The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod, Ugarit-Forschungen 29 (1997),...

,

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

Nadav Na'aman, Tel Aviv

Previous Discussions

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

Alt (1925a; 1939) discussed at length the network of Canaanite kingdoms in his work on the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine. He noticed the difference of scope, strength and policy between the kingdoms situated in the highlands (e.g., Hazor, Shechem and Jerusalem) and those located in the lowlands, and used the differences as a point of departure for the discussion of the emergence of Israel in the early Iron Age. In another work (1950) he made the important distinction between Canaanite ci ty-states and Egyptian garrison cities (StU!zpunkte), and tried to reconstruct the system of Egyptian centres (Stutzpunktsystem) in Asia. In a third article (1944) he observed the changes that took place in the Egyptian system of government during the XIXth-XXth Dynasties. In other works he discussed new sources that were published in the 1920s-1940s years (Alt 1924; 1936; 1941; 1954). All's historical and topographical contributions have had a considerable impact on all subsequent studies of the Canaanite kingdoms in the Late Bronze Age.

Many studies on the identification of Canaanite toponyms and their s ignificance for the historical research were published in those years (e.g., Jirku 1937; Abel 1938; Gardiner 1947), but it is not necessary to survey them here. In his monumental work on the relations between Egypt and Western Asia in the second millennium BCE, Heick (1962; rev. ed. 1971) discussed in some detail the network of Canaanite kingdoms and Egyptian government centres in the Late Bronze Age. He was the first scholar to publish detailed maps of the

600 N. Na 'aman [UF 29

systems of Syrian and Canaanite kingdoms (1971:188, 309); but the borders drawn in his maps are schematic and take into consideration neither the topographical features nor the archaeological data. Aharoni summarized the work of his predecessors in his comprehensive book on the geographical history in the "Land of the Bible" (1967), but he did not try to delineate the system of Canaanite kingdoms.

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

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

For most of the north and northeastern areas of the land of Canaan there is not enough archaeological data for accurate border demarcations. In a pioneering study, Marfoe (1979) analysed the area of the Beqa' of Lebanon. By examining the natural data, surveying the area and comparing settlement patterns from early and late periods, he was able to reconstruct the number and size of the political units of the Beqa' in the Late Bronze Age.

Recently, Finkelstein (1996) suggested a new delineation for the array of Canaanite kingdoms. According to his reconstruction, the entire area of west Jordanian Palestine was shared between no more than 13-14 relatively large kingdoms. These kingdoms effectively controlled all the areas - inhabited and uninhabited - included in their territories. All other city-s tates, including some that are explicitly mentioned in the Amarna letters (e.g., AI]tiashna, Zugra,

1997] T he Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 601

~ab/puma, etc.), are left out of his list of kingdoms. 1 More details about Finkelstein's methodology and results will be shown in the discussion below.

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

Criteria for Establishing the System of Canaanite Kingdoms

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

In the past I made ample use of biblical evidence for the establishment of the borders of Canaanite kingdoms. In particular I util ized the descriptions of the inheritance of the twelve tribes for drawing the borders, assuming a direct continuity between city-state borders and the tribal allotments (Na'aman 1986a; 1988a: 21-26). In those years, many scholars believed that historical writing began in Israel in the tenth century BCE (the time of the United Monarchy). The composition of the tribal allotments was dated to the tenth century BCE, about two centuries after the final collapse of the system of Canaanite city-states (Alt 1927; Noth 1935; 1953; Aharoni 1967; Kallai 1986). Since all areas of Palestine began to be settled in Iron Age I, it was logical to assume a measure of continuity between the systems of city-states and tribal allotments. However, it is clear now that the descriptions of tribal allotments is a late, non-historical composition and was written hundreds years after the final collapse of the system of Canaanite kingdoms. I therefore withdraw all my former reconstructions of boundaries of Canaanite kingdoms based on the tribal allotments, as well as the identifications of towns as city-states on the basis of the biblical text.

The lis t of Canaanite kingdoms should first of all be composed on the basis of the Amarna letters, since only the rulers of these political units were allowed to correspond with the Pharaoh. The Akkadian title used to describe the local rulers of Canaan is hazannu, "mayor", which is the equivalent of Egyptian b3ty ', a mayor of an Egyptian town. The court administration treated them as Egyptian mayors in one important aspect: they had full responsibility for every-

1 The o mission of these kingdoms by Finkelstein is the mo re surpris ing as he opens his discussion by stating that he "accepts the argument that indiv iduals who wrote to - or received letters from - Egypt were all rule rs of c ity-states".

602 N. Na'aman (UF 29

thing that happened in the c ity (or rather city-state) that the Pharaoh gave into their charge. Thus, each vassal was personally responsible to the Pharaoh for the territory he held, and in his letters he reported back to Egypt that he had fu lfi lled all the obligations imposed on his domain. We may conclude that each person who wrote either to the Pharaoh or to his officials was a city-state ruler, regardless of the scope of his territory or his political power.

If the Amarna archive were complete, the task of making a list of citystates would have been easy. Unfortunately, this is not the case. On the contrary, the archive is a unique collection, differing in its assemblage from all other ancient Near Eastern archives. The earlier tablets discovered in the archive had been brought from the previous capital, Thebes, to the new capital, Akhetaten (Amarna), when the royal court moved there. We may assume that certain letters were taken from Akhetaten at the time of its abandonment. (Riedel 1939; Campbell 1964:35-36; Na'aman 1981:173-174). The number of letters transferred on both occasions is unknown, nor do we know how many tablets were totally destroyed when the archive was discovered and before the importance of the tablets was recognized (K.nudtzon 1915:1-15). An illustration of the incomplete nature of the archive are the four Amarna tablets which comprise the second part of the original two-tablet letter (EA 101, 113, 245, 251): in no case was the firs t tablet found. Evidently only a portion of the original archive has come down to us.

I would like to propose a method for estimating how much of the original archive has come down to us. In Akhenaten's late years the Egyptians planned a campaign to northern Canaan and sent verbal and written orders to their vassals commanding them to prepare for the arrival of the Egyptian archers (Na'aman 1990, with earlier literature). Only on that occasion were Egyptian messengers carrying royal letters sent to all quarters of the Egyptian province in Asia. Answers to the royal letters arrived from southern Canaan (EA 65, 292, 324-325, 33.7), from northern Canaan (EA 55, 191, 193, 195, 201-206, 216-218, 227, and possibly 213), and from the coast of Lebanon (EA 141-142, 144, 147, 153, 362, and possibly 223 and 233). There are indications in the letters that the Canaanite rulers believed that the campaign would arrive soon and were anxious to affirm their participation immediately (Na'aman 1990: 404-405). Moreover, in light of the formal character of these letters, most of these kings gave not only their own names, but also of their cities, unlike the routine correspondence in which c ity names were sometimes omitted (particularly in north Palestinian and south Syrian letters). I suggest that answers came from all quarters of Canaan, and that the number of missing places may help us estimate the gap of documentation.

