
Amarna letters (EA 79:11–12,22; 81:18; 138:116; 161:38). The closest parallel is letter EA 79:
11–12 of Byblos: a-na KA \ pi-í mAbdi-Aširta “according to the command of ‘Abdi-Ashirta.”

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 79

References

Aharoni, Y. 1969. Rubute and Ginti-kirmil. VT 19: 137–145.
Albright, W.F. 1924. The Town of Selle (Zaru) in the ‘Amarnah Tablets. JEA 10: 6–8.
Albright, W.F. 1937. The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre. JEA 23: 190–

203.
Albright W.F. 1942. A Case of Lèse-Majesté in Pre-Israelite Lachish, with Some Remarks on

the Israelite Conquest. BASOR 87: 32–38.
Albright, W.F. 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley.

BASOR 89: 7–17.
Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27.
Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B.C. JNES

5: 7–25.
Albright, W.F. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. Princeton: 482–490.
Albright, W.F. 1975. The Amarna Letters from Palestine. The Cambridge Ancient History II/2.

3rd revised ed. Cambridge: 98–116.
Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1948. A Re-interpretation of an Amarna Letter from Byblos

(EA 82). JCS 2: 239–248.
Albright, W.F. and Moran, W.L. 1950. Rib-Adda of Byblos and the Affairs of Tyre (EA 89). JCS

4: 163–168.
Alt, A. 1916. Tenni. ZDPV 39: 264–265.
Alt, A. 1924. Neues über Palästina aus dem Archiv Amenophis’ IV. PJb 20: 22–41. (Reprint:

Alt, A. 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 158–175).
Alt, A. 1925. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. PJb 21: 5–58.
Artzi, P. 1963. The “Glosses” in the El-Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit). Bar-Ilan: Annual of

Bar-Ilan University 1: 24–57.
Artzi, P. 1968. Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318). JNES 27: 163–171.
Bauer, H. 1920. Die “Löwenherrin” der Amarnabriefe Nrr. 273 und 274. Zeitschrift der

Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 74: 210–211.
Bernhardt, K.-H. 1967. Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament. Mitteilungen des Instituts

für Orientforschung 13: 163–174.
Bonkamp, B. 1939. Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung. Recklinghausen.
CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Chicago.
Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome.
Hammond, P.C. 1965. Hébron. RB 72: 267–270.
Hammond, P.C.1966. Hébron. RB 73: 566–569.
Hammond, P.C.1968. Hébron. RB 75: 253–258.
Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd

revised ed. Wiesbaden.
Herrmann, W. 1969. Aštart. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 15: 6–55.
Izre’el, S. 1977. Two Notes on the Gezer-Amarna Tablets. Tel Aviv 4: 159–167.
Kallai, Z. 1971. The Kingdom of Rehoboam. Eretz Israel 10: 245–254. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bīt Ninurta = Beit Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of

Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. Eretz Israel 9: 138–147. (Hebrew).

80 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

Katzenstein, H.J. 1973. The History of Tyre, from the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E.
until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem.

Knudtzon, J.A. 1899. Ergebnisse einer Kollation der El-Amarna Tafeln. Beiträge zur Assyriologie
und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 4: 101–117, 279–337, 410–417.

Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung and Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasia-
tische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig.

Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan,
Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 17–89. (Hebrew).

de Koning, J. 1940. Studiën over de EI-Amarnabrieven en het Oude-Testament inzonderheid uit
historisch oogpunt. Delft.

Kutscher, E.Y. 1970. Ugaritica Marginalia. Leshonenu 34: 5–19 (Hebrew).
Liverani, M. 1971. Le Lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda. Oriens Antiquus 10: 253–268.
Loewenstamm, S.E. 1971. ‘Ashtoreth. Enc. Miqr. VI: 406–412. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1963. Dor and Rehob in an Egyptian Topographical List. BIES 27: 139–144

(Hebrew)
Meyer, E. 1931. Geschichte des Altertums. II/2 — Der Orient vom zwölften bis zur Mitte des achten

Jahrhunderts. (2nd ed.). Stuttgart and Berlin.
Moran, W.L. 1950. A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets.

