The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in

the Tenth Century B. C. E.

Author(s): Nadav Naʾaman
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 304 (Nov., 1996), pp. 17-
27
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357438
Accessed: 09-12-2017 14:26 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

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

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

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters
to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political
Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.
NADAV NA AMAN

Department of Jewish History

Tel Aviv University
Ramat Aviv 69978
Israel

Understanding of the problems involved in the excavations of multilayered highland

sites and an examination of the long-range perspective are both essential for the cor-
rect appreciation of Jerusalem's political position in the tenth century B.C.E. No nega-
tive conclusions about Jerusalem in the Late Bronze II and Iron Age I-IIA should be
drawn from the results of the excavations conducted on the Ophel Hill. A comparison
between the evidence of the Amarna tablets and contemporaneous archaeological data
is essential for the correct evaluation of the data about Jerusalem. Investigation of the
archaeological data and written sources indicates that tenth-century Jerusalem must
have been a highland stronghold and the center of a kingdom, dominating large, hilly
territories with many settlements, and thus was able to expand to nearby lowland
territories and possibly even to the areas of neighboring kingdoms. According to
"modern" socioarchaeological criteria, the tenth-century kingdom was a prestate,
polymorphous chiefdom with Jerusalem as its center of government.

INTRODUCTION composed no earlier than the late seventh century

B.C.E. The histories of David and Solomon were

ince the early days of modern written hundreds

historical of years after the deaths of the two
re-
search and until recently, the scholarly kings. Thus, some scholars suggest that these de-
consen-
sus was that Jerusalem was the center of a scriptions should not be analyzed as sources for the
state from the time of David onward. The histories history of the tenth century B.C.E. Nonbiblical source
of David and Solomon, as related in the Books ofand archaeological evidence are the main sources
Samuel and Kings, were considered unequivocal
for the early history of Israel (the 12th-9th centu-
ries). By analyzing the results of the archaeological
evidence of the establishment of Jerusalem as capital
excavations and surveys conducted in the areas of
of a state in the tenth century B.C.E. It was first the
center of a large kingdom whose districts are enu- the kingdom of Judah, and using "modern" sociolog-
merated in 1 Kgs 4:7-19, and following the division ical definitions, they suggest that Jerusalem became
of the monarchy it became the center of the kingdom the center of a state no earlier than the eighth cen-
of Judah. Throughout, it was a capital city and the tury B.C.E. (Jamieson-Drake 1991: 138-45; Knauf
1991a: 171-84; Thompson 1992: 409-11; Davies
seat of a royal dynasty for about 400 years, from Da-
vid's conquest in the early tenth century until the 1992: 67-70; Lemche 1994: 183-84; Lemche and
Babylonian conquest and captivity of 587/586 B.C.E. Thompson 1994).
This consensus was recently disrupted. It is widely Let me cite a few examples of the conclusions
accepted today that historical writing in Israel did reached by some advocates of this "revisionist"
not develop before the eighth century B.C.E. at theschool of thought. Jamieson-Drake (1991) analyzes
earliest, and that the Deuteronomistic history was the results of the archaeological excavations and

17

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 18 NADAV NAAMAN BASOR 304

surveys conducted
more powerfulin the towns.
small autonomous areas
"It first
From settlement took size
on the form and
and acquired distribut
the status of a city,
cial stratification evident
capable of being understood asin public
a state capital, some-
items, he concludes that
time in the middle Judah
of the seventh century." bec
Jerusalem a major Many problems raised by these scholars deserve
administrative c
than the eighth century
further B.C.E.
critical investigation. I will limit my criticism "T
dence that Judah to two began to functio
major points: the evaluation of the results of
prior to the tremendous the archaeological excavations conducted increas
in Jerusa-
building, production, lem and the contribution of the Amarna tablets to the
centralizat
tion which began debate to
about theappear
emergence of a kingdom in the
in Israel.
writes (Jamieson-Drake 1991:
I will try to show that these scholars' evaluation of38-
ninth centuries Judah may
the excavations in Jerusalem be
is inadequate and defin
leads
which is still far to erroneousfromconclusions, and an that they incipi
ignore the
our polythetic lesson classification
that may be learned from investigation ofsche the
small state in the 8th-7th centuries, but not be- Amarna tablets for the study of Jerusalem's political
fore." (Jamieson-Drake 1991: 139; for similar conclu-position in the tenth century B.C.E.
sions, see Knauf 1991a: 171-72; 1991b: 39; Lemche
1994: 184-85). Thompson (1992: 409-11) went a
EXCAVATIONS OF THE
step further, suggesting that "during the first part of
OPHEL HILL: LEGITIMATE AND
Iron Age II, Jerusalem was a small provincial town
at best, not significantly superior to such Shephelah ILLEGITIMATE CONCLUSIONS
towns as Lachish and Gezer." Prior to the seventh
Deposits of pottery of Iron Age II
century Jerusalem competed with the other towns for
the kingdom's resources and products. Only inmainsthe of a few walls of this period w
seventh century B.C.E. did Jerusalem acquire in thethe excavations conducted in the O
City of David; Tarler and Cahill 199
character of a regional state capital. "The existence
of the Bible's 'United Monarchy' during the tenthearlier literature). Kenyon (1974: 9
century is not only impossible because Judah had posed
not a tenth-century wall fragment
yet a sedentary population, but also because there
eastern side of the Ophel Hill, which
was no transregional political or economic base asofpart of a casemate fortification (W
33-35). Shiloh (1984: 27) dated the
power in Palestine prior to the expansion of Assyrian
structure in Area G to the tenth cent
imperial influence into the southern Levant" (Thomp-
son 1992: 412). Davies (1992: 69) suggests thatgested
"it that it was built as the south
of the royal compound erected then
is quite likely that Judah was formed as a secondary
state perhaps in the 9th century, and possibly by However
the Tarler and Cahill (1992: 5
Assyrians . . . The range of indices consideredsuggested
by that the stepped stone stru
Jamieson-Drake make it necessary for us to excludestructed in the 13th-12th century B.C
the Davidic and the Solomonic monarchies, let alone
occupation in the Iron Age IIA is know
a few remains centered on the Oph
their 'empire' from a nonbiblical history of Pales-
tine." Finally, Lemche and Thompson (1994: 19-20)
pottery of this period was found in o
areas
conclude that "in the history of Palestine ... there is of Jerusalem.
The results of the excavations at the site of old
no room for a historical United Monarchy, or for
Jerusalem were taken by some scholars as an indica-
such kings as those presented in the biblical stories
of Saul, David or Solomon. The early period tion in that it was no more than a small provincial town
which the traditions have set their narratives is an
until the expansion of settlement to the Western
imaginary world of long ago that never existed Hill
as in the eighth century B.C.E. (note, in particular,
Thompson 1992: 331-33; Lemche 1994: 184-85).
such." There could not have been a kingdom in the
tenth century because there were not enough peopleHowever they did not consider the many problems
involved in excavating this site. First, the area of
nor enough towns. Jerusalem at this time can hardly
Jerusalem's public buildings is under the Temple
be described as a city. It was still centuries away
from being able to challenge any of the dozens of Mount and cannot be examined. The most impor-