If this criterion is valid, it indicates that a considerable part of the original archive is missing. Among the Palestinian rulers, only those of Ashkelon, Gezer,

1997) The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 603

Gath* (Tell e~-~afi), 2 Hazar, and a few others whose seat is unknown (Ijiziru, Bayawa and the authors of letters EA 217-218) are mentioned. This supports the conclusion that only part of the original archive has come down to us.

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

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

Finkelstein (1996:224), on the other hand, suggests that "the material at hand enables a full or almost full reconstruct ion of the territorial map of Late Bronze Canaan". In support of this conclusion he claims that "most Canaanite city-states known by name are mentioned in several letters." He also notes that "when mapped, the information provided by the archive does not leave empty territories". However, exactly the opposite of the latter statement is true. The Amarna archive supplies very few data for establ ishing the borders between neighbouring kingdoms. 3 For this reason, early scholars of the Amarna tablets did not try to draw borders. Maps with borders appeared only after enough archaeological data had been assembled, supplementing the scanty textual data. If Finkelstein's maps do not leave empty spaces it is only because he deliberately drew the borders in this manner. Drawing the borders differently will leave ample space for the missing city-states.

The statement that most Canaanite kingdoms known by name are mentioned in several letters is also incorrect. A glance at the index of Moran's translations of the Amarna letters (1992:388-392) shows that many city-states are mentioned only once. For example, all the c ities in the Beqa' of Lebanon, or in the Bashan, are mentioned only once (Ashtaroth alone is mentioned twice). All Palestinian city-states mentioned in the archive and omitted by Finkelstein for no obvious reason (e.g., Al)tiashna, Zu~ra, Na-x-~a-x, ~ab/puma, [x-I]G-ma-te.)

2 T he name of Shuwardata's capi ta l is nowhere mentioned in the Amarna letters. His seat was apparently in Tell e~-~afi, the place of Philistine Gath in the Iron Age. It may be assumed that the place was called a lready by the name Gath in the Late Bronze. Hence the name Gath* fo r S huwardata's and 'Abdi-'Ashtarti's city in this article. 3 Only the borders of Jerusalem w ith Gezer and Gath* are demarcated by concrete data extracted from the Amarna letters. T he northern border of Shechem may be delineated by an analysis o f letter EA 250 (see below). All other borders are drawn on the basis of environmental and archaeological evidence.


are likewise mentioned only once, and their site are unknown. Even some major Canaanite kingdoms (e.g., Shechem, Ilazor, Ashtaroth and Damascus) are mentioned only a few times.

To illustrate the problem of preparing a list of city-states, let me give two examples. (a) Lab'ayu of Shechem and his sons are the best documented rulers in the area of Palestine, and many details of their career are known from the correspondence. Yet the name of their capital is mentioned neither in Lab'ayu's letters nor in the letters of other kings, nor in Egyptian texts of the time of the New Kingdom. Shechem (miit Sakmi) is mentioned once in a letter from Jerusalem (EA 289:21-24), but the reference alone is not enough to identify their seat. Fortunately, we arc able to identify Lab'ayu's and his sons' capital thanks to the many references to their offensive in the Amarna letters. Similar references relating to many other rulers whose seats are not mentioned are missing, and the identities of their capitals remain unknown. (b) Biryawaza held a central posit ion in northern Canaan in the Amarna period, and acted on behalf of the Egyptian authorities in this area. His letters do not name his city. Only with the help of the many references to his activity can we establish that Damascus was his capital (Na'aman 1988c, with earlier literature) .

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

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

Cuneiform tablets unearthed in Canaanite sites indicate that these places were the administrative seats, either city-states or Egyptian centres of government. This is particularly true of administrative texts written by professional scribes for the local authorities. The number of such tablets discovered so far in Canaan is small, indicating the limited use of writing, except for correspondence with the Pharaoh. Hence their importance for the identification of Canaanite administrative centres.

The Amarna archive covers less than thirty years, from ca. the 30th year of Amenophis III to Tutankhamun's third year. How many kings may on the average have ruled in each place in the course of that quarter of a century? The Phoenician coast is amply documented, and an analysis of its letters indicates that the number of kings in each place (with the exception of Achshaph) was


two. 4 In two south Canaanite cities, Gczer and Lachish, three successive kings are known. On the other hand, only one ruler may have ruled in some ci ties during the quarter of century of the archive. An average of two kings for each place may safely be assumed.

Bunimovitz (1989) and Finkelstein (1996) collected all the available Late Bronze archaeological data relevant for the discussion. It is clear that the major Late Bronze s ites (Finkelstein's categories C-E) were centres of Canaanite citystates. But the number of sites of category C (1.1-5 hectares) far exceeds the maximum possible number of city-states. Finkelstein (1996:226) noted that "from the demographical point of view, in order to be able to execute largescale building activities, the peer polities each needed a minimal population of several thousands". I very much doubt the correctness of this statement. First, what may be true for large territorial kingdoms is not necessarily true for small city-states, which may have encompassed no more than a capital and a few vi llages. Second, unlike the ci ties of the Middle Bronze, very few new fortifications were built in the Late Bronze Age. As noted by Bunimovitz (1994a: 9): "The diminished population in Late Bronze Age rendered impossible such largescale building endeavours, and it is doubtful if the c ities could provide enough corvee labourers and craftsmen to construct massive walls". Indeed, the extent of public works in Late Bronze Palestine was quite limited (Hazor is an exception), and some public buildings were mainly rebuilding and enlargements of Middle Bronze edifices (e.g., the temples at Shechem and Megiddo; the palace and gate at Megiddo). In light of the limited scope of public works unearthed in Late Bronze Palestinian sites, Bunimovitz (1994a) concluded that there was a shortage of manpower at that time, and that control of as much human resources as possible was a major factor in the struggles between Canaanite kingdoms.

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

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

Letter EA 249:5-18 s heds an interesting light on the problem of manpower

4 These are the names of kings in each kingdom (see the index of proper names in Moran 1992: 379-386): Arnurru: 'Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru; Gubla : Rib-Hadda and llirapih; Beirut: 'Abdi-Hadda and Arnmunira; Sidon: Yabni-... and Zimredda; Tyrc: sip!i and Abi-Milku; Acco: Suratu and Satatna; Achshaph: Indaruta.


in Palestinian city-states. Ba'alu-UR.SAG complains before the Pharaoh thus: May he (the Pharaoh) know that my m[en] are doing service in the day(s) of Mi[lkilu]. What have I done to Milkilu that he should treat my men (even) more unjustly than his own servants? To Tagi, his fa ther-in-Jaw, he has handed over his own servants, and what can they do? I am angry (ra-ub\ and [how] ([mi-na]-me) can the men serve you? [May] the king [rel]ease me. Who [forced into servi]ce (ik-su-u]smi) Milkilu and Lab'ayu, so that [ ... ]. s

It seems that the Egyptian authorities had ordered Ba'alu-UR.SAG to send his men for corvee. He complained that his men were serving Milkilu, king of Gezer, replacing the men of Gezer who had been sent to help Tagi, Milkilu's fa ther-in-law, and asked to be released from his obligations to Egypt. It is thus evident that allied rulers might help each other, whereas subordinate rulers were sometimes obliged to work for their stronger neighbours.