Ph.D. Thesis. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
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.
Moran, W.L. 1975b. Amarna Glosses. RA 69: 147–158.
Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According
to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew).
Patai, R. 1965. The Goddess Asherah. JNES 24: 37–52.
Pintore, F. 1972. Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-
Amarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–131.
Pintore, F. 1973. La prassi della marcia Armata nella Siria egiziana dell’età di el-Amarna.
Oriens Antiquus 12: 299–318.
Rainey, A.F. 1970a. Notes on the Syllabic Vocabularies from Ugarit. Leshonenu 34:180–184.
(Hebrew).
Rainey, A.F. 1970b. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-
Tafeln. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Rainey, A.F. 1975. Two Cuneiform Fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2: 125–129.
Rainey, A.F. 1976. The Tri-lingual Cuneiform Fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3:137–140.
Rainey, A.F. 1978. El Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln.
2nd revised ed. (AOAT 8). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies.
Toronto.
Reviv, H. 1966. The Planning of an Egyptian Campaign in Canaan in the Days of Amenhotep
IV. BIES 30: 45–51. (Hebrew).
Riedel, W. 1920. Untersuchungen zu den Tell-el Amarna Briefen. Tübingen.
Schachermeyr, F. 1932. Abdi-Aširta. RLA I: 4–5.
Schroeder, O. 1915. Zu Berliner Amarnatexten. OLZ 18: 293–296.
Schulman, A.R. 1964. Some Observations on the Military Background of the Amarna
Period. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 3: 51–69.
von Soden, W. and Röllig, W. 1967. Das akkadische Syllabar. 2. Revised ed. (Analecta Orientalia
42). Rome.

The Origin and the Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters 81

von Soden, W. 1952. Zu den Amarnabriefen aus Babylon und Assur. Orientalia 21:426–434.
Weippert, M. 1969. Ein ugaritischer Beleg für das Land “Qadi” der ägyptischen Texte? ZDPV

85: 35–50.
Winckler, H. 1896. The Tell-El-Amarna Letters. London and New York.

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the
Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters1

Introduction

The four letters unearthed at Kāmid el-Lōz (Kumidi) in the 1969 sea-
son were soon published by Edzard 1970:55-62 and discussed at length by
Hachmann (1970:63-94). Three more tablets were uncovered at the site dur-
ing later seasons and were published by Wilhelm (1973; 1982:123-129) and
Edzard (1976; 1980; 1982:131-135). Of the seven tablets discovered so far, the
two identical letters sent by the Pharaoh to Zalaya of Damascus and ÌR.LUGAL
of Shazaena are the most important, both for historical research and for dat-
ing the site. The historical background of these two letters was discussed and
clarified.2 Their date, however, is controversial and has yet to be decided. It is
the purpose of this article to discuss this at length, in an effort to shed more
light on the date and historical background of the letters.

At the focus of the historical and chronological discussion stands
Biryawaza, a ruler who is mentioned many times in the Amarna letters.
His role and, in particular, his seat are debated among scholars. Weber (in
Knudtzon 1915:1113-1114) regarded him as an Egyptian commissary, a sug-
gestion that was adopted by others (Edel 1953b:55; Redford 1967:219-220;
Goetze 1975:16). Other scholars identified him as ruler of Damascus (Campbell
1964:124; Helck 1971:179, 283-284; Albright 1975:101-102; Kühne 1973:62, n.
301). This suggestion was rejected by Hachmann (1970:73), who emphati-
cally concluded that “Seine Hauptstadt war Damaskus nicht, and Biriawaza
kann daher auch nicht als König yon Damaskus gelten.” Hachmann (1970:75-
76; 1982:151) generally defined Biryawaza as ruler of the land of Upi (Api), but
suggested no specific location for his seat. Such a noncommittal position was
also adopted by others (Klengel 1969:165; 1970:98: Pitard 1987:67-70).

In one of his letters (EA 194:9-10), Biryawaza mentions his forefathers.
Shutarna and Ḫa[š? . .]tar. Thus, Zalaya of Damascus, mentioned in the Kāmid
el-Lōz letters, could not have been his immediate predecessor. Identifying

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988), 179–193.
2. Edzard 1970; Hachmann 1970; Ahituv 1973:87–89; Klengel 1977:230–231; Hachmann
1982:156–161; Schulman 1982:314–315.

82

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 83

the seat of Biryawaza is crucial for establishing the date of Zalaya. Provided
that Biryawaza ruled outside Damascus, then Zalaya may be dated to any
time. On the other hand, if Damascus were Biryawaza’s seat, then Zalaya ei-
ther ruled long before him or was one of his successors.

The position of Biryawaza in the Egyptian government of Canaan and his
residency were discussed in great detail by Hachmann (1970:65-76; 1982:145-
151). His works will be taken as a point of departure for the historical dis-
cussion, in which an effort will be made to elaborate on Biryawaza’s histor-
ical role and, particularly, his place of residence. Moran’s new authoritative
translation (1987) (including many important philological notes) of all the
Amarna letters is the basis for all textual discussions in the article.

