Four Notes on the Size of the Land of Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313 (1999), pp. 31-37

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan Author(s): Nadav Naʾaman Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 313 (Feb., 1999), pp. 31-37Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357614Accessed: 10-06-2015 20:25 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.66.235.55 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:25:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357614

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Four Notes on the Size of Late

Bronze Age Canaan

NADAV NADAMAN

Department of Jewish History Tel Aviv University

Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 Israel

nnaaman @post.tau.ac.il

Scholarly consensus according to which Canaan in Late Bronze Age texts covered the entire area of the Egyptian province in Asia was disrupted with the appearance of N. P. Lemche's 1991 work on the Canaanites and their land. The present study con- centrates on four key sources in an effort to shed more light on the size of the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. It concludes that Canaan was the political-territorial name for the Egyptian province in Asia in the Late Bronze Age, that there is not a single text that defines the size of Canaan differently, and that the phantom of the "Great Canaan" should disappear from the scientific literature.

he debate over the size of the land of Ca- naan in second millennium B.C.E. documents was revived in 1991 with the publication of

Lemche's work on the Canaanites and their land. Lemche disagreed with previous scholarly consensus

according to which Canaan in Late Bronze Age texts covered the entire area of the Egyptian province in Asia (de Vaux 1968: 25-28; 1978: 127-28; Weippert 1976-1980; Stolz 1988: 539-45). On the basis of EA 151:49-67, a letter from Abimilku of Tyre to the Pharaoh, Lemche proposed that, the term Canaan was used in an imprecise manner in second millennium Near Eastern texts. When discussing other vassal letters he noted (p. 39) that, "evidently the inhabitants of the supposed Canaanite territory in Western Asia had no clear idea of the actual size of this Canaan, nor did they know exactly where Canaan was situ- ated." Lemche felt that this ambiguity is reflected in some other Late Bronze Age texts that mention Canaan. He therefore concluded that there is a "correspondence between the imprecise and ambiguous Egyptian use of the geographical name Canaan and the likewise imprecise understanding of Canaan dis-

played by the inhabitants of Western Asia themselves" (Lemche 1991: 50). He further suggested (p. 52) that, "to the scribe of ancient Western Asia 'Canaanite' always designated a person who did not

belong to the scribe's own society or state, while Canaan was considered to be a country different from his own."

These far-fetched conclusions did not remain unanswered. Rainey (1996) correctly noted that the writer and recipient or user of the texts knew the

geographical and ethnic entities mentioned, and that there was no need for them to go into detailed defi- nitions; hence, some texts do not give detailed information on the size of Canaan and its inhabitants. However, a considerable number of texts from all over the ancient Near East do give an accurate pic- ture of a geographical entity known to the ancients as Canaan, and of a people known to them and to themselves as Canaanites. I have previously ana-

lyzed in detail all references to Canaan in second millennium B.C.E. sources, showing how inadequate and sometimes faulty was Lemche's discussion of these sources (Na'aman 1994). My conclusions were as follows:

It seems clear that the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a territorial-political entity. The political connotation is emphasized in international correspondence where "Canaan" refers to the Egyp- tian province in Asia and also in the letters of Byb- los and Tyre where it refers to "the land of the king." Also it seems to me that the local inhabitants

31



32 NADAV NAAMAN BASOR 313

of Canaan must have used the name in self-designa- tion, along with the more common name of the kingdom whose citizens they were. Nowhere is this stated directly, but it may be inferred from the fact that they are called "Canaanites" in regular documents written in neighbouring kingdoms (Ugarit, Alalakh, Egypt). The fact that foreign scribes used the name to denote the origin of these people sug- gests that the source for the name assignment must have been the individuals who were so designated. Thus, contrary to Lemche's conclusion that nobody ever used the name Canaan as self definition, it seems to me that people from Canaan would indeed sometimes have defined themselves as Canaanites (Na'aman 1994: 408).