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

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

But the problem is even more complicated. Let us examine for a moment the two maps drawn by Finkels tein. The reality of borders that pass through inhabited areas is clear. They define the territory where kingdoms imposed taxes, levied soldiers for war and workers for the corvee. But what is the reality of borders that pass through the sparsely inhabited areas, where there were no permanent settlements? Large parts of Palestine were generally unsettled in the Late Bronze Age, including the Upper and Lower Galilee, the Golan Heights, the central hill country, the Lower Jordan Valley and the Negeb. Can borders drawn through such areas represent political or economic reality? It goes without saying that some " invisible" (in the archaeological sense) population groups lived in these areas. But their relations with the authorities of neighbouring kingdoms are unknown. There is no evidence that kings effectively dominated these sparsely inhabited areas, or that they considered them parts of their king-

5 For the verb kasiisu in the Amarna letters, sec Rainey 1989-90:59a.

1997) The Network of Canaani te Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 607

doms. On the contrary, the Amarna letters indicate that all the conflicts between neighbouring kingdoms involved villages and towns. I therefore question the validity of maps that divide, without any gaps, the entire area of Canaan, and give the impression that there was a s table network of borders in which each king knew what belongs to him and what to his neighbours. I also question the significance of calculating the kingdoms' territories on the basis of these artificial borders. It seems to me that portions of the sparsely inhabited territories were a kind of "no-man's land", and should not be considered integral parts of the kingdoms.

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

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in South Palestine

The Amarna letters indicate that the most important kingdoms in south Palestine were Ashkelon, Lachish, Gath* (Tell e~-$iifi) Gezer and Jerusalem. Their rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh and are mentioned in their neighbours' letters. The strongest and most influential kingdom in southern Canaan was Gezer, controll ing the international road leading from north to south and the internal latitudinal routes leading to the hill country. Other Canaanite kingdoms, whose rulers corresponded with the Pharaoh, but are not mentioned by other rulers, are Yurza (EA 314-316), Zubra (EA 334), Abtiashna (EA 319), Na1-xba-x (EA 272) and $ab/puma (EA 273-274). 6 Yurza is sometimes located at Tell Jemmeh, on Na~al Besor, the southern border of Canaan. Another possible site is Tel Harer, on Na~al Gerar (for recent discussion and literature, sec Finkelstein 1996:231-232). The location of the other city-states is unknown. Some large south Palestinian si tes, though Finkelstein dismisses their identification as centres of city-states (e.g., Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel 'Eton, Khirbet Rabud \ may perhaps be identi fied with these city-states.

The location and status of the c ity of Zilu also needs clarification. 'Abdi-beba, king of Jerusalem, wrote to the Pharaoh as follows (EA 288:39-47):

Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu was slain in the city gate of Zilfi. The king did nothing. Behold, Z imredda of Lachish, servants who became 'Apiru smote him

6 No. 45 in the topographical lis t of Shishak may possibly be restored bt~b[m ], i.e., Beth ~abu[ma]. See Kitchen 1973: 437 n. 74. 7 It is possible that the Canaanite town s ituated at Kh irbet Rabud in the Late Bronze Age had a d ifferent name than the Iron Age town. For the suggestion that Khirbet Rabud was the site of a small Canaanite city-state in the 14th-13th centuries, see Na'aman 1992.


(ik-ki-tl-su). 8 Yaptih-Hadda was s lain in the city gate of Zilfi. The king did nothing. Why has he not called them to account?

The death of the three mayors 9 is described in letter EA 335:8-18 as fol-lows (Na'aman 1979:627-28):

May [the kin]g, my lord, be in[formed] that the [ .. are .. ] and Tu[rbazu and] Yaptih-Hadda are s}ain, and that he (the rebel) smo[te the ruler1 of L]achish (nu-k[i-mt LU1 ""'l]a-ki-si). 10 May, the king, my lord, be in[formed] that [the r]ebel has [taken] all my best men and women. May the king, my lord, be informed that Lachish is h[ os ]tile and Mu'rashtu has been seized. Also [Jerusal]em? [is hos]tile.

Albright (1924; see Rainey 1978:106; Moran 1992:391) identified ""'zi-lu-u with the Egyptian town of Silu, located at he border of eastern Delta. According to his interpretation, 'Abdi-ljeba complains that two Canaanite mayors were slain on Egyptian soil, but the Pharaoh did nothing to restore order in the land. However, locating Zilu on Egypt's eastern border may perhaps fi t the text of EA 288, but is alien to the text of EA 335. What relevance has the slaying of two Canaanite mayors in far-away Egypt to 'Abdi-'Ashtarti's complaints about rebellions and a growing state of insecurity near his borders. The fact that rulers in two different regions connected the death of Turbazu and Yaptit-Hadda with the s laying of Zimredda indicates that Zilu and Lachish are neighbouring towns. Zilu must have been either a small city-state, or a border town, where the two mayors met and were killed.

The town of Mu'rashtu was possibly located on 'Abdi-'Ashtarti's border with Lachish. He complains that after the slaying of Zimredda, the rebel despoiled one of his towns. The statement that "Lachish is hostile (nakirat) and Mu'rashtu has been taken (sabtat)" combines the rebellion and despoliation. A similar s tructur~ and identi~al verbs appear in letter EA 256, where Mut-Batlu reports that seven towns rebelled (nakru) agains t Ayyab of Ashtaroth, his northern neighbour, and that two towns (ljayyunu and Yabiluma) had been seized (~abtat). The latter towns must have been located in his territory, near his northern border with the kingdom of Ashtaroth. Mu'rashtu must be sought near 'Abdi-'Ashtarti's border with Lachish. Assuming that he ruled in Gath* (see Na'aman 1979: 676-684), Mu'rashtu may best be identified at Tel Burna!, near Na~al Govrin, where Late Bronze pottery was found (Vargon 1990; Dagan

x I suggest deriving the verba l form from Canaanite nkh " to smite" (ik-ki-tl-su = yikke'usu). The verb appears, with exactly the same connotation, in many biblical descriptions that refer to revo lts and the smiting of Israelite and Judean kings. 9 That Turbazu and Yapti!J-Hadda were mayors is indicated by 'Abdi-ljeba's words: " Not a single mayor remains to the king ... all are lost". 10 I suggest deriving the verbal form nu-k[i-mi] (line 10) from a D stem of nkh, "to smite". For the verbal form, compare EA 283:23 nu-di-ni ("has cast me"). The subject of the verb (if it is a 3rd per. sg.) is the rebel (amu) mentioned in line 12. Another possibility is to restore nu-k[i-tl] and translate " they (the 'Apiru) smote".