Biryawaza’s Residency and Zalaya of Damascus

1. Biryawaza’s reference to his forefathers (EA 194:5-11) in a badly bro-
ken letter is the first to be investigated. The key to the passage may be found
in a letter of Shechem (EA 253), where Lab’ayu answered a serious Egyptian
charge of disloyalty. He opened his defense by a reference to his ancestors
(lines 11-15): “Behold: I am the servant of the king, as was my father and my
grandfather, servants of the king from long ago.” Only then he answers the
Egyptian accusation, emphasizing his innocence (Campbell 1965:196-198:
Moran 1975a:147-151). Biryawaza opened his letter in almost identical words
(lines 5-11): “Behold, we are servants of the king from of old like Shutarna my
father (and) like Ḫa[š? ..]tar my grand[father].” This is an indication that, like
Lab’ayu, he answered serious Egyptian charges.3

What might have been these accusations? One may tentatively suggest
that he was accused of robbing the Babylonian caravan as mentioned in let-
ter EA 7:75. He opened his defense by emphasizing the loyalty of his dynasty
and continued (in the badly broken parts of the letter) to answer the charges,
claiming (inter alia) that he faithfully guarded the caravans sent from Egypt
to Mitanni (lines 22-23; compare EA 199, 255).4 If this analysis is correct. letter
EA 194 could be dated to the same time as the Babylonian letter EA 7.5

3. For a different interpretation of this passage, see Hachmann 1970:67.
4. A robbery of Babylonian caravan(s) by group(s) of pastoral nomads is probably de-
scribed in the fragmentary Amarna letter EA 200. The following restoration is suggested
for lines 7–11: “Behold what we have heard: [The Sut]û-Ahlameans [plundered? the cara-
vans? ([KASKALḫi].’a’) of the king of Babylon and the Ahlameans [ . . . t]o eat (compare 1 Sam
30:16)”.
5. For a possible date for letter EA 7, see Kühne 1973:60–72 and fig. 2.

84 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE

2. One of Biryawaza’s opponents, according to the Amarna archive, is
called Biridashwa (EA 196:41; 197:7, 15, 33). Establishing his seat and histori-
cal role is important for the understanding of Biryawaza’s role in the land of
Bashan. Biridashwa was sometimes regarded as mayor of Yeno‘am (Weber in
Knudtzon 1915:129; Greenberg 1955:44; Hachmann 1970:71: Helck 1971:179,
480). However, his leading role in the Bashan area (EA 197:13-19, 33-34), his
ability to mobilize chariots of the city of Ashtaroth (EA 197:10-11) and his at-
tack on Biryawaza’s personal property (EA 196:26-33, 38-43) make it clear that
he ruled Ashtaroth, the most important kingdom in this region.

Biridashwa’s predecessor in Ashtaroth was Ayyab. who is mentioned
twice in the Amarna correspondence (EA 256 and 364). The first of these
letters was written by Mut-Baḫlu of Piḫilu, his southern neighbor. The let-
ter is probably a defense against an accusation that, with the collaboration
of Ayyab, he robbed a Babylonian caravan (lines 16-23: “Pray, ask Ben-elima;
pray ask Tadua; pray ask Yishuya, whether [for the construction of the sen-
tence, compare EA 198:11-17) after the robbery(?) [gán-ba; compare Hebrew
genēbāh] of Shulum-Marduk I did come to help the city of Ashtaroth when all
the towns of the land of Gari became hostile”).6 The rebellious land of Gari is
located along the Yarmuk river on its northern side, and it is evident that the
territory of Ashtaroth included these towns up to the river, which marked the
border with Piḫilu, its southern neighbor.

The territorial situation, as reflected in this letter, fits nicely into the con-
tent of Ayyab’s own letter (EA 364). The ruler of Ashtaroth complains that the
king of Hazor has taken three of his towns (lines 17-20). Thus, it is clear that
the two kingdoms bordered at a certain place, and, because the Golan heights
were hardly settled in the Late Bronze Age, their boundaries necessarily met
near the Yarmuk river.7 The other boundaries of Ashtaroth cannot be estab-