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1996 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE AMARNA LETTERS 19

tant area for investigation, and the

wiched onethe
between to which
debris of the the
Iron Age and the
biblical histories of DavidHellenistic
and Solomonstrata (Tarler mainly
and Cahill 1992: 59-60,
refer, remains terra incognita. Second,
with earlier there
literature). is an indication of
This is another
uninterrupted continuity of the
settlement in the
difficulties involved Ophelstrata that de-
in recovering
Hill from the tenth to the early sixth
veloped century
peacefully and did notB.C.E.
end with catastrophe.
As is well known, conquest, destruction, and
In conclusion, one should bedes-
extremely cautious
in trying
olation leave distinct marks that to draw negative inferences
archaeologists can on the basis
easily expose; uninterrupted
of continuity of settle-
the archaeological excavations of old Jerusalem.
ment, on the other hand, leavesMoreover,
only these excavations
a few can neither prove nor
remains
of the earlier building activity. No wonder,
disprove then,
the political position of that
the city in the tenth
the remains of the tenth-ninth centuries
century city
B.C.E. Some other were are necessary,
indications
discovered mainly in fills or and
building fragments
they will be presented below.and
that the city destroyed in 587/86 is the best known.
Third, the old city of Jerusalem, built on terraces
THE KINGDOMS OF SHECHEM AND
and bedrock, was settled for thousands of years,
JERUSALEM IN THE AMARNA AGE
each new city erecting its foundations on bedrock
and destroying what was underneath. The old build-
ings were utterly destroyed by Scholars of the "revisionist"
later building activ- school of
have examined the emergence of the Isra
ity, their stones robbed and reused.
In light of this discussionand one themayplace ask if it isin it mainly o
of Jerusalem
legitimate to draw negative conclusions about tenth
sis of socioarchaeological criteria. But one im
century Jerusalem on the basis aspectof oftenthe archaeologi-
discussed in recent archaeolo
historical
cal excavations conducted at the site. research-that
To clarify this of the long-range
problem I will first presenttive two archaeological
(la longue in- from their
durde)-is missing
stances from other periods in Inthe
what follows Iof
history will suggest that comp
Jerusa-
lem, and then will draw the logical
political formations
conclusions. and socioeconomic cond
the LB
First, according to the Amarna II with that
letters, of Iron Age IIA and e
Jerusalem
(Urusalim) was the seat of athe local king changes
long-term in the 14th
within an identical e
century B.C.E. Yet hardly any setting
LB IIare building
instructive remains
for the study of Je
have been unearthed, in spite of position
political the many exca-
in the early first millenni
vations conducted in the Ophel TheHill. Thewill
discussion paucity
focus onof the central h
LB II remains led Franken and Steiner
of Canaan in LB (1992) to for this perio
II, since only
doubt the identification of thehave both contemporaneous
Amarna city of Uru- documentary
(i.e., the Amarna
salim with Jerusalem. But Urusalim tablets, written in the sec
is undoubtedly
identical with Jerusalem, as isof the 14thinter
evident centuryalia B.C.E.)
from and detailed
its name, its neighborhood withlogical data (i.e.,
Gezer, the results
Rubute, andof the excava
Qiltu-Qeilah, and the fact thatsurveys
the road conducted
leadingin recent
from years). Two
kingdoms
Urusalim westward passed through occupied
Aijalon (EA almost
287:all of the cen
53-57). Also, there is no othercountry:
site inShechem and Jerusalem. Since t
the highlands
and surroundings that matches areathe where the Israelite
written data state
of emerged an
Urusalim in the Amarna tablets. The two scholars was the core of the kingdoms of Israel and J
were unaware of the problems of excavating thishundreds of years, the investigation of the
highland site, and drew illegitimate conclusions on
naanite kingdoms is an ideal model for the
the basis of negative evidence. The second example
the emergence and development of the Israe
shows that no trace of the fortification wall built
dom in the early first millennium.
Shechem was a powerful Canaanite kin
under Nehemiah, and described in great detail in his
"memoirs" (Neh 3:1-22), has been positively iden-the Amarna Age. It was the major powe
tified in the excavations. The city of the Persian
central hill country and its territory ext
period, described so vividly in the books of Ezratween
and the Jezreel Valley in the north a
Nehemiah, is known only from fills and building Shiloh (near Shiloh = Khirbet Seilun) in t
and between the Jordan Valley in the eas
fragments and is mainly identified because it is sand-