1997] T he Network of Canaani te Late Bronze Ki ngdoms and the City of Ashdod 609

1992:154). The seat of several south Canaanite rulers is unknown. In addition to Turba

zu and Yaptih-Hadda (one of whom may have ruled Zilfi), the lis t includes Hiz iru (EA 336-337), Yabzib-Hadda (EA 275-276), Yabtiru (EA 296) and ~i-x

ib1-ni (EA 294). 11 'Abdi-'Ashtarti (EA 63-65, 335) must have been the successor of Shuwardata, and Shubandu (EA 301-306) was the predecessor of Yidia (Na'aman 1975:124-138; 1979:676-684). Two or three rulers arc already known in all major kingdoms of southern Canaan. Thus, the six ru lers whose capitals are unknown may have ruled either the small city-states of which only one ruler is known (Yurza, Zutra, Al)tiashna, Na1-x-ba-x, $ab/puma), or other c ity-states whose names do not appear in the extant Amarna letters.

The City of Ashdod in the Amarna Letters

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

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

The most remarkable of these texts is KTU 4.635. At least 21 of the extant 62 persons named in this long list of names are called aqddy (Ashdadite). The rest are native Ugaritians designated by their residence, occupation, or service. Astour (1970:125-126) suggested that all these persons were associated with the city of Ma'hadu, the harbour of Ugarit, and possibly lived there. An analysis of

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

6 10 N. Na'aman (UF 29

the names of the Ashdadites in this text indicates that most of them (16/17 out of 21) arc West Semitic.

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

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

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

Finally, an Ugaritic text (KTU 4.709) records the purchase of "seven talents of wool according to the talent of Ashdad, and according to the talent of Ugarit five talents 1800 (shekels)". Liverani (1972) clarified the relations of the two weight systems and its significance for the commercial relations of Ugarit with Ashdad.

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

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

Enkomi is the closest Cypriot harbour to Ugarit; their close relations, as indicated by the extensive archaeological excavations conducted on the two sites, are too well known to require comment. Enkomi's prosperity reached its zenith in the 13th century, the time in which the Ashdadites are mentioned in the documents from Ugarit. The remarkable place of the Ashdadites in the tablets from Ugarit, the different standard of weights and the export of a special kind of garment - all fit Enkomi very well.

It is not clear whether the high percentage of West Semitic names among the Ashdadites, as reflected in tablet KTU 4.635, represents the general population of the city, or is typical only of the community that lived at Ma'hadu. Either


way, provided that the suggested identification of Ashdad with Enkomi is acceptable, it indicates the migration of people of West Semitic origin from the coast of Lebanon to Cyprus, and the long preservation of their cultural inheritance. The Late Bronze c ity of Enkomi may be compared with Iron Age Kition, which for hundred years kept its Phoenician cultural identity and was the main Cypriot port of trade with the Phoenician cities (particularly Tyre) in the first millennium BCE.

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

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

In a few texts, Alashiya appears with the URU determinative. It is well known that scribes who worked in the peripheral kingdoms did not consistently distinguish between determinatives, and sometimes used URU, or KUR.URU, for KUR. An examination of all the references where Alashiya appears with the URU determinative reveals that no single text refers unequivocally to a city. 14

A town named Alashiya is not borne out by the textual evidence. We may conclude that Alashiya was a name for the island of Cyprus, or sometimes for a part of it, and that the claim that a certain city was called Alashiya is yet to be confirmed.

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

13 The suggestion of Lemche and T hompson (1994:13) that the name Ashdod is composed of the element dwd is erroneous. 14 See Knapp 1996:4, with earl ier literatu re. For the Mari references, see Sasson 1996; for the Ugaritic text, see Walls 1996:40. It may be noted that the colophon in KTU 4.102 is broken on both s ides. It is possible that a KUR sign appeared on the left side, or that a post-determinative Kl s ign appeared on the right side (as restored in KTU).

612 N. Na'aman [UF 29

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

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

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

There is a great danger in drawing conclusions on the basis of lack of evidence (i.e., the non-mention of Ashdod in the Amarna and Egyptian sources). Nevertheless, I believe that a case may be made for the suggestion that Iron Age Ashdod was caped by a different name in the Late Bronze Age.

A certain place called T ianna is mentioned in letters of the rulers of Gezer (EA 298), Ashkelon (EA 306) and Gath* (EA 284). I have already suggested (Na'aman 1979: 679-681) that the three letters were written at about the same time and reflect a situation in which rebellions and disturbances spread through the south Canaanite kingdoms (for details, see Na'aman 1975:69-72, 102-104, 205-206, 208). The three (unfortunately partly broken) passages in which Tianna is mentioned run as follows: (a) EA 298:20-30: "May the king, my lord, be informed that my younger

brother, having become enemy, entered Mubbazu and pledged himself to the 'Apiru. And now [T i] anna (["ruti]-an-nalkJi) is at war with me. So govern (milik) your land". 15

(b) EA 306:28-35: "And may you, my lord, know that they have set fire to your c ities and your places. [And no ]w [Tia ]nna (["'"ti-a ]n-naki) [is at war1

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

1997] The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 613

againsr1 you ]r1 [ servant1

]". 16

(c) EA 284:30-32: " ... urut[i]-i[a-n]a, and n[ow1] he/they at[tac]ked7 it (im-[g]u

[g]u-m[i]-si)." For the verb magiigu, see Kottsieper 1988.

The three letters indicate that rebellion broke out in the city of Tianna and spread to neighbouring areas, and that its outcome endangered the kingdoms of Gezer, Gath* and Ashkelon. Who the rebels were is not related in the letters. Muhhazu is located south of Gezer's border, and was sometimes identified at Tell- ~s-Sul~an, near Nebi Rubin (Alt 1925b:17; M. Dothan 1952). It seems to me that Beya, the son of Gulatu, whose misdeeds were the subject of the bitter complaints of Ba'lu-ship~i of Gezer (EA 292:41-52) and of $i-x-ib1-ni (EA 294:16-26), was the leader of a band of 'Apiru that stayed at Muhhazu. 17

The armed band used to capture travelers and release them for a high ransom (EA 292:47-51; 29~:18-24). In a situation of internal disturbances (Tianna's rebellion), the rebellious prince sought the military support of the band of 'Apiru in an effort to gain power and overthrow the elected king. Indeed, Yapahu reigned for only a short time and was soon replaced by a Ba'lu-ship!i, the author of letters EA 292-293 (Na'aman 1975:69-72). 18