Lemche responded in two articles (1996; 1998) in which he defended the conclusions of his book. Let me cite his recent conclusions (1996: 771):

Canaan is used in an ambiguous manner in the ANE texts from the 2nd millennium. If it ever had a more precise meaning, this "Canaan" may have embraced the coastal plain in Palestine south of the Carmel range, the Esdraelon plain and the Phoeni- cian coast. There is no evidence that it was ever used as the name of a specific state or area with fixed and definable borders.

The sources for the discussion of Canaan and the Canaanites in the second millennium were detailed in the above-cited works and will not be repeated here. The current article instead discusses key sources- some of which are hotly debated-to shed more light on the problem of the Canaanites and their land in Late Bronze Age texts.

THE ALALAKH LEGAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TEXTS

Canaan is mentioned in four documents from Stratum IV at Alalakh, all of which refer to individuals from that land. One tablet (AT 154) is still

unpublished. AT 181 is a list of CApiru (Wiseman 1954: 11; Greenberg 1955: 21) and AT 188 (Die- trich and Loretz 1970: 101) is a list of mulkanu. All the places of origin of the individuals mentioned in the two tablets are either towns or well-defined lands (Alashia and NuiaSe). Hence Canaan was likewise a well-defined entity.

Tablet AT 48 is a legal document signed with the royal seal. A hunter (LlJbiiru)1 from Canaan borrowed 24 shekels of silver from a citizen of Ala-

lakh. He must repay an interest of 200 birds at the

beginning of next year. His wife, his sons, and his

belongings are pledged for the return of the loan. Four witnesses are mentioned by name at the end of the tablet.

The formal nature of legal documents and the

precision of their details are self evident. It is clear that the legal authorities in late 15th-early 14th centuries B.C.E. Alalakh considered Canaan, the hunter's place of origin, to be a well-defined entity, like the

places of origin of all other non-Alalakhian citizens who took part in legal matters conducted before the court of Alalakh (AT 49:4-5; 50:3; 66:3; 67:4; 68:4-8; 69:5; 72:3-7; 74:5-8). The administrative and legal authorities in Alalakh would surely have been surprised to hear that someone from Ham- let's country assumes that the term "Canaan" was an imprecise or ambiguous territorial term. For them, this territorial definition was entirely clear and they treated it exactly as they treated all other names of towns and lands.

THE LETTER FROM TYRE

Letter EA 151:49-67 has been discussed in detail by Rainey (1996: 9-11) and Lemche (1998). In a response to the request of the Pharaoh for information from Canaan ("Write to me what you have heard from Canaan"), Abimilku of Tyre reports news from Danuna, Ugarit, Hjatti, the northern border of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Qidiu's and Amurru's attack on Egyptian vassals), and Sidon. The letter has been known for more than a hundred years and there are no problems about understanding its word- ing. Former students of EA 151:49-67 made a clear distinction between the literal meaning of the Pha- raoh's order and the way it was understood by Abi- milku in his detailed report to the Pharaoh (Astour 1965: 4-5 is an exception). Lemche (1991: 30-31, 39-40, 51-52; 1998), on the other hand, assumes that Abimilku's reply is due to a literal interpretation of the Pharaoh's order; and he equates the land of Canaan with all the territories that Abimilku enu- merates. Hence emerged his "Great Canaan" hypoth- esis, which is supported only by this text and never confirmed elsewhere.

Rainey (1996: 9-11) suggested an attractive interpretation for the passage: Abimilku understood the Pharaoh's words as meaning news heard "from within Canaan," i.e., news that Abimilku had heard at his seat in Tyre. In support of his interpretation



1999 FOUR NOTES ON THE SIZE OF LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN 33

he quoted three references from Taanach, Tyre, and Ugarit that refer to news heard from the place of the receiver (TT 1:15-18; EA 149:54-57; KTU 2.10:15-19). Lemche (1998) responded by citing two letters from Sidon (EA 145:23-26) and Tyre (EA 147:66-67), in which news requested from cer- tain places (Amurru, Egypt) was answered literally by the recipients of the letters. In his opinion, it was the intention of the Pharaoh "that Abimilku should report news from his homeland, which was according to the Egyptians identical with Canaan" (Lemche 1998: 21).