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 20 NADAV NAAMAN BASOR 304

Sharon plain in the

ments werewest (Na'aman
unearthed in the excavation of the Ophel 1
Its rulers to
Hill. sought
expand
A fragment to
of an Egyptian stelelowland
bearing hiero-
western and northern borders;
glyphic inscription, they
possibly of the time of the 19ths
boring small city-states,
Dynasty, was found and increased
north of the Temple Mount, but
settlements in their territory.
its original context is unknown (Scheil The po
1892; Barkay
was felt in such remote Canaanite
1996). Only two or three kin
sites were discovered in the
salem, Gath(?) (Tell es-Safi), Gezer, Gi
extensive surveys conducted in the territory of Jeru-
Piiilum (Campbell 1965;
salem (Kochavi Na'aman
1972: 10, 19-22; Ofer 1994: 100).
The picture of the city and land
On the basis of the archaeological evidence alone,o
scholars would have
LB II as it emerged from the archae assumed that a few small rural
tigation is quite different. The
communities, plus isolated pastoral groupsarea
and refu- o
about 4-4.5 hectares, its
gees, lived in public
the highlands buildin
of Judah and Benjamin
tions, gates, and a temple)
in LB were
II. However, in light of main
the documentary and
and rebuildings of those
archaeological evidence,of the
the city MB
of Jerusalem may II
account areas
be definedthe
occupied bydominating
as a highlands stronghold publi a
more than 800 people lived
territory occupied in
by pastoral the
groups tow
and isolated
rural communities.
of LB II sites discovered in the det
conducted in the The Amarna letters indicate that territor
Shechemite Shechem and
25, compared with Jerusalem about 240
were the seats of sites
local dynasties. Canaan-
Iron Age I (Zertal 1994:
ite rulers 50-59;
were considered by the EgyptianFinkadmin
1989: 140-44; 1991: 27-30; 1994: 159). On the istration as mayors (iazannu), like the governors of
basis of the archaeological evidence alone, scholars
Egyptian towns (h3ty-C), and were obliged to tak
would have suggested that LB II Shechem was the the oath in the king's name (Helck 1971: 246-47
center of a medium-sized Canaanite city-state andRedford 1990: 28-29; 1992: 198-99). Their title
reflects the Egyptian ideology, according to which
that the highlands were mainly occupied by indepen-
dent rural and pastoral population groups. Only the
only the "Sun-God" was a king and his subjects were
evidence of the Amarna tablets enables us to cor- called by a lesser title; moreover, it emphasized the
rectly evaluate the historical reality of that time.
fact that their position depended on the approval of
According to the Amarna tablets, Jerusalemtheir was overlord and that they were royal appointees
the seat of a king nominated by the Pharaoh (Liverani
(EA 1990: 144-49, 180-86, 230-39). In non-
286: 9-13; 287: 25-28; 288: 13-15; Moran 1975; Egyptian correspondence they were called "kings"
Na'aman 1975: 88-118; 1992a: 287-88). He lived (Qarru). This is indicated in letters written by "Great
in a palace (bitu) (EA 287: 33-37, 73-75), and an Kings" (i.e., the kings of Babylonia [EA 8: 25] and
Egyptian garrison of about 50 soldiers was tempo- Mitanni [EA 30: 1]), and by local rulers (for a list
rarily stationed in the place.2 Egyptian messengers of references, see Na'aman 1988: 182-83, n. 18).
came quite often to the court of Jerusalem (EA 286:Also, in a tablet recently discovered at Beth-shean,
16-20; 287: 45-50; 288: 16-22; 289: 30-33, 37- Tagu, ruler of Ginti-kirmil, addresses Lab'ayu, ruler
of Shechem, by the title "king" (Horowitz 1995).
40), and the king sent rich caravans with tribute and
gifts to the Pharaoh (EA 287: 53-56; 288: 12, 14-The problem of succession in the Canaanite king-
22; Na'aman 1981: 175-77, 183). Jerusalem's terri- doms requires clarification. Formal approval by the
tory extended from south of Bethel in the northPharaoh
to was required in every instance of a change
Hebron in the south, and from the Jordan in theof rule, stemming from the nature of the personal
east to the Shephelah hills in the west (Na'aman
oath by which the vassal was bound to his overlord.
1992a). The place of Jerusalem in the Egyptian But in reality the Egyptian authorities acknowledged
province of Canaan was similar to that of other low-the dynastic principle, and in most cases approved
the designated heirs to the throne. For example,
land Canaanite city-states, although its society, econ-
omy, and internal organization must have been quite LabDayu, king of Shechem, wrote to the Pharaoh as
different from those of its western neighbors. follows: "[Behold, I a]m a servant of the king [like]
The picture as revealed by the archaeological re-my [fathe]r and my [gr]andfa[th]er, a servant of the
search is entirely different. As noted above, onlyking
a from l[on]g a[g]o" (EA 253: 11-15). The Phar-
handful of LB II pottery and a few building frag- aoh intervened only in exceptional events and set his