There is another source that refers to Tianna, not discussed until now in scientific literature. In an Egyptian administrative text (Papyrus Petersburg 1116A) of the time of Amenophis II (1427-1401) (Redford 1965) appears two lis ts of "maryannu from Djahi" who received beer and corn from the administrative authorities in Memphis (see Heick 1963:623 lines 67-77, 6281ines 183-190; 1971:166; Epstein 1963). The lists of Canaanite towns are almost identical, although recorded in a different order. The names of the towns that sent the envoys (designated by the honorary title maryannu) are as follows: Megiddo, Chinnereth, Achshaph, Smrn (i.e., Shambuna), Taanach, Mishal, Tnn (Heick:

16 T he end of the an sign is clearly seen on the tablet (collated). Rainey's restoration (1989-90:72) of a lu s ign is erroneous. 17 Albright (1946:19 No 46; 1969:489 n. 22; 1975:104) suggested that Peya was a minor Egyptian officer and bore an Egypt ian name (see Heick 1971:255; Hess 1993:123). However, the name Beya is known from the texts of Emar, Assyria, ljatti (Hess 1993:123), Ugarit (Grondahl 1967:305, 330) and Alalakh (AT 199:31). Beya is also the name of a high Egyptian official of Canaanite origin in the late years of the Egyptian XIXth Dynasty (Freu 1988; de Moor 1990:136-151). His mother, Gulatu , had a West Semitic name (Hess 1993:68). I very much doubt the Egyptian origin of his name. Be that as it may, Beya, the son of Gulatu, must have been a local leader of a band that operated in the southern coast of Canaan in the Amarna period. 18 Letter EA 300 is Yapahu's last letter. For trans lation and early literature, see Moran 1992. Lines 10-14 may tentatively be restored thus: " [May the king know about] m[y town]s ([URUditli~[;·i]a), for they have been t[ak]en (ti-[il-te ]-qa) from my country. And indeed I have nothing left". Line 10 is restored on the basis of the s imilarity of the fragmented signs to line 19 (URUdidli ~i-ni-ia), as well as the words of lines 15-22, which indicate that he lose his towns.


ti-n-ni), Sharuna, Ashkelon, Hazar and "the small one from Htm ". 19 An envoy from Lachish is also mentioned in this text.

Most of the cities enumerated are known to have corresponded with the Pharaoh in the Amarna period. We may safely assume that each envoy represented a city-state and was sent to Egypt by his lord (a secondary town within a c ity-state would never send envoys to Egypt!). T heir mission must have been either political or ceremonial (i.e., to bring the inw-contributions for the New Year's parade), and their expenditures were covered, at least partially, by the Egyptian court.

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

May the Great King take cognizance of his servant, for I reside in E-ti4

ti-en-ni. So may the Great King, my lord, take cognizance of his servant.

The letter was undoubtedly sent from a Syrian town (Artzi 1968). The citystates enumerated in Papyrus Petersburg are all located in Palestine, except for Sharuna that is probably located in Bashan (see EA 241; 20 Edel 1966:13-14). Identifying the Tnn of the Egyptian text with the assumed toponym mentioned in EA 260 considerably expands the geographical scope of the list. Moreover, the reading Bit-lenni in letter EA 260 (as suggested by Moran 1992:311) is not free of doubts. First, there is no URU sign before the assumed place name. Second, the element bit ("house of') is quite rare in second millennium Syrian toponyms (for example, it does not appear among the toponyms from Ugarit). Third, a toponym does not fit well the context of the passage, in which the author (Balu-Mer) relates how dangerous his s ituation is.

Note too th~ similarity between the words in lines 13-14 and those of 'Abdi-AshirtaJs letter:

EA 260:13-14: u a-na-ku a-na E-ti ti-en-ni u-sa-ab EA 62: 17-18: sum-ma i-na a-sar E ni-i~ as-ba-ku ("Had I been staying in a place/house which was calm").

In light of the comparison, it would seem that the author of letter EA 260 made use of a descriptive expression ("For I reside in a . . . house/place"). Akkadian tenu means "substitute" (AHW 1347a) and is construed with bftu. Did Balu-Mer compare his place to an adjoining house, not an integral part of

19 The statement referring to " the small one" is not clea r. Heick (197 1:166 n. 135)

wondered if it had to do with the succession to the throne. 20

The second half of letter EA 241 is partly broken, but may tentat ively be restored as follows (lines 1.2-20): "And here and now the king, my lord, [the 'Apiru11

) are [m)an[y) ([m ]a-a-d[u]). O[ne (1-[en]) was caug h( 1 near/ in the ci)ty ( ruRUl) of the king, my lord. Another was smitten by my hand, for I am a loyal servant of the king, my lord".


the main house where everyone else s tayed? Or did he usc a loan word to describe his place (compare EA 294:22 brti sunuti)?

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

Of the several south Canaanite rulers whose seat is unknown, Yabtiru, who "guards the city gate of Gaza and the city gate of Joppa" (EA 296:31-33), may have ruled Tianna (Te) Ashdod). Another candidate ruler for Tianna is $i-xib1-ni, the author of letter EA 294. T his ruler complains that Beya, possibly the leader of a band that stayed in Mubbazu (see above), captured the men that he sent for service in Joppa. Placing his city south of Mubbazu, and assuming that his men were captured when they were on their way north to Joppa, fits nicely with Tianna's assumed location.

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

May I add at the end of this discussion that I am fully aware of the uncertainty entailed in the two parts of my suggestion, the identification of the city of Ashdad at Enkomi, and in particular the identification of Tianna at Tel Ashdod . But I believe that the arguments given above are strong enough to encourage other scholars to enter the discussion, and ei ther agree (at least partially), or suggest other solutions for these complicated textual-archaeological problems.

The System of Canaanite Kingdoms in North Palestine

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

2 1 Rainey's suggestion (1989:570-57 1; 1989-1990:70) to tra nscribe ['""KIN-t)i ma-gal in line 2 1 must be rejected o n paleographic grounds. Both Knudtzon's transcription and the facs imile of Schroeder arc at variance with his proposed text alterations. 22 There is no indication in the Amarna correspondence that Shambuna was an important Canaanite city. T he city and its rulers are mentioned only in Shum-Adda's letters, in reference to the plundering of a Babylonian caravan (EA 8). The city and its ruler are


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

Among the possible north Palestinian rulers whose seat is unknown are Dashru (EA. 261-262), Bayadi (EA. 237-238), Baduzana (EA. 239), 'Abdina (EA. 229), Shipturi~a (EA. 226), Y/Wiktasu (EA. 221-222), Al]i-y[a .... ] (EA. 217), 23

and Bayawa (EA. 215-216). Another ruler may possibly be mentioned in letter EA. 238. Bayadi, the

author of letters EA. 237-238, was an ally of Lab'ayu, king of Shechem, and he complained that after his enemies (whose names are broken) captured Lab'ayu, they attacked and conquered his towns. The passage EA 238:21-28 is partly broken, but may tentatively be restored thus:

[They] hav[e attacked1 Lab'ayu1] and the son of lj[a]g[urru1 (xxx)] and

ljagurru (xx)], and they have captured [Lab'ayu] and attacked m[e]. They have captured the cities of the magnate, my lord. 24

ljagurru, Lab'ayu's ally, is another mayor whose seat is unknown. Finkelstein questioned the s tatus of Taanach as an independent city-state in

the Amarna letters. However, the archive of 13 cuneiform tablets discovered on the site leaves no doubt that Taanach was a city-state in the late 15th century. Its ruler (Rewashur) received letters from both neighbouring kings and from an Egyptian officer stationed at Gaza. The palace management was administered partly in the Akkadian language. A messenger of Taanach is mentioned in Papyrus Petersburg 1116A among the other Canaanite envoys. Excavations conducted on the site indicate that it was sparsely inhabited in Late Bronze II (Glock 1993:1432). Yet according to letter EA. 248, Taanach (Ta~n[ak]a) was the seat of an independent ruler (Yashdata), who participated, with other rulers, in the pursuit a'fter Lab'ayu (EA. 245:11-18). There can be no doubt that Taanach's s tatus,as independent city-state was maintained in spite of its (gradual?) downfall.

Maintaining the s tatus of a city-state in spite of drastic downfall is illustrated by the example of Ekron in the f irst millennium. During the early Iron Age,

not mentioned even in the episode of Lab'ayu's s laying, that probably took part in Sham!}una's territo ry. The relative small size of Tel Shim ron in the Late Bronze Age (see Portugali l 982: 185-187) accords well with the evidence of the A marna tablets. 23

For West Semitic parallels to the name A!}i-ya ... ("The divine brother is ... "), see Zadok 1977: 355b. 24

The restoration of lines 2 1-22 is ad sensum. The restoratio n of line 25 is supported by the text of EA 237. In line 23, Moran (1992) restored DUMU "'s[a]-t(a-at-na]. However, Suratu , the father of Satatna, participated in the operat ion against Lab'ayu (EA 245), and Satatna ascended the throne after Lab'ayu's death. Moreover, Acco was an enemy, not an ally, of Lab'ayu. I therefore restore in line 23 DUMU "'lj[a]-gu[r-ru (xxx)]. Like many princes who participated in operations during their fa ther's reign, ljagurru 's son took part in the operation s ide by side with his father.


Ekron was a large fortified c ity covering about 50 acres (Gitin and Dothan 1987; T. Dothan 1989; Gitin 1989). Following its destruction in the tenth century BCE, the city shrank, lost its fort ifications, and covered only the s ite's summit. It was smaller and weaker than many fortified cities of the neighbouring kingdoms. Yet Ekron remained a city-state, as indicated by Amos 1:8 and by the recently discovered dedication inscription, which mentions the f ive ancestors of its early seventh century BCE ruler (Gitin, Dothan and Naveh 1997). The prestigious status of Ekron in the early Iron Age did not vanish even after the city's utter decline.

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

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

The cities of Mishal and Chinnereth appear in the list of envoys who traveled on an official mission to Egypt in the time of A.menophis II. Chinnereth is usually identified at K.hirbet el-'Oreimeh, but only second millennium sherds, and a poor Late Bronze I sett lement, have been found in the recently-conducted excavations of the site (Fritz 1993:211-212). Either the Late Bronze city was utterly destroyed, or Canaanite Chinnereth must be sought in another place (e.g., at Tell el-'Ubeidiyeh, south of the Sea of Galilee).

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

The c ity of Rehob is not mentioned in the A.marna letters, but was doubtless a city-state, as indicated by Seti I's inscription from Beth-shean. In describing the rebellion initiated by the leader of Hamath, the Egyptian king noted that "he


does not permit the prince (wr) of Rehob to go outside" (Wilson 1969:253). Rehob is also mentioned in a Jetter from Taanach (TT 2:22), and is safely identified at the large mound of Tell e~-~arem. It was the major Canaanite city in the Beth-shean Valley. The case of Rehob shows how erroneous is the assumption that all the major Canaanite city-states are mentioned in the extant Amarna archive.

Finally, there are some sites that may have been seats of local rulers, even though their names are missing from the Amarna letters. We may note Tel Dor, which in the firs t millennium was always an independent dis trict (see Na'aman 1986b:184-186), Tel Jokneam and Tell Qarnei-Hi!!in.

The Amarna letters tell us very little about the scope of the north Palestinian kingdoms. The clearest example is letter EA 250, in which Ba'lu-UR.SAG relates that Lab'ayu attacked Shunem, Burquna and Ijarabu, seized Gath-rimmunima and "cultivated the fields1 of the king" (lines 41-47). Burquna and Ijarabu are identified in the Dothan Valley (see locations and literature in Finkelstein 1996:236). Hence, the entire Dothan Valley, or a considerable part of it, were situated outs ide Lab'ayu's kingdom (Na'aman 1975:45; Bunimovitz 1989:142). The Dothan Valley may have been the seat of a local king, who naturally was a vassal of the s trong king of Shechem.

The territory of Beth-shean must have included the Pharaonic lands in the Jczreel Valley (Na'aman 1988d). Finkels tein suggested that "Egyptian centres did not possess large territories beyond their immediate surroundings", and that "the local population was considered to be under the jurisdiction of the nearest Canaanite city-state". The latter s tatement is implausible, since this would have allowed neighbouring rulers freedom to intervene in the internal affairs of the Egyptian centres. Moreover, in one of his letters (EA 102:22-24), Rib-Hadda describes the local authorities of ~umur as made of "a magnate (1"rabU) and the lords of the city (ameluti bele iili)". In Canaanite city-states, the lords of the city were the ur~n institution that represented the citizens before the king . In the Egyptian centres they represented the citizens before the local Egyptian authorities. In another Jetter (EA 62), 'Abdi-Ashirta reports that he guards the Egyptian centres of ~umur and Ulassa, and adds: "I also guard the barley harvest of ~umur and of all the lands of the king" (lines 26-28). Like all other Canaanite cities, ~umur had tracts of arable land in its vicinity. Each Egyptian centre was no doubt a territorial unit encompassing enough territory for the maintenance of the local population. Finkelstein's maps, in which all Egyptian centres were included within the territory of the nearby Canaanite cities, are evidently wrong.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the following five points: 1. In order to reconstruct territorial-political systems, it is necessary to

apply theoretical models and to take into account the geographical features and archaeological data (i.e., settlement size and dis tribution, demography), as well as the long-range perspectives. We may also apply a size factor for the polity system, and draw schematic boundaries between territories. Such reconstruction works very well for illiterate societies, where there is no alternative but to

1997] T he Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod 619

extract the data from non-documentary evidence. However, scholars should never forget that reality may have been largely, or even entirely, unlike the results of theoretical models, no matter how logical they seem, because human activities do not follow any particular model. The development of territorialpolitical systems involves many factors, and no human mind is able to reconstruct them, unless detailed written sources arc available.