As far as I am aware, no second millennium B.C.E. text supports the assumption that the term Canaan refers exclusively either to Tyre or to the Lebanese coast. The territorially limited use of the term appears for the first time in the Bible (Maisler 1930: 54-74; de Vaux 1968: 30; 1978: 131; Weippert 1976-1980: 354), and Lemche must have taken it from this late source. Moreover, an Egyptian request for information about the small island of Tyre is unlikely, since the Pharaoh and his officials in Egypt tried to avoid local incidents and they dealt mainly with problems that affected the administration of part or all of the Egyptian province in Asia.

The question to be discussed is how did Abimilku interpret and answer the Egyptian request for information "from Canaan." To answer this question, we must first analyze the political situation in Western Asia at that time.

Letter EA 151 was written in the late years of Akhenaten, when Aziru of Amuru and Etaqqama of Qidiu conducted a war against the northernmost districts of the Egyptian province in Asia (see, e.g., Kitchen 1962: 44-45; Campbell 1964: 72, 135; Helck 1971: 177-79). At this late time, Mitanni, the

Egyptian former ally, was defeated and disappeared from the Syro-Canaanite arena. Its territories and its

military and political positions were taken by Ijatti, which soon became an enemy of Egypt and a threat to the northern districts of the Egyptian province in Asia. A number of kingdoms near the northern border of the Egyptian Empire (i.e., Amurru, Qidiu, Rulizzi, and Lapana) took advantage of the situation and tried to expand their territories. In such a fluid situation, intelligence was of the utmost impor- tance, and Egyptian vassals and allies whose seats were located near the borders of the Egyptian Em- pire frequently reported to Egypt on the current situation (e.g., EA 53-56, 59, 140, 173-76, 189, 196- 97, 363).

It is against this background that we must analyze the text of EA 151:49-67. Abimilku must have interpreted the words of the Pharaoh as a request for information that is relevant to Canaan, i.e., the Egyptian province in Asia. He thus reported on what had happened in the coastal areas of the Hittite Empire (i.e., in Danuna and Ugarit), on the tempo- rary absence of the Hittite troops, and on the attack of Etaqqama and Aziru on the Egyptian northernmost territories. As in many other letters (e.g., EA 147:66-69; 148:23-26, 38-45; 149:54-70), Abimilku took advantage of this report to defame Zimredda, his arch enemy, by accusing him of coop- erating with Aziru in the attack on his kingdom.

We may conclude that a contextual approach is the best way to interpret EA 151:49-67, and further- more, that a literal and rigid interpretation of texts can sometimes lead scholars far from the historical reality.

THE LETTER OF ALASHIA

The beginning and the end of letter EA 36 are broken. In lines 5-7, the king of Alashia reports to the Pharaoh about the delivery of 120 talents of copper, 70 talents possibly in the forms of bars, each of which weighed 1 talent, and 50 talents of "colorful," i.e., copper of inferior quality.2 This delivery and the principle of reciprocity are discussed in the next passage (lines 8-13), which ends with a request to send ships to carry the copper to Egypt (line 13).

Line 14 probably reads, "[As f]or me ([ia]-a-ti), just as [now ?] I prepare copper, they will p[repare??] grain [for me?]."

Next comes the controversial line 15. About 18 signs appear in each line of this letter, so that about third of the line (61/2 signs) has survived. Knudtzon (1915: 288) transcribed it [... p]i-ia-ti s'a ki-na-hi [...]. There are no fewer than four obstacles to this rendering: (a) the value /pi/ is rare in peripheral Akkadian; (b) pihatu in the sense of "province" does not appear in peripheral Akkadian; (c) the spelling Ki-na- 'Ii (rather than Ki-na-a -i) is rare and is known only from letter RS.20.182A+B from Ugarit;3 and (d) the predeterminative KUR is missing before the assumed geographical name (Na'aman 1975: 2*, n. 19; Moran 1992: 109-10, n. 1). Rainey (1996: 7- 8) has adopted Knudtzon's reading of the line and suggested explanations for each of these difficulties (cf. Redford 1990: 99, n. 253). Each explanation in




itself is possible, but the assumption that there are quite so many irregularities in a text of 61/2 signs is intriguing. Translating line 15 "[... p]rovince of Canaan [. . .]" is not impossible, but it should be accompanied by a big question mark.