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1996 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE AMARNA LETTERS 21

own candidate-always a son of Withthethese local

conclusionsdynasty-
in mind, it is important
on the royal throne (Na'aman to note1975: 179-81).
the difference For
between the self-perception
example, following the murderof the
of people
the of king
the Late of
Bronze Age and modern
Tyre
(EA 89), the Pharaoh intervened and placed
scholarly definitions. Abi-of studying
The importance
milku on the throne of Tyre. an ancient
That civilization in its own terms
Abimilku was and awithin
its own system of values has been commonly ac-
son of the local dynasty of Tyre is indicated by one
of his letters, in which he refers
cepted byto past
scholars events
since by seminal study
Landsberger's
twice recalling "my fathers" (1926)
(EA on the conceptual
150: 35-36). autonomy
CAbdi- of the Babylo-
ieba, king of Jerusalem, whonian
had spent
world. his youth
In contemporaneous in the terri-
concepts,
Egypt, was nominated as kingtorial
of highland
Jerusalem entities at
werethe
regarded
in-as kingdoms
tervention of the Pharaoh, possibly on as
and their rulers the occasion
dynastic kings (above). Anthro-
of a crisis in succession at pologists the city (Moran
and sociologists, on 1975:
the other hand, use
155-56; Na'aman 1975: 89-91). That he was an more "objective" criteria for defining such entities.
heir of the local dynasty is evident from two letters
According to their criteria, the major second millen-
in which he mentions that it was the Pharaoh who nium B.C.E. Highland sites were classified as "strong-
had placed him in "my father's house" (EA 286:holds," 9- that is, government centers for the ruling
13; 288: 13-15). elite. These central sites are usually fortified and
We may conclude that the Canaanite rulers were have a palace, cult building(s), and storehouses. The
considered alike in intrastate relations, in internalpolitical formations in the highlands in the Late
relations within Canaan, and in relations with their Bronze Age are defined as chiefdoms, that is, po-
subjects, as kings who came to power through the litical centers governing territories with mixed sed-
dynastic principle and would, in turn, leave the entary and pastoral population (Finkelstein 1992:
throne to their heirs. Each king had a capital city;206-7).
a This discrepancy between contemporane-
palace; and a court, attendants and servants; a tem- ous concepts and our modern definitions should be
ple in which he held a central role; and an ideol- taken into account in discussing the political posi-
ogy that established his position as head of state. tion of Jerusalem in the tenth century B.C.E.
Each court had a scribe (although some remote courts
shared a single scribe), who was in charge of the dip-
TENTH CENTURY JERUSALEM: THE
lomatic correspondence with the Egyptian authorities.
PROBLEM OF THE WRITTEN SOURCES
Although the internal organization, society, and
economy of the kingdoms of Shechem and Jerusalem
were quite different from those of the lowland city- In his socioarchaeological study of t
of Judah in Iron Age II, Jamieson-Dra
states, they shared all the characteristics of power
and legitimation with the other Canaanite kingdoms.47)
uses a sociological model and esta
This is the more impressive in light of the above-line
parameters to analyze the archaeolo
mentioned results of the archaeological research con-
thekingdom of Judah. He suggests clea
for
ducted in their territories. To cite one more examplea chiefdom and for a state, and crit
for the incompatibility of the archaeological exca-
transition from one stage to another (Ja
vations and the documentary evidence: six letters1991: 138-45). On the basis of these cr
sent by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, ex-
fines tenth-ninth century Judah as a ch
hibiting the diplomatic sophistication of his court
further discusses the development from
and the quality of his scribe, were found in thestatehood and concludes that Judah be
tion as a state only in the eighth cen
Amarna archive. On the other hand, scholars would
Throughout his work Jamieson-Drake u
never have guessed from the excavations of Jerusa-
lem that any scribal activity took place there sociological
in nomenclature and presup
LB II. This discord between the results of the archae- eral definition of "chiefdom" and "state
ological research of highland sites and the docu-to settlement size, distribution, and soc
mentary evidence conducted in the core areas of thetion. His conclusions are sound and reasonable and
future Israelite state must be taken into account when accord well with the survey conducted recently in
discussing the place of Jerusalem in the emergence the area of the kingdom of Judah (Ofer 1994). Jam-
of the Israelite kingdom in the tenth century B.C.E. ieson-Drake does not dismiss the biblical descriptions