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

2. The major Canaanite kingdoms along the coast of Palestine were Acco and Ashkelon. Gezer, Gath* and Lachish were the most important kingdoms in southern Palestine. Shechem was the major kingdom in the central hill country, and Hazor dominated the area of Galilee. Mcgiddo and possibly Rehob and Achshaph were the major city-states in the northern plains. Many other kingdoms are attested as well, some of which cannot be located. In the south were Yurza, Ahtiashna, Zuhra, Na-x-ha-x, Sab/puma, and possibly Tianna and Zilfi. In central- Palestine ..,;ere Gath-padall~ and possibly Gath-kirmil. In the north were Taanach, Geba-smn, Mishal, Shamtuna, [x-I]G-ma-te, Anaharath and Chinnereth. Sites like Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel 'Eton, Khirbet Rabud, Dor, Jokneam and Tell Qarnei I:Ji!~in may have been the seats of city-state rulers. It is possible, of course, that some of the mayors whose seats are unknown ruled in these places, or that some cities were called by old names whose identity remains unknown.

3. The overall number of city-states in Palestine was at least 25, probably more. T he network of Canaanite kingdoms was composed of kingdoms of higher and lesser rank. The political affai rs were to a certain extent dictated by the major kingdoms, and some of the Jesser city-s tates were dependent on their stronger neighbours. The latter were able to dictate policy and intervene in internal affairs. But, we must not forget that Egypt governed Canaan and that real power was in the hand of the Egyptians. Egypt intervened when internal developments endangered its interests, curbing and restraining the power of ambitious rulers, and thereby helping to maintain the delicate internal balance in its Asiatic province.

4. Only some internal borders- namely, those that passed through inhabited areas - should be precisely demarcated. A remarkable feature in the settlement pattern of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age is the westward advance of the frontier (see Bunimovitz 1994b), and the growth of large uninhabited areas in the highlands, the Lower Jordan Valley and the Negeb. Drawing a map that


divides the entire land among territorial entities blurs the territorial reality of the Late Bronze Age. We should therefore avoid drawing boundary lines in unsettled areas. I would also suggest avoiding exact calculations of the areas of kingdoms, unless located in inhabited regions. Demographic calculations of vast areas can be made on the basis of the number and s ize of settlements, but these calculations are highly uncertain when applied to the assumed areas of individual kingdoms.

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

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

References

Abel, F.M ... 1938. Geographie de Ia Palestine II. Paris. Aharoni, Y. 1967 . The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia Ahituv, S . 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusa-

lem and Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1924. The Town of Selle (Zaru) in the 'Amarna Tablets. lEA

10: 6-8. Albright, W.F. 1946. Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography. JNES 5:

7-25. Albright, W.F. 1969. Akkadian Letters. In: Pritchard, J.B. (ed.). Ancient Near

Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 482-490. Albright, W.F. 1975 . The Amarna Letters from Palestine . CAH 11/2: 98-116.

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

1997) The Network of Canaani te Late Bronze Ki ngdoms and the City of Ashdod 62 1

Al t, A. 1916. Tenn i. ZDPV 39: 264-265. Alt, A. 1924. Neues i.iber PaHistina aus dem Archiv Amcnophis' IV. Plb 20: 22-

41. Alt, A. 1925a. Die Landnahme dcr lsraeliten in Paliistina. Refoemationspro

gramm der Universitiit Leipzig . Leipzig. (=Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. Mi.inchen: 89-125).

Alt, A. 1925b. Das Institut im Jahre 1924. Plb 2 1: 5-58. Alt, A. 1927. Das System der Stammesgrenzcn im Buche Josua. Sellin-Fest

schrift. Bei~riige zur Relig ionsgeschichte und Archiiologie Paliistinas. Leipzig : 13-24.

Alt, A. 1936. Neues aus der Pharaonenzeit Paliistinas. Plb 32: 3-33. Alt, A. 1939. Erwiigungen i.iber die Landnahme der Israeliten in Paliistina. Plb

35: 8-63. Alt, A. 1941. Herren und Herrensitze Paliistinas im Anfang des zweiten Jahrtau

sends v. Chr. ZDPV 64: 21-39. Alt, A. 1944. Agyptische Tempel in Paliistina und die Landnahme der Philis ter.

ZDPV 67: 1-20. Alt, A. 1950. Das Stiitzpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phonikischen Ki.iste

und im syrischen Binnenland. ZDPV 68: 97-133. Alt, A. 1954. Neue Berichte i.iber Feldziige von Pharaonen des Neuen Reiches

nach Paliistina. ZDPV 70: 33-75. Arnaud, D. 1992. Les ports de Ia "Phenicie" a Ia fin de l'age du Bronze Recent

(XIV-XIII siecles) d'apres Ies textes cuneiformes de Syrie. SMEA 30: 179-194.

Artzi, P. 1968. Some Unrecognized Syrian Amarna Letters (EA 260, 317, 318). JNES 27: 163-171.

Artzy, M. Perlman, I and Asaro, F. 1976. Alasiya of the Amarna Letters . JNES 35: 171-182.

Astour, M. 1970. Ma'badu, the Harbor of Ugarit. JESHO 13: 113-127. Astour, M.C. 1975. Place Names. In: Fisher, L.R. ed. Ras Shamra Parallels II

(Analecta Orientalia 50). Rome: 249-369. Bunimovitz, S. 1989. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study

of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew with English abstract).

Bunimovitz, S. 1994a. The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze and its Socio-Economic Implications. UF 26: 1-20.

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

Campbell, E.F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Calling, H.W. 1975. Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. CAH 11/2: 188-216. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Stiidte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1-78. Cross, F.M. and Freedman, D.N. 1964. The name of Ashdod. BASOR 175: 42-

47.


Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey (MA Thesis). Tel Aviv University (Hebrew with English abstract).

Dhorme, E. 1908. Les pays bibliques au temps d'el-Amarna. RB 5: 500-519. Dhorme, E. 1909. Les pays bibliques au temps d'el-Amarna. RB 6: 50-73, 368-

385. Dothan, M. 1952. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Rubin River. IEJ 2:

104-117. Dothan, M. 1992. Why was Ashdod not Mentioned in the New Kingdom Sour

ces. Eretz Israel 23: 51-54 (Hebrew). Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early

Iron Age Canaan. AASOR 49: 1-14. Edel, E. 1953. Die Stelen Amenophis' II. aus Karnak und Memphis mit dem

Bericht iiber die asiatischen Feldziige des Konigs. ZDPV 69: 97-176. Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus dem Totentempel Amenophis Ill. Bonn. Eissfeldt, 0. 1968. Renaming in the Old Testament. In: Ackroyd, P.R. and

Lindars, B. (eds.). Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to D. Winton Thomas. Cambridge: 69-79.

Epstein, C. 1963. A New Appraisal of some Lines from a Long-Known Papyrus. JEA 49: 49-56.

Finkelstein, I. 1993. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E. In: A Biran and J. Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-Congress Symposium Supplement (Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990). Jerusalem: 119-131.

Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze A~e. UF 28:221-255.

Freu, J. 1988. La tablette RS 86.2230 et Ia phase finale du royaume d'Ugarit. Syria BS: 395-398.

Fritz, V. 1993. Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-'Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot) 1982-1985 Seasons. Tel Aviv 20: 187-215.

Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I-II. Oxford. Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the

Iron Age II Period. AASOR 49: 23-58. Gitin, S. and Dothan, T. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines .

Biblical Archaeologist 50: 197-222. Gitin, S. Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from

Ekron. IEJ 47: 1-16. Glock, A 1993. Taanach. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land IV. Jerusalem: 1428-1433. Grondahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome. Heick, W. 1963. Materialen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches IV.

Wiesbaden. Heick, W . 1971. Die Beziehungen A.gyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahr

tausend v. Chr. (2nd rev. ed.). Wiesbaden.

1997] The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the C ity of Ashdod 623

Hellbing, L. 1979. A/asia Problems. Goteborg. Hess, R.S. 1993. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake. Jirku, A. 1937. Die dgyptischen Listen paldstinensicher und syrischer Orts

namen. Leipzig. Kallai, z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of

Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. Kempinski, A. 1986. Kabri and its Environment in the Middle Bronze II. In:

Yadaya, M. (ed.). Th e Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv: 66-72. (Hebrew).

Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (I I 00-650 BC). Warminster.

Kitchen, K.A. 1993. A 'Funbearer on the King's Right Hand' from Ashdod. Ashdod V. Excavation of Area G. ('Atiqot 23). Jerusalem: 109-110.

Knapp, A.B. 1996. Introduction. In: Knapp, A.B. (ed.). Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC. (Sources for the History of Cyprus II). Albany: 1-13.

Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig. Kottsieper, I. 1988. MGG - "Krieg fiihren, kampfen". Eine bisher iibersehne

nordwestsemitische Wurzel. UF 20: 125-133. Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in

the Light of Archaeology. JSOT 64: 3-22. Liverani, M. 1972. II talento di Ashdod. OA 11: 193-199. Marfoe, L. 1979. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical

Organization in Southern Syria. BASOR 234: 1-42. De Moor, J.C. 1990. The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism.

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

of the Second Millennium BC and the History of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In: Karageorghis, V. (ed.). Acts of the First International Cyprological Congress. Nicosia: 201-219.

Na'aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew with English abstract)

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. 1982. Palestine in the Canaanite Period: The Middle and the Late Bronze Age. In: Eph'al, I. ed. The History of Eretz Israel I. Jerusalem: 131-275 (Hebrew).

Na'aman, N. 1986a. The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Is raelite Tribes. Tarbiz 55: 463-488. (Hebrew).

Na'aman, N. 1986b. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. <Jerusalem.

624 N. Na' aman (UF 29

Na'aman, N. 1988a. Historical-Geographical Aspects of the Amarna Tablets . Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions Biblical Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: 17-26.

Na'aman, N. 1988b. T he Southern Shephelah during the Late Bronze Age according to the Cuneiform Documents. In: S tern, E. and Urman, D. (eds.), Man and Environment in the Southern Shephelah. Beer-sheba: 93-98 (Hebrew).

Na'aman, N. 1988c. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kamid el-Loz 'Apiru Letters. UF 20: 179-193.

Na'aman, N. 1988d. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipinski, E. (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.) . Leuvtm: 177-186.

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

Na'aman, N. 1992. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E .. UF 24: 275-291.

Noth, M. 1935. Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches. ZDPV 58: 185-255.

Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua (HAT I 7). Ttibingen. Portugali, Y. 1982. A Field Methodology for Regional Archaeology (The Jezreel

Valley Survey, 1981). Tel Aviv 9: 170-188. Posener, G. 1940. Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie. Bruxelles. Rainey, A.F. 1973. Amenhotep II 's Campaign to Takhsi. The Journal of the

American Research Center in Egypt 10: 71-75. Rainey, A.F.)978. El-Amarna Tablets 359-379 (2nd rev. ed; AOAT 8). Neukir

chen-Vluyn. Rainey, A-:F. 1989. Review of W.L. Moran, Les lettres d'El-Amarna. Correspon

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

Years, AfO 36-37: 56-75. Redford, D.B. 1965. The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis en. JEA

51: 107-122. Renger, J. 1988. Zur Wurzel MLK in akkadischen Texten aus Syrien und

Paliistina. In: Archi, A. (ed.). Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic NameGiving. Rome: 165-172.

Riedel, W. 1939. Das Archiv Amenophis IV. OLZ 42: 145-148. Schmitt, G. 1987. Geba, Getta und Gintikirmil. ZDPV 103: 22-48. Sasson, J.M. 1996. Akkadian Documents from Mari and Babylonia (Old Baby

lonian Period). In: Knapp, A.B. (ed.). 1996: 17-19. Vargon, S. 1990. El-Amarna Mu'ras t and Biblical Moreshet. In: Klein, J. and

Skaist, A. (eds.). Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology. Ramat Gan: 205-212. Walls, N. 1996. Ugaritic Documents from Ugarit. In: Knapp, A.B. (ed.). 1996:

36-40.

1997] The Network of Car1aanitc Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City o f Ashdod 625

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

Zaccagnini, C. 1993. Notes on the Pazarcik Stela. SAAB 7: 53-72. Zadok, R. 1977. West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaeme

nian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem.

626 N. Na' aman [UF 29

e City Sto les Tyre~ ~

I

[ I

• Possible City Stoles

• Egypt ian Centres

• Border Towns

Uniden tified City Stoles

zuhro Ah tioshno $obumo No- x- ho-x [ x-I]G - mo - te Zilu? Gebo - smn?

Mis~ol?

• Achshoph?

Oornei Hittin

ii

Shomhuno Chinnereth? • Shunem • Megiddo e

• Anohoro th

Toonoch e Burquno •

8 eth - sheon

• Rehob e

• Goth - podolia

• Horobu

e cezer

$a rho •

e c oth

Shechem e

• Bethel

• Jerusalem

Mu'roshtu • • Keiloh

_. Gozo

Yurz o

e Lochish

•Tell Beit Mirsim Te l ' Eton •

• Kh. Robud

e Pihil u

Sonderdru c k au s:

UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales Jahrbuch

fi.ir die

Altertumskunde Syrien-PaHistinas

Herausgegeben von

Manfri ed Dietrich · Oswald Loretz

Band 29

1997

U gari t -Verlag MUnster 1998

Date post:	27-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	telaviv
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times