6. For the controversial passage (lines 19–21), see the discussion of Moran 1987:484,
n. 4, with earlier literature. Moran followed Knudtzon in deriving gán-ba from the West
Semitic verb gnb and tentatively translated the passage as follows: “Certes, après que
SILIM-dMarduk a pris à la dérobée Aštartu, je suis allé à la rescousse.” However, the seizure
of an important Canaanite city by a man of Babylon is historically problematic. A robbery
of a Babylonian caravan, on the other hand, was not uncommon in the Amarna period. This
would immediately explain the serious accusations raised against Mut-Baḫli (lines 6–7) and
his explicit denial (lines 7–14). I translated gán-ba as a noun, derived from the West Semitic
root gnb. Mut-Baḫli claims, if I understand it correctly, that immediately after the robbery
(which he tacitly assigned to Ayyab) he stopped supporting the ruler of Ashtaroth, the lat-
ter carrying on alone his offensive (see Moran’s translation of line 14) against the rebel-
lious cities of the land of Gari.

7. Na’aman 1975:52–54; 1986:476–478; 1988:22. Bienkowski’s recent discussion of the
city of Hazor in the Amarna letters (1987:55–60) contains many pitfalls. First, it is meth-

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters 85

lished, though they may have bordered those of the kingdoms of Buṣruna and
Ḫalunni (see EA 197:13-16).

We may conclude that Ashtaroth was the central kingdom in the Bashan,
dominating a large territory and influencing its neighbors.

3. Letter EA 197 is important for understanding Biryawaza’s role within
the land of Upi (Api). The upper part of the tablet is broken and the damaged
text at the beginning may be reconstructed as follows: “[This is? what] he
said to [me when] your servant was in the city of E[drei?] (urua-[du?-ra?]).”8 The
restoration of the place name is based upon the vicinity of Edrei to Yeno‘am
(possibly Tell esh-Shihab), the next station in Biryawaza’s tour of the area
of Bashan (Na’aman 1977:168-177). The latter is certainly not a Palestinian
city, as scholars sometimes suggested,9 because it always appears alongside
Transjordanian towns and is never mentioned in a clear Cisjordanian con-
text. Its tentative identification with Tell esh-Shihab, on the Yarmuk river, is
based on the stela of Seti I found at this site and on Seti’s relief from Karnak
where a bush-lined river surrounds the city of Yeno‘am (Smith 1901:344-350;

odologically erroneous to draw conclusions from silence of documentation when dealing
with the Amarna archive (see Campbell 1964:32–36: Na’aman 1981:173–174). Second, the
number of letters sent by the kings of Hazor (2) is not exceptional. There is only one let-
ter from Ashtaroth, Hazor’s strong neighbor, three letters from Shechem and four letters
from Biryawaza (Damascus), the most important ruler in the areas of southern Syria and
Transjordan. Third, lack of records of the payment of tribute to Egypt is common to all
south Syrian and Transjordanian kingdoms, not only to Hazor. This may be explained on
the basis of the administrative division of the Egyptian province of Canaan in the Amarna
period (Na’aman, 1981:183–184). Fourth, Bienkowski’s analysis of letter EA 227 (1987:55–57)
is, in my opinion, not well founded. The letter is one of a series sent during the last stage
of the Amarna period by vassals in response to Egyptian orders to prepare everything that
was needed for a planned campaign to Canaan (Na’aman 1981:180–181, with earlier lit-
erature in n. 46; Na’aman 1990). Fifth, the title “king” in the letter of Hazor (EA 227:3) is
probably a slip of the local scribe, resulting from the fact that this was the common inner
Canaanite title for all city-state rulers (compare EA 8:25, 30:1, 70:20, 88:46, 92:32–34, 109:46,
139:14–15, 140:10–12, 147:67, 148:40–41, 197:14–15, 197:14–15, 41–42, 256:7–8, 306:24). The
kingdom of Hazor was not “a major Canaanite enclave” (Bienkowski 1987:59), but rather a
strong Canaanite territorial kingdom located outside the areas that were essential for the
Egyptian rule and trade in Asia. It is for this reason that the Egyptian involvement in the af-
fairs of Hazor (and in its strong neighbors in the north and south as well) was minimal. As
long as Hazor did not encounter the Egyptian interests in Canaan and as long as it obeyed
the orders of the Pharaohs, its king was left to administer its inner affairs without the in-
tervention of the Egyptian government.

8. For the transcription of the place name in the Egyptian topographical lists, see Görg
1974:3–18; Wilson 1969:676b (to p. 477c); Ahituv 1984:90–91.

9. For the suggestions to locate Yeno‘am in the Jordan Valley, see the literature cited by
Na’aman 1977a:168; cf. Ahituv 1984:198–200.