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 22 NADAV NAAMAN BASOR 304

of David and Solomon,

in the late tenth century but
B.C.E. Third,minim
some lists
sumes that theincluded
two in the histories
kings of David andset
Solomon in
tional forces must have been evolved
that drawn from old written sources
and
into a (e.g., 2 Sam
full-blown 8:16-18; 20:23-26;
state in 23:8-39;
the 1 Kgs eig
(Jamieson-Drake 1991:
4:2-19; 9:15-18). 140-45).
The installation of the office of
While Jamieson-Drake draws a clear line between scribe in the courts of David and Solomon is related
in three of these lists (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs 4:3).
biblical and socioarchaeological definitions and data,
the line is less clear in the works of his followers. These three instances, when combined, lead to
the conclusion that writing was introduced in the
Broadly speaking, they all adopt his conclusion that
court of Jerusalem in the tenth century B.C.E., in
a state (in the "modern" sociological sense) centered
around Jerusalem emerged in the early eighth cen- the time of David or Solomon. Scribes operated in
tury B.C.E. at the earliest. But they tend to the
drawcourt of Jerusalem as the king's private secre-
farfetched inferences from negative evidence (e.g., taries and as officials in the administration of the
the excavations of Jerusalem and the lack of tenth- kingdom. Other officials enumerated in the above-
century original documents), and they use Jamieson- mentioned lists may indicate the emergence of a
Drake's socioaracheological conclusions to dismisscourt in tenth-century Jerusalem. The need for a court
most, or even all, of the biblical data about tenth-
at this early period will be apparent from a compari-
son
century Israel (Knauf 1991a: 172-84; Thompson of the distribution of settlement in the tenth cen-
1992; Davies 1992: 67-70; Lemche 1994: 168-71, tury with that of the LB II (below).
183-91; Lemche and Thompson 1994: 15-20). The fourth source consists of many biblical de-
This brings us to the problem of the sources for scriptions, written at different times and using dif-
the study of the tenth century B.C.E. Although theferent genres (e.g., historiography, prophecy, hymn,
subject is too broad to be covered in detail, the fol- liturgy). They describe David as the conqueror of
lowing five points illuminate some important aspects.Jerusalem and the founder of the royal dynasty that
First, hieratic numerals and signs appear in epi- lasted until the end of the Judaean monarchy. The
graphic documents of the kingdoms of both Israel new stele from Tel Dan indicates that the kingdom
of Judah was called Beth-David in the second half
and Judah in the eighth-seventh centuries B.C.E. but
do not appear in documents of Israel's neighbors.of the ninth century B.C.E. (Biran and Naveh 1993;
Goldwasser (1991: 251-52) has shown that they 1995). The eponymic/dynastic name "Bit-PN" is typ-
must have entered the Hebrew script before the divi-ical of many of the new West Semitic kingdoms that
sion of the monarchy, namely, in the tenth century emerged in the Fertile Crescent in the early first
B.C.E. According to her reconstruction, "this peculiarmillennium B.C.E. The "son" (mar) of a tribal epo-
and isolated variation of hieratic developed locallynym, or of the founder of a dynasty, is designed
from the Egyptian scribal tradition in Canaan itself."of bit PN" (Ungnad 1906). It is thus evident that
After the decline of the Egyptian empire .. manyDavid was already regarded as the founder of the
Egyptians, or Egyptian-trained Canaanite scribes,local dynasty of Judah in the ninth century B.C.E.
lost their means of existence, and may have offeredand that the name Beth-David for the kingdom of
their scribal and administrative knowledge to the Judah fits perfectly the ancient Near Eastern usage
new powers rising in the area, first the Philistines of name attribution (Na'aman 1995: 17-22, with
and then the Israelites" (Goldwasser 1991: 251). It is earlier literature). This lends further support to the
evident that writing had already entered the court of biblical account of David as conqueror of Jerusalem
Jerusalem in the tenth century B.C.E. and as founder of the kingdom of Judah and its royal
Second, the account of Shishak's campaign againstdynasty.
Jerusalem in Rehoboam's fifth year, the handing over Fifth, the building and dedication of the temple
of Solomon's golden shields, and their replacement of Jerusalem is described in great detail in the Book
of Kings. I agree with Van Seters (1983: 309-10)
by copper shields (1 Kgs 14:25-28) must have been
taken from a written text (NaDaman 1992b: 85). that the description of the temple with all its ap-
Otherwise, the memory of the Egyptian campaign, purtenances is the work of the Deuteronomistic his-
which was conducted in Shishak's late years, about torian and reflects the temple of the late Judaean
300 years before the time of the Deuteronomistic monarchy. Yet the memory of Solomon as builder
historian, would have fallen into oblivion. This isof the temple in its initial stage must be authentic,
clear evidence of writing in the court of Jerusalemand it is even possible that the historian had seen

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1996 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE AMARNA LETTERS 23

a Solomonic building inscription from

central highlands wasthe
aboutdedica-
300 to 350 (compared
to about
tion of the original temple. 30 sites in LBMesopota-
Moreover, II). Even if we assume for a
mian royal inscriptions dealing with
moment that old Monarchy
the United buildings encompassed only
that needed restoration frequently
the highlands onsurveyed
both sides of thetheir
Jordan, the large
history and mentioned their founder's name. Even
number of settlements within its confines required
when the text speaks of a new building
the immediate intended
creation to
of an administrative appara-
replace or improve an old edifice,
tus to manage it opensofwith
the districts a
the new kingdom.
survey of the past (Hurowitz Tenth1992: 131-33).
century Jerusalem mustThus
have been a high-
land stronghold.the
the historian when briefly surveying Like the Canaaniteof
history highland cen-
ters of
the temple may have consulted the second
late millennium
building B.C.E., and other forts
inscrip-
tion(s) that mentioned Solomon.
found in Western Asia in recent times (Rowton 1976;
These facts strongly support the biblical
1977: 190-98), it served as aclaims
seat of the ruling dy-
a) that David conquered Jerusalem and made
nasty and the governing it his
elite. Hence the name "the
stronghold
capital; b) that he founded the royal ofdynasty
Zion" for theof CityJe-
of David (2 Sam
5:7; 1 Chr
rusalem; c) that Solomon built the11:5). The biblical
temple evidence of the build-
(though
on a much smaller scale than the one built in the ing of a temple, of the establishment of a court, and
of the
late monarchical period); and d) that a court wasrole of scribes in the new court of Jerusalem

(above)
established in the new capital with scribes among its fits well the socioarchaeological picture as it
officials. An ideology of a divine guidance of hasthe
emerged from the new surveys of the highlands.
The scope of settlement in the highland areas is
king and his dynasty quickly arose and the new rul-
also
ers used propaganda to consolidate their throne andrelevant for the discussion of the so-called