Should we use the term "province of Canaan" to describe the Egyptian Asiatic province? There has been a long scholarly debate on whether the Egyptian Empire in Canaan was divided into districts. Some scholars suggested a tripartite division (e.g., Helck 1960: 5-8; 1971: 248-52; Aharoni 1967: 146-53; de Vaux 1968: 25-28); I have suggested a bipartite division (Na'aman 1975: 166-72, 227; 1981: 183-84); and Hachmann (1982) suggested a four-part division. Redford (1990: 32-35; 1992: 201) correctly noted that we cannot speak of "provinces" in the sense that is familiar from the Roman Empire. He asserted, "When Egyptians alluded to the northern empire, they still spoke of 'the land of Canaan (or Kharu, Djahi, etc.)' and the cities therein each with its own 'territory,' never to the province so-and-so" (Redford 1992: 201). However, using the term "province of Canaan" to describe the Egyptian Empire in Asia has become so common in scientific literature that there is no point in giving it up, so long as we re- member that the Egyptian administration of Canaan called it by other names.

Lemche (1998: 23) dismissed the idea that Ca- naan was an Egyptian province in the 14th century B.C.E. He draws a line between the time of the 18th Dynasty and that of the 19th Dynasty, "when Ca- naan had been turned into an administrative district with its center in Gaza, which could in itself be called 'Canaan'." The last statement should be qual- ified. Edel (1953; 1994, I: 140-55; 1994, II: 219- 29) combined two letters (KUB 111:37 + KBo I 17 and KUB III 57) relating to the royal marriage between Ramesses II and a Hittite princess and the

escorting of the princess to Egypt in the 34th year of Ramesses' reign. The latter assures the Hittite king that the princess will be properly received at the border and that he has instructed the two Egyptian governors ('iakin miti) to escort the Hittite princess through their respective territories. The first is Suta, the governor of Upi; the second is Ataim[aii], whose residence is missing but should be located in Gaza (Edel 1953: 50, 55-61; Singer 1983: 18-21). In fact, this letter of the Ramesside period was the point of departure for my suggestion that Canaan was divided into two districts as early as the 18th Dynasty. Although Gaza was the main Egyptian cen-

ter of government under the Ramessides, there must have been a second center in Upi, namely Kumidi, which was the seat of the second s'akin mati mentioned in the letter.

Lemche's claim that Canaan became an Egyptian province only under the 19th Dynasty is also unlikely. In support he cites Redford, who (he assumes) "simply doubts whether the concept of an Egyptian Empire in Asia arranged in a number of provinces with stable provincial administration and governors before the time of the Ramessides makes any sense at all" (Lemche 1998: 23). This is an inaccurate pre- sentation of Redford's position. Redford (1990: 202) actually writes, "... if the age of the great Ameno- phis III had witnessed the inception of a regular- ized state department, the age of the Ramessides (the 19th Dynasty) carried it to the logical stage of refinement." Neither Redford nor any other scholar doubts the emergence of an Egyptian province (in the flexible sense defined above) in Asia during the 18th Dynasty. Canaan had been an Egyptian province ever since its conquest by Thutmose III, whereas the establishment of an Egyptian administrative appara- tus and the regularization of the levies and taxes de- veloped gradually and reached its zenith under the Ramessides.

THE LETTER FROM UGARIT

RS 20.182A+B (Ugaritica V No. 36) are frag- ments of a letter probably sent by a high official of Ugarit to the Pharaoh (Nougayrol 1968: 111-13, 389). Rainey (1996: 5-6) recently edited the text. Unfortunately, he ignored the new joins to the tablet published by Lackenbacher (1994) and Van Soldt (1994), and his edition is quite outdated. Thanks to the new joins, some lines have been restored and the width of the tablet has been established. I will suggest a tentative restoration of lines 4-15 of RS 20.182B+, with a translation, a few notes, and an historical discussion:

4. ['a-nita5? b]e-rli as-sum' KASKAL-rnil a is-sa-bart?-ma?1

5. [KU.BABBARMES S]a DUMUMES KUR U-ga-ri-it 6. [x (x) mi-4]i-il DUMUMES KUR Ki-na-bi 7. [h 6-i-]al-lim-Su 1 G(J.UN 5 me-at

KU.BABBAR[ME] 8. [zi?-it?-t]i? DUMUMES KUR Ki-na-bi 9. [KU.BABBAR]MES Sa DUMUMES KUR U-ga-ri-

it Sa-li-i[m na?.-Si??]




10. [h MB]ur5-ha-nu-wa a-kain-na iq-ta-bi-[(ma)] 11. [ma-a] Fa-nal na-ba-si-ia-mi KU.BABBARME

ri-ba-ti [. . .] 12. [ga] ir-te-el i-laq-qi-mi 13. [a-n]a UGU KU.BABBARME -ia-ma is-sa-bat-

ta-ni MrBur5-ha-nu-wal 14. [K]U.BABBARME -ia-ma h a-na-ku-ma ui-al-

lim-Su 15. [h] KU.BABBARME -su i-[sa?-di?-n]a DUMUME

KUR U-ga-ri-it IRME9 EN-ia

Translation:

[Moreover], my l[or]d, concerning the caravan which is seized, [the silver o]f the sons of Ugarit-- [about?? ha]lf (of the sum) of the sons of Canaan-- [indeed] I paid him. One talent and 500 (shekels) of silver [is the part? paymen]t? of the sons of Canaan. [The silve]r of the sons of Ugarit has been pai[d and carried??. And] Purhanuwa thus said (to me) [as follows]: "upon my return, the rest of the silver [as? much? as?] remained I will take." [Concerni]ng my silver, Purbanuwa indeed seized me, (and) my silver I indeed paid him. His silver was [indeed] p[ai]d". The sons of Ugarit, servants of my lord, [the king? of Ugarit?... ].

Notes:

Line 6. The rendering [... mi-s]i-il (rather than [... a-k]i-il) was suggested by Lackenbacher (1994).

Line 7. For restoration, see line 14.

Line 8. For the tentative restoration [zi-it-t]i, see CAD Z 146.

Line 15. Lackenbacher and Van Soldt rendered it KU.BABBARME -

u-ti-[ma a-n]a. However, the pro-

nominal suffix -su appears in lines 7 and 14 without an extra vowel. It seems to me that the author of the letter, seeking to emphasize that the silver was properly paid, deliberately uses legal forms (compare my restoration at the end of line 9). For the verbal form suddunu, see CAD N/1 56a.

Background of the Episode

A Canaanite caravan was seized in the kingdom of Ugarit. Details of the seizure and the legal procedure that followed are missing, and we do not know in which court the case was decided. The role of Paribnawa (Purblanuwa), an Egyptian envoy of Ramesses II who is mentioned in the texts of Iat-

tusha (Nougayrol 1968: 112 n. 3; for references, see Edel 1994, II: 364), may indicate that the king of

Hatti was involved in the case. The indemnity payment due to the sons of Canaan from the sons of Ugarit probably amounted to 2 talents and 1000 shekels of silver. There must have been some delay in payment and the Egyptian king, probably Rames- ses II, intervened by sending Paribnawa, his messen- ger, to deal with the matter, and by writing a letter to the Ugaritic authorities. The letter under discussion deals with an episode that was previously nego- tiated, possibly at length, between the Egyptian and Ugaritic (or Hittite) courts.

Letter RS 20.182A+B is the Ugaritic court's answer to the Egyptian king's letter. The author of the letter reports that he has delivered half of the sum, 1 talent and 500 shekels of silver, to Parih- nawa, and that the other half will be paid on Parib- nawa's return from Egypt.

The involvement of the Pharaoh and his envoy in the case is not exceptional. It was agreed among the members of the "Club of the Great Powers" in the 14th-13th centuries B.C.E. that each Great King was responsible for what happened in his and his vassals' territories (Liverani 1990). Canaan was the territory of the Pharaoh, and it was his responsibility to pro- tect his vassals in the other Great Kings' lands and to defend their rights in foreign countries (for similar procedures, see the literature cited in Rainey 1996: 5; Na'aman 1998: 66-67).

The extant text does not give the exact origin of the seized caravan. It only mentions the payment to the "sons of Canaan." The reason for selecting a comprehensive term rather than the name of a par- ticular city-state is clear: the letter was addressed to the Egyptian king, who was internationally rec- ognized as lord of the land of Canaan and its inhabitants, the "sons of Canaan" (EA 8:25-26 reads, "Canaan is your land and [its] king[s are your servants]"). Lemche (1998: 23) suggested that "in such a text the distinction made between two groups of

people might be no more than the opinion of the writer of the text, whose place of origin was un- doubtedly Ugarit." However, RS 20.182A+B is a diplomatic letter exchanged between the courts of Ugarit and Egypt, and the author of the letter accu- rately reports to the Pharaoh about the execution of a legal matter. The letter deals with interstate affairs, and personal opinion has no place in this diplomatic correspondence. Lemche's suggestion, therefore, is obviously wrong.




A man of Canaan is mentioned in a second text from Ugarit (KTU 4.96). This is a list of merchants assigned to three royal estates (Astour 1970: 125; 1975: 293-94; Rainey 1996: 4). Seven merchants are assigned to the first estate. Four of them are from towns in the kingdom of Ugarit and three are for- eigners: an Ashdadite, an Egyptian, and a Canaan- ite. I have recently suggested an identification of the city of Ashdad mentioned in the Ugaritic texts with Enkomi, the important Cypriot port city, and disassociating it from the Philistine city of Ashdod (Na'aman 1997: 609-11). We may conclude that in letter RS 20.182A+B, and in the administrative text KTU 4.96, Canaan is mentioned as a well-defined

entity, like the kingdoms of Egypt and Ugarit, the city of Ashdad, and the four Ugaritic towns.

In sum, Canaan was the political-territorical name for the Egyptian province in Asia in the Late Bronze Age. Some texts mention Canaan without specify- ing an exact location because their authors did not consider it necessary to specify something that was so well known. But there are enough texts that give accurate details on the size of the land and the iden- tity of its inhabitants, while there is not a single text that defines the size of Canaan differently. The phantom of the "Great Canaan" should disappear from the scholarly literature, along with the erroneous ar- guments that were brought to support it.

NOTES

1 The translation "hunter" is required by the context: the man pays for his loan an interest of 200 birds (see CAD B 31b; S 161a; AHW 1397a). Rainey's translation as "sol- dier" (1996: 3) is erroneous.

2A tentative translation of lines 5-7 is: "[...I sea]rch[ed, and c]opper as much as they prepared I sen[t. And now] I am sending (the rest) to my brother. 120 (talents) of copper remain (to be sent). 70 talents, one? tal[ent?

by? one? talen]t?, everything you desire?? (mim-ma ta-ah- pd-si); 30+[20 t]alents of 'colorful' copper, everything you desire?? (mim!-< ma> ta-a[h!-pd-SiP])." The derivation of the verbal form ta-ah-pd-si from the West Semitic root HPS is extremely tentative. CAD H 124a rendered it ta-ah-su-si.

3In the inventory of Egyptian gifts (EA 14:11, 26) appears the spelling KUR Ki-na-ah-hi (contra Rainey 1996: 8).

REFERENCES

Aharoni, Y. 1967 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography.

Trans. A. E Rainey, from Hebrew. Philadel- phia: Westminster.

AHW = von Soden, W. 1956- Akkadisches Handworterbuch. 3 vols. Wies- 1981 baden: Harrassowitz.

Astour, M. C. 1965 Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study

in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden: Brill.

1970 Ma'ladu, the Harbor of Ugarit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13: 113-27.

1975 Place Names. Pp. 249-369 in Ras Shamra Par- allels II, ed. L. R. Fisher. Analecta Orientalia 50. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

AT = Wiseman, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets. London: British Institute

of Archaeology at Ankara. CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute

1956- of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Orien- tal Institute.

Campbell, E. E 1964 The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins University. de Vaux, R.

1968 Le pays de Canaan. Journal of the American Oriental Society 88: 23-30.

1978 The Early History of Israel. Trans. D. Smith, from French. 2 vols. London: Darton, Long- man and Todd.

Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O. 1970 Die soziale Struktur von Alalab und Ugarit

(IV). Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie 60: 88-123. EA = Knudtzon, J. A.

1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Edel, E. 1953 Weitere Briefe aus der Hieratskorrespondenz

Ramses' II.: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57. Pp. 29-63 in Geschichte und Altes Tes- tament. Beitriige zur Historischen Theologie 16. Tubingen: Mohr.

1994 Die digyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus

Boghazkii in babylonischer und hethitischer




Sprache I-II. Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-

Westfilichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77. Opladen: Westdeutscher.

Greenberg, M. 1955 The Hab/piru. American Oriental Series 39.

New Haven: American Oriental Society. Hachmann, R.

1982 Die agyptische Verwaltung in Syrien wahrend der Amarnazeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins 98: 17-49.

Helck, W. 1960 Die igypstische Verwaltung in den Syrischen

Besitzungen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Ori- ent-Gesellschaft 92: 1-13.

1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd rev. ed. Agyptologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Kitchen, K. A. 1962 Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A4

Study in Relative Chronology. Liverpool: Liv- erpool University.

Knudtzon, J. A. 1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hin-

richs. KTU = Dietrich, M.; Loretz, 0.; and Sanmartin, J.

1976 Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24. Kevelaer: But- zon and Bercker.

Lackenbacher, S. 1994 Ugaritica V No. 36. N.A.B. U. 1994, no. 3: 51.

Lemche, N. P. 1991 The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradi-

tion of the Canaanites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: JSOT.

1996 Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na'aman. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 767-72.

1998 Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151:49-67. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 19-24.

Liverani, M. 1990 Prestige and Interest: International Relations

in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. Padova:

Sargon. Maisler (Mazar), B.

1930 Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Paldistinas. Arbeiten aus dem Orientalischen Seminar der Univer-

sitit Giessen 2. Giessen: Topelmann. Moran, W. L.

1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Na'aman, N. 1975 The Political Disposition and Historical De-

velopment of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).

1981 Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 172-85.

1994 The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 397-418.

1997 The Network of Canaanite Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. Ugarit-Forschungen 29: 599- 626.

1998 The Closing Paragraphs of Letter KBo I 10. Altorientalische Forschungen 25: 61-67.

Nougayrol, J. 1968 Ugaritica V: Nouveaux textes accadiens, hour-

rites et ugaritiques des archives et biblio- theques privies d'Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques. Mission de Ras Shamra 16. Paris: Geuthner.

Rainey, A. E 1996 Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual

Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304: 1-15.

Redford, D. B. 1990 Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. Beer-

Sheva 4. Beer-sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev.

1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University.

Singer, I. 1983 Takublinu and iaya: Two Governors in the

Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25. Stolz, E

1988 Kanaan. Pp. 539-56 in Theologische Realen- zyklopddie 17, ed. G. MUller. Berlin: de Gruyter.

TT = Hrozny", E 1904 Keilschrifttexte aus Tacannek. Pp. 113-22 in

Tell Tacannek, by E. Sellin. Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 50/4. Vienna: Akade- mie der Wissenschaften.

Van Soldt, W. H. 1994 More on Ugaritica V no. 36. N.A.B.U. 1994,

no. 4: 89. Weippert, M.

1976- Kanaan. Pp. 352-55 in Reallexikon der Assyr- 1980 iologie und Vorderasiatischen Archdologie,

Vol. 5, ed. D. O. Edzard. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wiseman, D. J.

1954 Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8: 1-30.



Documents

Four Notes on the Size of the Land of Canaan, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313 (1999), pp. 31-37