royal status. We may further assume that, like all

"Davidic empire." According to the biblical accoun
David conquered Philistia, Aram, Ammon, Mo
Syro-Palestinian rulers, those of the Jerusalemite
and Edom and brought all these kingdoms under h
dynasty were considered kings both by their neigh-
bors and by the inhabitants of the kingdom. yoke. But the great kingdom was short-lived a
Isa 7:17a: "The Lord will bring upon you fell
and apart immediately after David's death (1 K
upon your people and upon your father's house9:11-13,
such 16; 11:14-25). Some "revisionist" schol-
days as have not come since the day that Ephraim
ars assume that it is impossible that such an "empire"
(i.e., great kingdom) was conquered by David and
departed from Judah." The prophecy is originally
governed from Jerusalem (Garbini 1983: 1-16; 1988:
Isaianic, and is an independent witness of the break-
21-32;
up of a united monarcy of Judah and Ephraim, par- Jamieson-Drake 1991: 136-45; Knauf 1991a:
allel to the detailed narrative of the division of the 170-80; Thompson 1992: 331-34, 409-12; Davies
kingdom at Solomon's death (1 Kgs 12:16-24). 1992: 69). But is it really impossible? By way of
comparison, we may recall the offensive of Lab'ayu,
king of Schechem. While his kingdom had about 25
TENTH CENTURY B.C.E. JERUSALEM settlements, his offensive spread from Pibilum, east
AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE of the Jordan, to Gezer and Gath in southern Canaan.

ISRAELITE STATE
The Iron Age IIA highland settled population on
both sides of the Jordan was about 15-20 times
larger than that in LB II Shechem, and David ma
What was the number of settlements and the also have conquered some lowland districts an
scope of population governed from the new court mustered
of their population. The abundance of man
Jerusalem? Recent surveys supply this essential power
in- enabled David to mobilize a great army an
formation. Overall, about 255 Iron Age I sites to have
conquer large areas. Since the conquest was short-
lived and the "empire" fell apart immediately after
been discovered in the central hill country of Pales-
tine (Zertal 1994: 54-59; Ofer 1994: 102; Finkel- the conqueror's death, no established administration
stein 1994: 159). It is more difficult to determinewas
the set up in the subjugated areas. Only the migh
of David and the fear of his army may have kep
number of settlements in Iron Age IIA (the tenth
them under his dominion. There are many historica
century), due to the well-known problem of the inner
analogies for short-lived conquests of large territo-
division of Iron Age II pottery. Taking into account
a moderate increase of settlement, we may assume ries; those conquests ended with the death of the con
queror. There is, therefore, nothing impossible abou
that the overall number of sites in the Cisjordanian

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 24 NADAV NAAMAN BASOR 304

the main outline of the biblical account of David's single regional center in southern Palestine had held
conquest. Unfortunately, there is no other source sufficient
with power or density of population to dominate
other established centers of population." He con-
which to verify the historicity of the biblical account
of David's wars and his territorial expansion. cludes (Thompson 1992: 332), "This same isolation
In his discussion of the symbolic attainment of restricted
the its (i.e., Jerusalem) power and political
world order, Liverani (1990: 59) wrote as follows:
influence largely to its own region, and the small sub-
regions contiguous to it. The limited excavations in
At the ideological level, the physical presence of the
Jerusalem confirm this picture of a small provincial
king in a remote country is sufficient (although nec-
commercial center ... ."
essary) to demonstrate his political control thereon.
A victorious raid, even a pacific one, an expedition We may ask on what Thompson bases these far-
reaching
aiming at knowledge more than at conquest, is the re- conclusions. He does not discuss the ar-
quired symbolic achievement-not an effective ad- chaeological data in detail, nor does he examine the
ministrative organization (which could in [any] case longue duree or compare the Iron Age IIA data to
eventually follow). It is in fact unbelievable that an
other documented periods. His conclusions neither
area where the king freely walks, receives tributes, take into account all the available evidence nor do
subdues people, should not be a part of the organized
justice to the complexity of the problem. On the
world, whatever be the local political system.
basis of the data presented above, I would suggest
This ideological concept, which is supported that
by Judah in the late tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E.
was a peripheral small and powerless kingdom gov-
many historical examples, may well explain the bib-
erned by its local dynasty from the highland strong-
lical description of David's great kingdom, provided
hold of Jerusalem. Its rulers considered themselves
that at a certain moment in his career he actually
reached the remote areas attributed to him in biblical kings and were so regarded by their neighbors and
historiography. inhabitants. According to "modem" sociological def-
What happened in the stronghold of Jerusalem inition, late tenth-ninth century Judah should be
after the rebellion and the establishment of the defined as a chiefdom whose center was the strong-
Northern Kingdom? According to the (yet unpub-hold of Jerusalem, whose territory encompassed hilly
lished) new surveys, 17 Iron Age I sites have and
beenneighboring lowland and Negebite areas, and
whose population was a mixture of rural and pastoral
discovered in the hill country of Judah (Ofer 1994:
elements.
102) and 10 sites in the district of Benjamin (Finkel-
stein and Magen 1993: 26). Ofer (1994: 102-4) sug-
gests that 34 Judaean highland sites were settled in CONCLUSIONS

Iron Age IIA. The number of Iron Age IIA sites in

the territory of Benjamin is unknown. We may as-An understanding of the problems involv
excavations of multilayered highland sit
sume that following the division of the monarchy,
Jerusalem governed about 35-45 highland sites,examination
as of the long-range perspective
well as a few more sites in the Shephelah andtial
the for the correct appreciation of the po
tion of Jerusalem in the tenth century B.C
Beer-sheba Valley. There must have been a sharp
reduction in its power and influence, and yet it conclusions
was are appropriate:
a) No negative conclusions about Jeru
still able to govern more settlements and muster
more people than the kingdom of Shechem in LBthe
II. LB II and Iron Age I-IIA may be drawn
results
On the establishment of the kingdom of Judah, of the excavations conducted on
Hill. Its political position in the hill count
Thompson (1992: 312) writes, "There is . . little
basis for affirming the existence of a kingdom periods
of may be established only by the ex
Judah in the South. Not until well after the time of other data.
that
tradition marks out for the 'United Monarchy' wasb) The lesson learned from the Amarna letters is
very important for the discussion. These letters en-
the population of Judah sufficiently stable to support
able us to reconstruct in some detail the territorial,
a comprehensive regional political entity. This must
have occurred at the earliest sometime duringpolitical,
the social, and economic situation in the high-
lands of Canaan in the 14th century B.C.E. and to
course of the ninth century." Further on he writes
compare it with the LB II archaeological data. Set-
(Thompson 1992: 331): "It is unlikely, in this early
ting the documentary evidence vis ci vis the archae-
period of settlement during the final decades of Iron
I and the early part of the Iron II period, thatological
any data in this period is the point of departure

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1996 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE AMARNA LETTERS 25

for making inferences to other periods, the

e) Following in which
division of
the documentary evidence isdynasty
either lacking or full governed
of Jerusalem of
difficulties. Such a diachronic andparts
most synchronic study kingdo
of its former
is particularly instructive settlements
in cases where thedomain
in its eco- was
logical background is identical-as,
the LB IIfor example,
Highland kingdom o
the comparison between the highlands
maic of Canaan
stele recently discovered
supports
in LB II and Iron Age IIA, or the account of
the interpretation of the
the Iron Age IIA archaeological data.
ninth-century Judah and accor
c) The surveys conducted in theof
ture hill country
a small in-
peripheral kingd
dicate the enormous growth the
of settlement
analysis of and
the pop-
archaeologic
ulation between the LB II ing
and to
Iron Age IIA.
modern In
socioarchaeolog
was a polymorphous
contrast to the shortage of manpower chiefdom
in Late Bronze
Age kingdoms, there was an enormous
ninth population
centuries, and was transf
increase in the Iron Age, which enabled
in the eightythe emerg-
century B.C.E.
f) Scholars
ing states to mobilize many people must
and send always
them on take i
between our
military operations and corv6e modern definitions
work (2 Sam of states and socie-
20:24;
1 Kgs 4:6; 5:27-28; 9:15; 1:28; 12:3-14,
ties and the 18).
self-perception of ancient societies. A
clear linebiblical
d) A careful analysis of some must be drawnreferences
between the two sets of
and archaeological evidence,
termscoupled with
and the scholar shouldthe les-
state explicitly which
son learned from the Amarna tablets,
terminology leads
he is using. to
It is the
best to present the two
definitions
conclusion that Jerusalem must haveside by side and explain
already been theadifferences.
Modernin
governing center of a kingdom definitions
the tenthmay be the more "scientifically"
century
accurate,
B.C.E. The "stronghold of Zion" wasbut the
it is equally
seatimportant
of theto analyze an-
Davidic dynasty and the ruling elite.
cient societies accordingFrom their
to their own terms and self-
perception.
highland stronghold they governed the central hill
country on both sides of the Jordan and possibly
some Lowland districts in the vicinity. The precise
extent of the kingdom in the tenthACKNOWLEDGMENT
century B.C.E.
is hard to define and depends on the analysis of the
histories of David and Solomon. It is to
I am grateful even possible
my colleague I. Finkelstein
the present
that David formed a short-lived manuscript
great and for
kingdom, ashis nume
comments.
related in the Bible, although this cannot be estab-
lished with certainty.

NOTES

1The suggestion of Adamthwaite (1992)is to

alsorelocate
the standard unit for manning a garrison (massartu)
La-
(EA 139: 32; 238:
b'ayu to Pella (Pibilum) is unlikely. His discussion of11; 295: rev. 6). This was the number of
EA
289 is erroneous, since he does not correctlytroops garrisonedthe
appreciate in Jerusalem, and when those troops left,
inner structure of the text. The letter is divided intoking
CAbdi-Heba, several
of Jerusalem, asked for the dispatch of a
similar garrison
passages, each of which opens with a description (EA 289: 42-44): "And so may the king
of a cer-
send fifty men
tain episode and ends with the author's reaction to the new as a garrison to protect the land. The en-
situation. For a correct translation of lines
tire 18-24, based
land of the king has deserted." The "land" and "the land
on such understanding of the passage, of seetheMoran
king" in 1992:
this context are the territory of Jerusalem.
332-33. Moreover, the scope of Lab'ayu'sOf the 50 soldiers
operations sent back from Jerusalem to Gaza, 20
does
were immediately
not fit a remote Transjordanian town like Pella. There can dispatched to Egypt (EA 289: 30-35). It
be no doubt that Lab'ayu ruled at Shechem,seems to
asme thatbeen
has the fragmentary passage in letter EA 286:
recognized by all scholars from the early 26-31
daysrelates what happened to the rest of the garrison
of research
on the Amama letters. unit. It may be partly restored thus: "May the king my lord
2A cadre of 50 soldiers, or multiples thereof, was theknow that (though) the king my lord stationed a garrison,
standard unit of Egyptian troops according to the Amarna Enhamu has taken i[t al]l away [and... ] thirty [men he
s]en[ds ([yu-u]j-si-[ru]) from... to] Egypt."
letters (Pintore 1972: 102-4 with earlier literature). Fifty

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 26 NADAV NADAMAN BASOR 304

REFERENCES

Adamthwaite, M. R. Agyptologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden:

1992 Lab'aya's Connection with Shechem Reas- Harrassowitz.
sessed. Abr-Nahrain 30:1-19. Horowitz, W.
Barkay, G. 1995 Trouble in Canaan-A Letter of the el-Amarna
1996 A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jeru- Period on a Clay Cylinder from Beth-Shean.
salem? Israel Exploration Journal 46: 23-43. Qadmoniot 27: 84-86 (Hebrew).
Biran, A., and Naveh, J. Hurowitz, V.
1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. 1992 I Have Built You an Exalted House. Journal for
Israel Exploration Journal 43: 81-98. the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement
1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Series 115. Sheffield: JSOT.
Israel Exploration Journal 45: 1-18. Jamieson-Drake, D. W.
Campbell, E. E 1991 Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A
1965 Shechem in the Amarna Archive. Pp. 191-97 Socio-Archaeological Approach. The Socia
in Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City, World of Biblical Antiquity Series 9. Sheffie
by G. E. Wright. London: Duckworth. JSOT.
Davies, P. R. Kenyon, K. M.
1992 In Search of 'Ancient Israel.' Journal for the 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London: Benn.
Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Knauf, E. A.
148. Sheffield: JSOT. 1991a King Solomon's Copper Supply. Pp. 167-86
EA = Knudzton, J. A. in Phoenicia and the Bible, ed. E. Lipiriski.
1915 Die El-Amarna Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44. Leuven:
Finkelstein, I. Peeters.

1988- The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: Pre-1991b From History to Interpretation. Pp. 26-64 in
1989 liminary Report. Tel Aviv 15-16: 117-83. The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Is-
1991 The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate rael's Past, ed. D. V. Edelman. Journal for the
Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 41: Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
19-45. 127. Sheffield: JSOT.
Kochavi, M.
1992 Middle Bronze Age 'Fortifications': A Reflec-
1972 The Land of Judah. Pp. 19-90 in Judaea, Sa-
tion of Social Organization and Political For-
mation. Tel Aviv 19: 201-20. maria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey
1994 The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the 1967-1968, ed. M. Kochavi. Jerusalem: Carta
Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and (Hebrew).
Second Millennia B.C.E. Pp. 150-78 in From Landsberger, B.
Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and 1926 Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der Babylonischen
Historical Aspects of Early Israel, eds. I. Welt. Islamica 2: 355-72. (Trans. T. Jacobsen,
Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Yad B. Foster, and H. von Siebenthal, from German,
Izhak Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society. 1976. The Conceptual Autonomy of the Baby-
Finkelstein, I., and Magen, Y., eds. lonian World. Sources and Monographs of the
1993 Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Ancient Near East 1: 157-71.)
Lemche, N. P.
Benjamin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Author-
ity (Hebrew). 1994 Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel?
Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. L. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8:
1992 Urusalim and Jebus. Zeitschrift fiir die alttes- 165-90.

tamentliche Wissenschaft 104: 110-11. Lemche, N. P., and Thompson, T. L.

Garbini, G. 1994 Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of
1983 L'impero di David. Annali della Scuola Nor- Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old
male Superiore di Pisa, series III, 13: 1-20. Testament 64: 3-22.

1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Trans. Liverani, M.

J. Bowden, from Italian. London: SCM. 1990 Prestige and Interest. International Relations
Goldwasser, O. in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.c. Padua:
1991 An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Sargon.
Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Moran, W. L.
Tel Aviv 18: 248-53. 1975 The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna
Helck, W. Letters. Pp. 146-66 in Unity and Diversity:
1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion
3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd rev. ed. of the Ancient Near East, eds. H. Goedicke

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1996 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE AMARNA LETTERS 27

ninger.Johns
and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore: St. Augustin,Hopkins
bei Bonn: Anthropos
University. Instituts.
1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1977 Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Ele-
University. ment. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36:
Na'aman, N. 181-98.

1975 The Political Disposition and Historical De- Scheil, V.

velopment of Eretz-Israel According to the 1892 Varia. Revue Biblique 1: 116-17.
Amarna Letters. Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta- Shiloh, Y.
tion, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). 1984 Excavations at the City of David I. Qedem 19.
1981 Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupa- Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
tion of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31: University of Jerusalem.
172-85. Tarler, D., and Cahill, J. M.
1988 Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the 1992 Kd- David, City of. Pp. 52-67 in The Anchor Bible
mid el-L&z CApiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen Dictionary, vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman. New
20: 179-93. York: Doubleday.
1992a Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Coun- Thompson, T. L.
try Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E. 1992 Early History of the Israelite People: From the
Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275-91. Written and the Archaeological Sources. Studies
1992b Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century in the History of the Ancient Near East 4. Lei-
B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71-93. den: Brill.
1995 Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. 1995 "House of David": An Eponymic Referent to
Biblische Notizen 79: 17-24. Yahweh as Godfather. Scandinavian Journal of
Ofer, A. the Old Testament 9: 59-74.
1994 'All the Hill Country of Judah': From a Settle- Ungnad, A.
ment Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy. Pp. 1906 Jaua, mar iJumri. Orientalische Literaturzei-
92-121 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Ar- tung 9: 224-26.
chaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Van Seters, J.
Israel, eds. I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jeru- 1983 In Search of History: Historiography in the An-
salem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. cient World and the Origins of Biblical His-
Pintore, E tory. New Haven: Yale University.
1972 Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria Wightman, G. J.
Egiziana dell'eta de el-Amarna. Oriens Anti- 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites
quus 11: 101-31. to the Mamluks. Mediterranean Archaeology,
Redford, D. B. Supplement 4. Sydney: Meditarch.
1990 Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. Beer- Zertal, A.
Sheva 4. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University 1994 'To the Land of the Perizzites and the Giants':
of the Negev. On the Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country
1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. of Manasseh. Pp. 47-69 in From Nomadism
Princeton: Princeton University. to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical
Rowton, M. B. Aspects of Early Israel, eds. I. Finkelstein and
1976 Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite. Pp. N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.
219-57 in Al-Bahit: Festschrift Joseph Hen-

This content downloaded from 132.64.31.253 on Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:26:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms