2010 burke ane war ashkelon

7/31/2019 2010 Burke ANE War Ashkelon

1/28

Canaan under Siege

The History and Archaeology of Egypts War in Canaanduring the Early Eighteenth Dynasty

Aaron A. Burke

Despite the considerable attention that has been devoted to the study of the end ofthe Middle Bronze Age, to Late Bronze Age Canaan, and to the development of theNew Kingdom Egyptian Empire in the Levant, a nuanced historical-archaeologicalreconstruction of the opening days of Egyptian imperialism remains lacking. In part,this deficiency is owed to the prerequisites of familiarity with, on the one hand, thehistory, material culture, and settlement patterns of the Levant during both the Mid-dle and Late Bronze Ages and, on the other, with the history of Egypts New King-dom campaigns. The dearth of syntheses is also owed to the adherence to entrenchedand outdated models for Canaans political organization, which are central to under-standing the changes brought about during this transition period, and the limited

attention devoted to, until recently, the archaeological evidence for Egypts inter-vention in and policies toward Canaan. The continued employment of dated con-structs limits our ability to nuance the development of Egypts military policy to-ward Canaan over the course of the Late Bronze Age, particularly within the LB IA(ca. 15301460 BC). As is argued in this article, these constructs obscure the identi-fication of the material and ideological effects of Egypts dominance and the recog-nition of Egypts very gradual subjugation and effective balkanization of MiddleBronze Age territorial kingdoms in the southern Levant which began during the LBIA. What follows, therefore, is the result of an attempt to formulate a nuanced his-torical-archaeological reconstruction of Egypts early conquests in Canaan by rely-

ing not only upon archaeological data from sites and settlement patterns during thetransition between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (MB IIILB IA), but also touse evidence relating to the nature of Bronze Age warfare and a new perspective onthe evolution of polities in the Levant during this period.

The Close of the Middle Bronze Age

It is widely agreed that during the MB III (ca. 16001530 BC) the southern Levantcontinued the settlement trend begun during the MB II and that it was characterizedby a process known as settlement infilling, which resulted in the presence of a

greater number of smaller settlements scattered across the landscape between larger


2/28

44 Aaron A. Burke

fortified centers that existed during the MB II.1 The presence of a large number ofcemeteries dated to the MB IIIII that presumably belonged to the inhabitants ofnearby, although often unidentified settlements,2 suggests that many of these settle-ments were unfortified and short-lived, perhaps lasting as little as a few decadesduring the MB IIIII. Although it is not an easy process to distinguish settlementsfounded in the late MB II from those founded during the MB III, the prevailing po-litical and socioeconomic conditions, which I identify as Pax Amoritica, suggest thecontinuation of the MB II settlement trend and associated political organization.3

Political Organization and Strategic Defenses

The settlement pattern at the close of the Middle Bronze Age was intrinsically re-lated to the nature of the political organization of the southern Levant. Canaanspolitical organization at the close of the Middle Bronze Age permits a clearer ar-ticulation of Egypts approach to the conquest of Canaan at the start of the New

Kingdom and its subsequent approach to the administration of the region. The pre-vailing interpretation of Canaans political organization during the MB IIIII, whichhas been characterized as that of dozens of independent city-states,4 has relied nearlyentirely on the retrojection of the political organization characteristic of Late BronzeAge Canaan as identified from the Amarna letters.5 As I have argued, however, thedefensive strategy of the late Middle Bronze Age was inherently dictated by thelargest urban, fortified settlements (i.e., political capitals), which can be identified asthe dominant polities (preferably referred to as kingdoms) during the second half ofthe Middle Bronze Age. This can be inferred from the spatial relationship betweenfirst-tier centers and settlements around them, namely the strategic location of certain

settlement types (discussed below), as well as the considerable labor required in theconstruction of monumental fortifications at small sites.

Among the most conspicuous of these political centers were Hazor and Ash-kelon,6 but probably others included small centers in the highlands, such as Shechemand Jerusalem.7 Ashkelons landscape is an excellent case study of the relationshipbetween secondary sites and their political centers. Indeed, it was the settlementpattern and site types of the kingdom of Ashkelon during the MB IIIII, which con-

1 In this article the following terms are used to designate phases of the Middle Bronze Age, re-placing the MB IIAIIC terminology: MB I (ca. 19001700 BC), MB II (ca. 17001600), and

MB III (ca. 16001530 BC). Dates for the reigns of Egyptian pharaohs and their campaignsare based on Kitchen 2000. The LB IA (ca. 15301460).2 I do not accept the supposition that cemeteries lacking association with conspicuous settle-ments must have belonged to pastoral nomads (contra Gonen 1981, for the Late Bronze Age).The suggestion is problematic given the dense settlement pattern of the urban Middle BronzeAge, which would have required that such cemeteries fell within the territory of one or anotherpolity, and in light of the realization that pastoral nomads were most likely the social relations(i.e., kith and kin) of the inhabitants of MB urban settlements. Indeed, to the extent that anyburials would be identified as those of pastoral nomads they are indistinguishable from thoseof their urban counterparts.3 Burke 2008, 100101.4

Dever 1987.5 For discussion, see Burke 2008, 119121; also Sugerman 2009.6 Burke 2008, 117, 125135.7 Burke 2008, 117119.


3/28

Canaan under Siege 45

stituted a well defined defensive strategy,8 that became one of the foci of Egyptsearly efforts to subdue the region as argued below. Although in no single territoryare all of these settlement types in evidence, owing to the exigencies of archaeologi-cal exploration, the defensive strategy employed appears to have focused on a set-tlement network comprised of sites of varying sizes and functions. Settlementsranged from large fortified centers like Hazor and Ashkelon (> 50 ha) to smallerfortified settlements, unfortified villages including those of less than 0.2 ha in size,fortresses, watchtowers, and rural agricultural estates or farmsteads.9 Along majorroad networks, for example, a series of towers (magdalma), were erected to provideadvanced warning of approaching threats and to protect caravans that plied theoverland road and its tributaries between Aleppo and Avaris.10 These towers aretoday identified by means of toponyms deriving from the Arabic term mjdal, andno fewer than sixty such sites can be identified in the Levant that are predominantlyof late Middle and Late Bronze Age date (ca. 17001200 BC).

In addition to the evidence for settlement hierarchy and a variety of settlementtypes, other lines of evidence support the identification of a period of political or-ganization in Canaan that was dominated by large territorial kingdoms like Hazorand Ashkelon. Around Ashkelon, the spatial relationship of second-tier fortifiedcenters reveals their location at one-days travel by foot throughout the coastal plain(Figure 1). Not only is this relationship meaningful because it is reflective of thepotential sphere of Ashkelons immediate political control, but the location of itssecondary and tertiary fortified settlements, which fall along an average distance of30 km (between 25 and 33 km) from Ashkelon, reveals the employment of a consis-tent defensive strategy, which is characterized by the construction of rectilinear de-

fensive layouts known during the MB II throughout the Levant.11 The considerableeffort required to defend these smaller sites ranging from 1.5 to 22 ha in size alsosupports the recognition of a political hierarchy that was able to muster the resourcesneeded to construct defenses at even the smallest of these sites, such as Timnah andTel Sera. Within this context, the Middle Bronze Age palaces identified at Ajjuland Lachish are recognized to be most likely the residences of provincial governors(e.g., OB apitum). Thus, these second-tier centers, which were obviously orientedwith a focus outward from Ashkelon, served Ashkelons effort to administer its hin-terland and the routes leading from its territory through the coastal plain and into thehighlands to the east.

8

Burke 2008, 81.9 Burke 2008, 122125.10 Burke 2007.11 Burke 2008, 81.


4/28

46 Aaron A. Burke

Fig 1. The kingdom of Ashkelon at the end of the Middle Bronze Age


5/28


The precise character of the defenses of Middle Bronze Age settlements are wellunderstood.12 At the close of the Middle Bronze Age, the average fortified settle-ment, such as those in the kingdom of Ashkelon, possessed substantial earthen ram-parts, crowned by thick and solid mudbrick walls, studded with towers, and sur-rounded by a dry ditch or fosse. They were constructed with amazing regularity fromtheir brick sizes to gate plans. Indeed, they were sufficiently well constructed tocontinue to function into the LB IA, which often complicates distinguishing pre-cisely when the fortifications were no longer in service, despite our ability to moreaccurately date their construction. This is in part the result of the fact that the contin-ued use, modification, and rebuilding of fortification systems was not a uniformprocess across each site, but was undertaken as needed, and would most often haveinvolved either the reapplication of mud plaster, or the reconstruction or modifica-tion of the uppermost portions of walls, which were also the first portions to be de-stroyed. None of these efforts to maintain the fortifications provide any real potential

for accurate dating as they are the most ephemeral elements of fortification systemswhatever the period, and essentially escape archaeological detection.

The vast majority of Canaans population, probably as much as 70% as in thekingdom of Ashkelon,13 inhabited fortified towns during the Middle Bronze Age.The remainder inhabited farming villages and rural agricultural estates within 15 kmfrom these centers, and were thus at the most a few hours away from the safety of afortified town (or conversely, the assistance of these towns), when circumstancesdictated. Nevertheless, during the MB III (ca. 16001530 BC), there is evidence tosuggest that the prevailing Pax Amoritica meant that newly founded settlements,such at Tel Michal, were inadequately prepared for sustaining a siege, having aban-

doned the traditional approach to wall construction.14 Similarly, while the employ-ment of so-called casemate fortification walls afforded a greater flexibility in the useof space within ever-growing urban centers (i.e., as storage rooms), this wall typeleft sites, like Shechem in the highlands, with less than the ideal defenses since theywere not battle ready.15 Indeed, these walls are hardly casemates at all, since thereis no evidence to indicate that they were ever intended to be filled in as was, forexample, the fortification wall around the Hittite capital of Hattua. As a defensivestrategy, therefore, it appears to have contributed to compromising the defensibilityof many settlements, as there is little doubt that these walls were less effective thanwell-built and well-maintained, solid fortification walls of equal breadth. With the

political and military context of the late Middle Bronze Age defined, it is possible toaddress the effects of Egypts expansion into Canaan during the LB IA.

Egypts Early Empire

It is generally agreed that it was Egypts early Eighteenth Dynasty that was ulti-mately responsible for the demise of Canaans defenses at the close of the MiddleBronze Age. Still, a variety of opinions have been voiced concerning the duration

12

Burke 2008, 4784.13 Burke 2008, 134.14 Burke 2008, 8283.15 Burke 2008, 6163.


6/28

48 Aaron A. Burke

and nature of Egyptian conquests in Canaan during the LB IA (ca. 1530 to 1460BC), which spanned from the expulsion of the Hyksos16 by Ahmose through theBattle of Megiddo during the reign of Thutmose III.17 Having ruled out Hurrianinvasions as a culprit,18 as previously held by a number of scholars,19 and havingeliminated notions that Egyptians were incapable of the effort required or were ineptin siege warfare,20 the Egyptian army remains the only viable culprit for the destruc-tions attested across Canaan and especially, as will be discussed in detail here, in thesouthern coastal plain.21 Although it has also been suggested that internecine feudingbetween Canaanite city-states in the wake of the expulsion of the Hyksos fromEgypt, as attested during the Amarna period, may have been responsible for thesedestructions, the suggestion requires accepting that Thutmose IIIs rhetorical com-ments concerning chaos in Canaan at the start of his campaigns portray Canaaniteinfighting rather than simply a state of open rebellion by Canaanites against Egypt.Similarly incongruous is Redfords suggestion that the site-wide destruction of MB

III settlements (i.e., representing more than the destruction of the fortifications ofthese settlements) represented a methodical demolition of fortifications by theEgyptians after their conquests and were not the result of the destruction of the sitesthemselves.22 While it is clear that not all of the Late Bronze Age destructions evi-denced in the archaeological record can be correlated with specific Egyptian refer-ences, whether textual or iconographic sources of the late Eighteenth and NineteenthDynasties, the absence of historical or archaeological evidence to permit the associa-tion of these destructions with either Canaanite or Hurrian culprits is significant.Thus, with no reasonable option left but to assign Egyptian agency to these destruc-tions, attention can be focused on the unfolding nature of Egypts early imperial

policies during the early Eighteenth Dynasty.Ellen Morris has provided the most up-to-date and thorough synthesis addressing

in particular Egyptian historical sources and archaeological data of relevance forreconstructing the developmental phases of Egyptian domination from the Eight-eenth to the Twentieth Dynasties.23 Of interest to the LB IA is her discussion of the

16 The term Hyksos has been widely applied in earlier scholarship to include not only therulers of the Fifteenth Dynasty in Egypt (once thought to be of Hurrian extraction, but now re-cognized to be of Asiatic or, more precisely, of Amorite origin) but also the Amorite in-habitants of Canaan during the MB III. Translated as foreign rulers this Egyptian ascription

should not be applied to groups beyond the Asiatic pharaohs and their followers who residedin the eastern Delta during the Second Intermediate Period. As was clearly the intent in pre-vious scholarship, reference to the inhabitants of the southern Levant as Hyksos suggested anovert political and military relationship between the Fifteenth Dynasty rulers at Avaris and theAmorite rulers in Canaan. Nevertheless, to date neither historical nor archaeological datasuggest more than a shared Amorite koinin both regions, despite the distinct possibility thatrelationships between the Hyksos in Egypt and Amorite polities in Canaan may have beenmore formally arranged.17 For a summary, see Morris 2005, 35, nn. 4045; also Weinstein 1981, 12.18 Dever 1998; Weinstein 1991.19 Hoffmeier 1990, 1991; Naaman 1994; Redford 1992, 137140.20

Burke 2009; Morris 2005, 36.21 See also Burke 2008, 101, for summary; Weinstein 1981, 25.22 Redford 2003, 50f.23 Morris 2005.


7/28


early and middle Eighteenth Dynasty up through the reign of Thutmose III.24Particularly striking, of course, is the limited imprint left by Egyptian campaignsover the course of the six-decades between Ahmoses and Thutmoses campaigns,which will be discussed further below. Seemingly absent to date is evidence forEgyptian garrisons and fortresses that would typify Egyptian imperial presence fromthe LB IB onward. Indeed, Morris has characterized this nascent empire as in aperiod of crisis prior to the campaign of Thutmose III,25 although to do so is toembrace the mistaken assumption that the later character of the Egyptian empire wasthe shape intended but never realized by early Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs. There-fore, references to the campaigns of Ahmose through Thutmose III and archaeologi-cal evidence from the LB IA serve as the starting point for consideration of the inter-sections of these historical events and the archaeological record.

Some fundamental observations must be articulated in order to properly constrainour efforts to characterize Egyptian grand strategy and the specific tactics that were

employed during the early Eighteenth Dynasty. As is evident from almost any his-torical survey of these early campaigns, it is impossible to speak of a tradition ofannual campaigning by New Kingdom pharaohs until the first campaign of Thut-mose III (ca. 1460 BC), which for the first time targeted a coalition of kings gatheredat Megiddo (see discussion below). Similarly, there is no evidence that there existedfrom the outset of the Eighteenth Dynasty a clear Egyptian plan to systematicallyand mechanically subjugate Canaan via the overland route from the northern end ofthe Ways of Horus in the wake of Egypts initial victories at Avaris and Sharuhen(Tell el-Ajjul) by Ahmose, which is all too often assumed and would seem superfi-cially to be most logical. This notion is a clear attempt to retroject the policy and

conduct of the later New Kingdom pharaohs to the days of Ahmose.To the extent that it may be discerned, Egypts approach appears to have most

often exploited inland marches from the coast following a markedly dendritic pene-tration along drainage systems (where established routes already existed), avoidingas much as possible the long slog that would have been necessary along the coastalhighway, which was intensively overshadowed by well-fortified sites. Unexpected asEgyptian incursions from the coast seem to have been, these assaults met with nearlyno opposition, and permitted, therefore, inland campaigns of considerable distance asundertaken by Amenhotep I and Thutmose I. Such efforts would have been effec-tively impossible along the land route during the early Eighteenth Dynasty owing to

Egypts limited control of most of this region prior to Thutmose III, as revealed bythe opposition that eventually coalesced and was mustered against the same pharaohat Megiddo following the death of Hatshepsut. Since it is likely, however, that mostof the destructions assigned to the LB IA in Canaan were the result of a number ofdifferent campaigns, which may not have been conducted by the pharaoh himself, assuggested by Morris,26 and thus some military efforts are historically unattested, anattempt can be made to address these early campaigns using the relevant archaeo-logical data from Canaan.

In what follows the archaeological evidence has been examined based on the

24 Morris 2005, 2767, 115164, 177180.25 Morris 2005, 51, n. 85.26 Morris 2005, 36.


8/28

50 Aaron A. Burke

generally accepted dates assigned to the destruction of sites by their excavators.Attention is paid to clusters of settlements within regions that, I argue, are mostlikely to have been subject to attack during the same campaign based on the recog-nition of a discernible pattern of strategic defenses that were in place at the end ofthe Middle Bronze Age27 and which were necessarily faced by Egypt during thisperiod.28

Ahmose: Sharuhen and Its Hinterland

Following the siege of Avaris, Egypts coastally focused program of assaults beganat Sharuhen, widely identified with Tell el-Ajjul following predominantly Kempin-skis criteria.29 Within the framework defined for the Middle Bronze Age, this cam-paign began what might be considered the gradual whittling away of the holdings ofthe kingdom of Ashkelon at the close of the MB III. Within the context of this Mid-dle Bronze Age polity, Sharuhen served as its southern vanguard on the overland

route leading to Egypt. The archaeology of the destruction of Ajjul City II is wellknown, despite its early excavation by W. M. F. Petrie who was bound by the limitsof his nascent methodology. Of particular interest are the destroyed remains of CityII and Palace 2,30 which were at the time defended by a rampart (probably crownedby a wall since eradicated)31 and a fosse, which was 18 m wide, 6 m deep, and encir-cled the site on the north, east, and south sides.32 The siege of Sharuhen is saidaccording to Egyptian historical records to have lasted three years, and it might beexpected that some archaeological evidence remains of the considerable effort thatsuch a lengthy siege required, particularly of the defenders. It is interesting thereforeto consider the possibility that the so-called Upper and Lower Tunnels, which could

never have functioned as a water system33 and was not employed for burialsas itran directly underneath the in-use Middle Bronze Age (so-called Hyksos) ceme-terywere undertaken to provide a secret means of access to and from the site bySharuhens besieged as they sought to bring in supplies and send and receive mes-sengers.34 Thus archaeological evidence at Tell el-Ajjul may substantiate a lengthysiege, and as suggested below provides a revealing glimpse into Egyptian siege tac-tics, namely the effectiveness of the employment of the protracted siege by the earlyEighteenth Dynasty Egyptian army.

The siege against Sharuhen is not likely to have been an isolated military opera-tion and, in fact, the archaeological evidence inland from Sharuhen is sufficiently

consistent in character to suggest a shared fate by its hinterland communities. Acluster of sites east of Sharuhen including Jemmeh,35 Haror,36 Sera,37 and Tell

27 Burke 2008, 124.28 See Keegan 1993, 142 for a discussion of the concept of strategic defenses.29 Kempinski 1974.30 Tufnell / Kempinski 1993, 53.31 On the absence of evidence of mudbrick walls, see Burke 2008, 61.32 Burke 2008, 231.33 Contra Tufnell / Kempinski 1993, 50.34

Burke 2008, 232f.; 2009, 64.35 Van Beek 1993, 668.36 Oren 1993a, 582.37 Oren 1993b, 1330.


9/28


Farah South38 appear, strangely enough, to have escaped the destruction meted outby Egyptian troops during Ahmoses multi-year siege of Sharuhen, or any subse-quent early Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh. Surprisingly these sites offer no evidenceof destruction layers dated to the LB IA (thus through the reign of Thutmose III,despite reference in his list to Yurza; see no. 60). It is necessary, therefore, to con-sider if an absence of evidence for destruction is correctly interpreted as a peacefulperiod among these sites, particularly with the nearly continual presence of Egyptiantroops at Gaza and Sharuhen during the LB IA. While it is difficult to be sure whatthe nature of Egypts actions against these settlements may have been, such settle-ments may have been blockaded by or may have capitulated to Egyptian troops, ortheir populations fled northward in the face of the Egypts determined effort againstSharuhen until it was considered safe to return. Such scenarios, all plausible, areimpossible to tease out of the archaeological evidence in the absence of historicalsources. Nevertheless, it is evident that, for whatever reasons, the siege of these

settlements appears to have been unnecessary, located as they were to the rear ofSharuhen (Tell el-Ajjul) up the Nahals Besor and Gerar, and the absence of destruc-tion levels dated to this period at these sites is conspicuous. Unclear is the relation-ship of Malhatas destruction located further inland, which has been dated by Ko-chavi to the mid-sixteenth century BC.39

Before Thutmose III: The Southern Coastal Plain

Following the limited evidence for campaigning beyond Avaris and Sharuhen duringAhmoses reign, very limited historical evidence is available for campaigns by Ah-moses successors. Still, several lines of evidence suggest that the southern coastal

plain north of the Wadi Gaza (Nahal Besor), the territory largely under the sway ofthe Middle Bronze Age kingdom of Ashkelon, had been pacified before the arrivalof Thutmose III.40 The strongest evidence for this is the conspicuous absence of thenames of Canaanite towns on Thutmose IIIs list located between Sharuhen, whichwas already held by an Egyptian garrison, and Jaffa (Yapu, no. 62). Settlementsmentioned in the list within this region include only Yurza (no. 60) and Muhazzu(no. 61).41 Among the sites (at least those identified with historical toponyms) thatare conspicuously absent in this list and that possess archaeological evidence ofdestruction levels dated to the LB IA are Ashkelon(?), Tell Nagila, Lachish, Timnah,Gezer, and Beth-Shemesh.42

38 Yisraeli 1993.39 Kochavi 1967; 1992, 487.40 Weinstein 1981.41 The fact that both Tell Jemmeh and Tel Haror lack evidence for destruction layers dated tothis period is interesting with respect to the question of identifying either of these sites withYurza of this inscription, which was at least claimed to be conquered by Thutmose III, if notdestroyed. The reference to Yurza in this list may be instructive, therefore, concerning the na-

ture of what can be concluded from the sites listed.42 Although Weinstein listed Hesi among these destructions (Weinstein 1981, 2), its strati-graphy has not permitted a clear identification of an MB III/LB IA destruction level (Fargo1993).


10/28

52 Aaron A. Burke

Gaza was in place as an Egyptian garrison no later than Thutmose IIIs first cam-paign,43 although it remains uncertain if it was already in Egyptian hands before this.The extent to which Gaza was settled during the Middle or Late Bronze Ages re-mains, of course, unknown. Regardless, to the north of Gaza, the next parcel of ter-ritory that faced Egyptian conquest prior to Thutmose III lay along the Nahal Shiqmaat a point nearly directly inland from Ashkelon. The LB I destruction of Ashkelonidentified by Phythian-Adams44 has not been corroborated as a city-wide destructionby the most recent excavations,45 despite the limited evidence of any sort for occupa-tional remains of the LB I within the main excavation areas of the Leon Levy Expe-dition. If Ashkelon was subdued during this period, this action is likely to have beencontemporary with the Nahal Shiqma operation along which Nagila lay. NearbyNagila had been fortified during the MB IIIII,46 but Level VII was evidentlybrought to an end by a conflagration.47 To Nagilas northeast, the well-fortified La-chish48 was burned before the end of the MB III.49 At this site, another enigmatic

tunnel was identified by Tufnell as the work of sappers,50 although this identifica-tion is considered unlikely.51

A cluster of contemporary destructions can also be identified further to the north-east of Ashkelon, again at sites that are not identified in Thutmose IIIs lists. Theseinclude Timnah, Gezer, and Beth-Shemesh. Timnah X revealed thick destructiondebris dated by its excavator to the late sixteenth century BC.52 The destruction ofGezer XVIII (Qasru, no. 104) has been dated by William Dever to this period.53Although the extent of construction, or more properly maintenance, undertaken forthese fortifications during the LB IA is unclear, the fortifications appear to have beenin place during the transition with some additional glacis construction thereafter.54

Beth-Shemeshs destruction, as argued by Weinstein, is likely to represent a LB IAdestruction.55 Absent among references from Thutmose IIIs toponyms is any nameto be identified with Yavneh-Yam, which was abandoned during this period.

If the destruction of the above mentioned sites during the LB IA was not the re-sult of Thutmose IIIs campaign, since there are no references to these places amongAhmoses early campaigns, it is reasonable to suggest that to the extent that this areawas pacified, as suggested by LB IA destruction layers at the above sites, this proc-ess occurred after the reign of Ahmose and before that of Thumose III, being as-cribed to either Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, or Hatshepsut. Unfortu-nately, in none of the extant sources for these rulers is mention made of specific

43 Morris 2005, 39.44 Phythian-Adams 1923, 65.45 Stager 2008, 1580.46 Burke 2008, 298299.47 Amiran / Eitan 1993, 10801081.48 Burke 2008, 287288.49 Ussishkin 1993b, 898899; Level P-4, see Ussishkin 2004, 154160.50 Tufnell 1958, pl. 6.51 Burke 2008, 288.52

Mazar 1997, 4145.53 Dever 1993, 501.54 Burke 2008, 262263.55 Also Burke 2008; Weinstein 1981, 3.


11/28


campaigns in Canaan and little evidence is available to suggest a most likely candi-date among them. Thutmose I, and perhaps his predecessor Amenhotep I, madeexcursions into the northern Levant, but make no reference to the south.56 Moretantalizing, however, is a reference to a punitive campaign by Thutmose II againstthe Shasu after which he also moved on to action in the northern Levant.57 Theassociation of the Shasu with the Negev and regions east may make Thutmose II apotential candidate for the destruction of Malhata, mentioned above, that has beendated to the mid-sixteenth century. Hatshepsuts claims concerning campaigning, asnoted by Redford, were probably plucked from the traditional jargon and permit toisolate but a few, and rather innocuous, excursions including mining in Sinai and atrip to Byblos.58 Therefore, despite a relative degree of confidence that Thutmose IIIwas not actively engaged in the subjugation of the southern coastal plain, whichapparently took place before his reign, it remains impossible to associate the regionssubjugation after Ahmoses defeat of Sharuhen with the activity of the four phar-

aohs preceding Thutmose III.

Canaan under Thutmose III

In his study of the Egyptian New Kingdom Empire, James Weinstein noted thatnone of the westernmost sites north of Ashkelon need necessarily have been de-stroyed or abandoned as early as the mid-16th century B.C. making them quitedifferent from most of those in the southern and inland parts of Palestine.59 Moreplainly stated, there is no basis for dating the destructions of sites north of Ashkelonbefore the reign of Thutmose III, and it is only with the reign of Thutmose III thatthe destruction of sites in Canaan can plausibly be associated with specific Egyptian

campaigns. The toponym list of Thutmose has been extensively discussed by DonaldRedford,60 but questions nevertheless remain regarding the nature of the lists. Canthey, for example, be identified as more than an itinerary? Who was the intendedaudience and what purpose did they serve? Answering such questions is complicatedby the nature of our efforts to use them as historical sources, as discussed by Red-ford. It would be unreasonable, for example, to expect destructions of a singularcharacter at all of the sites listed, which were of varying size and strategic impor-tance, in order to identify them as conquered by Thutmose III, which seems at aminimum suggested by their inclusion in this list. Thus in this context, as under-scored in the preceding section, the destroyed MB IIILB IA settlements that are not

included among these toponyms are more significant. The inference being that theywere destroyed by one of Thutmose IIIs predecessors. As Weinstein has observed,the areas where Thutmose III claims no activity were in south-central Palestine, inthe eastern Shephelah, in the hill country, or in the southern half of the Jordan Val-ley.61

56 Morris 2005, 3033.57 Morris 2005, 33f.58

Redford 1992, 152.59 Weinstein 1981, 5.60 Redford 2003, 4356.61 Weinstein 1981, 11.


12/28

54 Aaron A. Burke

While the prologue to this list refers generally to lawlessness and chaos in Retenuand the ensuing rebellion against His Majesty the pharaoh as the basis for Thut-mose IIIs campaign,62 the context for this statement is none other than the coalitionformed by the king of Qadesh to meet the pharaoh in battle. Thutmose III, whilefortunate to have caught the Canaanite armies (or at least most of them, allowing forconsiderable exaggeration by the pharaoh) at Megiddo, was as prepared for openbattle as he was for siege warfare against Canaanite towns. The destruction of Me-giddo IX is traditionally identified as the result of the Egyptian siege,63 althoughWeinstein has noted that there is no clear evidence of a destruction associated withthis Egyptian action.64 It is fair, therefore, to characterize the defeat of the coalitionand, by extension, the armies of its individual participants as the defeat or conquestof the individual towns from which these armies were levied. There simply wouldhave been no substantive defense left for these communities to muster during anyeffort by Thutmose III to force the capitulation of these towns, and certainly no hope

of their defense by neighboring allies, most of whom we may conclude were alsorouted at Megiddo. In this respect, the circumstances surrounding Thutmose IIIscampaign in year 23, which was of considerable luck for the pharaoh, are entirelyunique when compared to the campaigns of his predecessors and the usual circum-stances encountered in Canaan by his successors. In this fashion the aftermath of hiscampaign must be regarded as similarly unique, and in every respect far more exten-sive than the conquests of nearly any other Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh.

The central fact for rectifying the historical context of MB IIILB IA destruc-tions north of Ashkelon given their identification with Egyptian campaigns is that bya process of elimination these destructions can be assigned to no later a pharaoh than

Thutmose III, if they are not to be downdated to the LB IB or later. LB IA destruc-tions and abandonments, which are not accounted for by the campaigns of earlierpharaohs include sites in the central coastal plain, the hill country, the Upper Galilee,the north coast, and the Jordan Valley. Whether in cases relating to the aftermath ofMegiddo, these destruction levels were either fits of orgiastic plundering by Egyp-tian soldiers or systematic, although undocumented, sieges is not likely to be demon-strated. Nevertheless, all of these sites were destroyed at some point prior to the startof the LB IB, and for the reasons cited above unlikely to have been the work ofThutmose IIIs predecessors.

In the central coastal plain, destructions that may be the work of Thutmose III

during this period are attested at Jaffa, Gerisa, Aphek, Michal, and Mevorakh. JacobKaplan identified a destruction layer that he attributed to the conquest of Canaan atJaffa dated to this transition.65 Gerisas fortified MB III settlement was destroyed,66while Apheks Palace III of the MB III (Apuqn?, no. 66) was destroyed in the mid-sixteenth century BC according to Beck and Kochavi.67 Zeev Herzog has attributedthe late Middle Bronze Age destruction of Tel Michal to tectonic activity, down-

62 Redford 2003, 9.63 Aharoni 1993, 1010.64

Weinstein 1981, 11.65 Kaplan 1972, 78.66 Herzog 1993, 481.67 Beck / Kochavi 1993, 67.


13/28


playing the presence of considerable amounts of brick and ash from the settlementthat were present during the construction of the LB I rampart.68 Nevertheless, thecontemporaneous destruction of the site with others during this period throughout thecoastal plain, as well as the lack of unequivocal evidence for a tsunami, makes suchan ascription unlikely. The evidence from Tel Mevorakh is instructive in that it il-lustrates the transition of a roadside fortress, which was well-fortified throughout theMiddle Bronze Age,69 into an unfortified roadside sanctuary (Stratum XI) during theLB I70 with no interruption in occupation, as appears to have been the case at mostsettlements that were destroyed in this period. Stern attributes Mevoraks destructionat the end of the MB III to Thutmose IIIs campaigns.71 Accompanying thesedestructions is the apparent abandonment of Megadim, 2 km north of Atlit duringthe MBLB transition.72

It is particularly remarkable that no hill country sites are mentioned among thecampaigns of Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs, and Shechem and Jerusalem only

receive first mention during the Late Bronze Age in the Amarna period and are neveridentified among the targets of New Kingdom campaigns. It is tempting to infer thatthe hill country was not only not a central object of Egyptian campaigning becauseof the difficulty it posed for military operations, but that these sites receive no men-tion because they were also not located on major thoroughfares and thus never a partof regular itineraries. Nevertheless, a number of MB IIILB IA destructions areattested in the hill country, and these suggest some level of military activity, mostlikely by Egypt, but probably without the participation of the pharaoh on what wereundoubtedly considered high-risk missions. The destructions of a number of exca-vated sites in the hill country have been attributed to Egyptian activity in this period

without further refinement. These include Tell Beit Mirsim,73 Beth-Zur,74 Beth-El,75Shechem XV,76 Shiloh,77 Gibeon,78 as well as Dothan, and Taanach. Dothan wasclaimed to have been destroyed during this transition by Joseph Free, but this asser-tion was not corroborated by the recent publication of the excavations results,79 andindeed the identification is no longer accepted between the site and any reference inThutmoses list.80 Thutmose IIIs campaign against Megiddo also hit nearbyTaanach (no. 42), which shows evidence of destruction during this period.81

Numerous destructions have also been identified north of Megiddo. Along the

68 Herzog 1989, 38.69 Burke 2008, 295296.70 Stern 1984, 46.71 Stern 1984, 3739.72 Broshi 1993, 1001.73 Greenberg 1993, 178.74 Sellers 1933, 9.75 Kelso 1993, 193.76 Campbell 2002, 137139, and passim.77 Finkelstein 1993, 6162; Watkins 1997, 29.78

See summary by Weinstein 1981, 3.79 Master et al. 2005, 4955.80 Ussishkin 1993a, 372.81 Glock 1993, 1432.


14/28

56 Aaron A. Burke

north coast northwest of Megiddo, Akko,82 and Achzib,83 were destroyed in thisperiod. Kabri, though not evidently destroyed, was abandoned at the end of the MBIII.84 In the Upper Galilee, both Tel Dan (Laish, no. 31?), Stratum IX, and Hazor (no.32), Stratum XVI/3,85 were destroyed. It should be noted, however, that the destruc-tion of Hazor XVI/3 is attributed to Ahmose by Ben-Tor,86 despite an absence ofevidence for this pharaohs presence this far north.

In the Jordan Valley, Jericho, Tel Kitan, Tell Deir All, Tell Abu Kharaz, andPella all experienced destructions during the LB IA.87 Jericho88 and Tel Kitan LevelIV89 both produced evidence of destructions. Tell Deir Alla also appears to haveexperienced a site-wide destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.90 The case-mate fortifications of Phase IV/2 of Tell Abu Kharaz were destroyed during thisperiod,91 and its subsequent fortifications, which are dated to the LB I on the pres-ence of Base-Ring I ware, were rebuilt during Phase V and destroyed again.92 Themudbrick fortification wall of Pella Phase VIC (possibly Pihilu, no. 33) was also part

of a fiery destruction.93Although Redford has attempted to enfeeble the nature of Egypts efforts during

this period by characterizing its early military campaigns as incompetent and decon-structing every dimension of them from Egypts early siege tactics to the very sig-nificance of the toponyms listed at Karnak, it is worthwhile to consider the methodsand strategy of Egypts expanding empire as effectively the emulation of the waysand means of Middle Bronze Age warfare.94 No unequivocal evidence exists to thecontrary to support the suggestion that Egypt was less accustomed to siege warfare,wary of losses associated with sieges, or generally unprepared to build an empire.The history of Egyptian warfare before the New Kingdom, in fact, suggests other-

wise. Although Egypts military intervention in the Levant during the Middle King-

82 Dothan 1993, 20.83 Prausnitz / Mazar 1993, 32.84 Kempinski 2002, 451.85 Ben-Tor 1993.86 Ben-Tor 1993, 606.87 Tel Hadar is also claimed by its excavator to have been both founded and destroyed duringthe LB I (Kochavi 1997, 451).88 Kenyon 1993, 680.89 Eisenberg 1993, 881.90 Van der Kooij 2006, 223.91 Fischer 2006b, 342.92 Fischer 2006b, 342345.93 Bourke et al. 2006, 26. Bourke et al. maintain that the Phase VIC destruction, which isdesignated an earthquake destruction albeit fiery, occurred during the MB III occupation atPella since the excavators identify two subsequent constructional phases assigned to the MBIII (Bourke et al. 2006, 2628). Nevertheless, elsewhere Bourke notes that at best Phase VICmust be characterized as MB IIILB IA in character (Bourke 2006, 246). Given that the radio-carbon dates presented for sites in the Jordan Valley (Fischer 2006a) do not offer sufficientresolution to permit subphasing of the MB IIII sequence, there is at this point no reason to

exclude the Pella Phase VIC destruction from inclusion with other contemporary destructionsduring this transition and hence no reason not to consider Pellas destruction as most likely thework of Thutmose III.94 Burke 2008, 94102.


15/28


dom in the southern Levant may not have constituted an empire,95 an increasingbody of evidence suggests that Middle Kingdom campaigns provided a potentialtemplate for New Kingdom intervention in the Levant.96 This activity along with ahistory of internecine feuding between Egyptian nomes during two preceding inter-mediate periods establishes that Egypt possessed no less capable a tradition of siegewarfare than any of its neighbors.97 The New Kingdom did, however, face a welldefended landscape at the end of the Middle Bronze Age that required the efforts ofmore than a single pharaoh to subdue over the course of the early Eighteenth Dy-nasty and considerable effort thereafter to retain these and newly added conquests.

The Aftermath of Early Eighteenth Dynasty Campaigns

The transition from the MB III to LB I, which is maintained was the result almostentirely of Egypts increasing imperial presence, brought about substantial changes

in settlement patterns,98 urbanization,99 and political organization during the LateBronze Age,100 and from the LB IB was accompanied by the presence of Egyptiangarrisons. Several observations are added here to the discussion concerning the ef-fects of early Eighteenth Dynasty campaigns on political organization, the nature ofThutmoses Canaanite campaigns, and Canaanite defenses during the Late BronzeAge. In the first place, it is possible to identify the political and military process ofthe balkanization of Middle Bronze Age kingdoms whereby these Canaanite king-doms were broken into their constituent base units (i.e., provinces), which thenformed the basis of much smaller Late Bronze Age polities (often called city-states).Insofar as we can discern, these were always vassals of Egypt and not independent as

city-states are so often identified. In light of the understanding available concerningthe status quo during the MB III for the landscape of the kingdom of Ashkelon,101the above historical framework reveals the process by which large territorial states,such as Ashkelon and Hazor, were gradually dismantled, being fragmented into theirdistricts by means of a protracted period of siege warfare waged against their hinter-land settlements. The net effect was a loss of control by the capital city over its hin-terland, particularly the critical second-tier settlements that formed its strategic de-fenses and the accompanying populations that served in its army. Divested of controlof these settlements, kingdoms such as Ashkelon did indeed experience a manpowershortage, as suggested by Bunimovitz.102 However, rather than the product of attri-

tion and deportation, this shortage was most likely the result of an inability to ade-quately organize the necessary, but existing, labor and cooperation from amongmultiple settlements within their ever-diminishing former territories, which had beeninherent to the strategic framework of MB IIIII kingdoms. It was not until after thereign of Thutmose III that substantive deportations were undertaken. With the dev-

95 Weinstein 1975.96 E.g., Allen 2008; Burke 2008, 98100; Larkman 2007; Marcus 2007.97 Schulman 1964, 1982.98 Bunimovitz 1995.99

Gonen 1984.100 Finkelstein 1996; Jasmin 2006; Naaman 1997.101 Burke 2008, 125135.102 Bunimovitz 1994.


16/28

58 Aaron A. Burke

astation of so many settlements over such a relatively short period of time, and thesustained presence of Egyptian forces that threatened the region on a continual basisfrom the reign of Thutmose III onward, finding an adequate opportunity to reassertCanaanite independence proved effectively impossible. Canaan was therefore kepton its proverbial toes by the persistent activity of New Kingdom armies on nearlyannual campaigns.

Just as the first major attempt to mobilize a coalition against Egypt emerged,Thutmose III arranged to take this force by surprise and to deny them the opportu-nity to meet the Egyptian army in open battle. The true genius of Thutmose was hisstrategy, which was to prevent an open battle between massive Egyptian and Ca-naanite armies in the coastal plain or Jezreel Valley, and not the tactical employmentof the element of surprise. Unprepared for a long siege with such an enormouspopulation within the walls of Megiddo, Thutmose guaranteed that the coalition hadno hope of success where under normal conditions Megiddos population might have

hoped for the appearance of a relieving army. Instead, the lengthy siege would havepermitted detachments of Egyptian troops to range across northern Canaan, enteringif not besieging, sacking, and plundering to the extent that they wished numerousdefenseless settlements whose able-bodied men were ensnared at Megiddo. Such ascenario therefore would account for the subjugation of many places on the long listof toponyms of Thutmose III at Karnak. Furthermore, we may account for the differ-ence between the maximalist interpretation, which asserts unequivocally that thesiege of all of the listed sites occurred, and the minimalist assertion that the list iseffectively meaningless as a historical document. Wherever the truth may lie on thiscontinuum, Thutmose was effectively able to eradicate a substantial source of future

resistance by the Canaanite populations north of Jaffa, who may have been enticedby their southern neighbors in the coastal plain to assist them in liberating theirlands. What this process reveals is that annual and sustained Egyptian campaignsbeginning with the reign of Thutmose III through the end of the LB IB, at the least,into regions that lay beyond the limits of the most recent Egyptian campaigns re-sulted in unconquered regions, mostly to the north, being effectively thwarted fromorganizing support for regions, mostly in the south, that had already fallen underEgyptian control.

The only hope offered to regions that were not entirely devastated by Egyptsvictories under Thutmose III was, therefore, in the maintenance or, whenever possi-

ble, rapid rebuilding of their fortifications. This appears to have taken place whererulers remained able to muster the requisite manpower and they perceived that theycould effectively oppose Egyptian siege efforts in the years to come, despite theperception of a largely unfortified landscape throughout the Late Bronze Age.103Although space does not permit a treatise on the continued fortification of settle-ments during the remainder of the Late Bronze Age, a clear pattern does exist. Thebulk of fortified Late Bronze Age settlements in Canaan were located beyond theprimary area of early Egyptian forays into Canaan, particularly in most northernCanaan, the highlands, and Transjordan, all of which were areas on the periphery ofThutmose IIIs conquests. Sites fortified during later stages of the Late Bronze Age

103 Gonen 1984.


17/28


include Hazor, Akko,104 Shechem,105 Bethel,106 Tell el-Oreme,107 Karnei Hittin,108 inaddition to recent evidence from Beth-Shemesh, and several sites in Jordan includingTell Safut,109 Sahab,110 Tell el-Fukhar,111 and Tell Zeraa.112 If an Egyptian policywas in place across Canaan subverting the construction of walls, the existence ofLate Bronze Age walls at these sites will need to be explained. Furthermore, Egyp-tian reliefs dating to the LB II period show settlements such as Ashkelon withwalls,113 despite the lack of archaeological evidence to support this. It would seem,therefore, that certain areas within Canaan from the LB IB onward remained beyondEgypts real control and that Egyptian control was largely limited to the coastalplain, Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. By the end of the LB IA, it is notpossible to assert that Egypt had meaningful control of Transjordan or much of theregion to the north and northeast of the Jezreel Valley. This reconstruction would bein line with the bulk of toponyms of Thutmose III that can be precisely located andthe location of the battle of Megiddo, which can be called the epicenter of Thut-

moses military activity in Canaan.It can also be argued that an additional observation regarding the shift in policy

introduced most likely by Thutmose III was the emplacement of Egyptian garrisonsand some level of administration albeit probably rudimentary, which was now neces-sary to facilitate the ever-increasing distance required to subdue neighboring Ca-naanite enclaves who threatened Egypts most recent acquisitions. Of particularinterest, for example, is the potential for identifying additional evidence for the earli-est Egyptian garrisons, which are often attributed to Thutmose III.114 In addition toGaza discussed earlier, one such garrison may have been added at Jaffa and is alsoalluded to in the Tale of the Capture of Jaffa.115 Morris has identified Gaza and Jaffa,

among others, as harbor bases (Egy. tm) that were probably founded during thereign of Thutmose III.116 Although uncertainty has existed concerning the date that isto be assigned to its foundation, recent efforts to process and publish Kaplans exca-vations by the Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project have yielded a fresh glimpse of aheavily Egyptianized LB I settlement that bears the earmarks of an Egyptian garri-son, possessing one of the largest collections of Egyptian and Egyptianizing vesselsyet attested in the southern Levant.117 Based on the Egyptian dates for certain ce-

104 Dothan 1993, 21.105 Campbell 2002, 169ff.106 Kelso 1968, 11, 16.107 Fritz 2000, 508.108 See Gonen 1984, Table 1.109 Wimmer 1997, 449.110 Ibrahim 1975, 7880; 1987, 76f.; 1989, 519.111 De Vries 1992, 717.112 Vieweger / Hser 2005, 14, abb. 13; 2007, 151.113 Stager 1985.114 Redford 2003, 255257.115 Simpson 2003, 7274.116 Morris 2005, 138139, n. 190.117

The Jaffa Cultural Heritage Project under the direction of the author and Martin Peilstckerare working to publish the Bronze and Iron Age remains of Jaffa excavated by Jacob Kaplanfrom 19551974. The initiative has been supported since 2008 by a grant from the White-Levy Program for Archaeological Publications.


18/28

60 Aaron A. Burke

ramic forms, such as the flowerpot-shaped beer jars as well as their stratigraphicsituation, an early to mid-fifteenth century date for the assemblage appears likely.118This is, therefore, the first archaeological evidence that has been presented that cansubstantiate the garrisons existence at such an early date. While the overall dimen-sions of this fortress complex are unknown, the sites topography allows for a sub-stantial fortress with dimensions quite possibly as large as those of the Egyptianfortress constructed at Sesebi in Nubia.119 Within Canaan and excluding Ullaza, Jaffawas therefore the most northerly of Egypts garrisons, with Gaza to the south beingthe only other one known to have been founded by at least the reign of Thutmose III.In light of our ability to confirm the existence of a garrison at Jaffa, it is unnecessaryto suggest that the notable lack of archaeological evidence for Egyptian buildingson Canaanite soil strongly suggests that the usurpation of Canaanite structures mayhave been a normative practice in the Eighteenth Dynasty.120

Conclusions

The foregoing reconstruction of the early history of New Kingdom expansion intoCanaan reveals a number of important observations concerning the historical processand its archaeological correlates during the LB IA. Three historical phases can bediscerned in the development of Egypts early empire that included 1) campaigns byAhmose up to the Nahals Besor and Beersheba; 2) campaigns by Ahmoses succes-sors to the north of this region up through and including sites just to the north ofAshkelon; and 3) conquests by Thutmose III from Jaffa through the Galilee followed

by the establishment of early garrisons as for example at Jaffa.The archaeology related to these events reveals that there are a variety of out-comes for MB III fortification systems during the LB IA and later. Many Canaanitecities were walled until Egyptian (or in some instances other unidentified assailantsmay have) destroyed them during the LB IA (e.g., Ajjul). Some remained fortifiedor maintained their fortifications (e.g., Hazor), although most often only the rearwalls of domestic structures (e.g., Timnah) or casemate walls (e.g., Tell Abu Kharaz)could be expected to provide any security, while other sites were abandoned for lackof means and motivation, particularly at sites that experienced substantial decreasesin their population (e.g., Haror).

Second, Late Bronze Age fortification strategies, despite a disruption associatedwith Egyptian sieges, continued MB IIIII fortification strategies, namely, a yieldingof more and more land to the construction of houses at the edge of these old mounds,which resulted from a gradual demographic increase in the population over thecourse of the second millennium, and the need to employ casemate wall constructionto facilitate the building of multi-purpose structures. Third, examples of fortified MBcities, especially in areas away from main international routes, as in Transjordan,reveal a degree of continuity between the fortification strategy of the Middle andLate Bronze Ages (e.g., Tell Abu Kharaz). However, these sites are less likely tohave been of significant concern to the Egyptian empire and appear initially to be

118 Burke / Mandell, forthcoming.119 Blackman 1937.120 Morris 2005, 152f.


19/28


located well off of the main routes secured by Egypt.In light of the observations made here, it is difficult to imagine an Egyptian

policy, as suggested by Gonen, whereby in addition to meeting foreign armies inoccasional set-piece battles, besieging the cities of insurgents, while staving off am-bushes, the Egyptians deliberately destroyed the fortifications of conquered Ca-naanite towns during the LB IA. Likewise, it is difficult to accept that Canaaniteswere conscripted, convinced, or compelled to deliberately destroy their own fortifi-cations by the Egyptians. It is more likely, as reconstructed above, that MB III forti-fications either 1) were subject to destruction during Egyptian siege in the LB IA(e.g., Ajjul, Shechem), 2) fell into disrepair over a lengthy period of time beingabandoned and not maintained (e.g., Tel Haror), or 3) were gradually replaced by themodest walls of residences that later formed the perimeter wall of some settlements(e.g., Timnah). A deliberate Egyptian policy is unnecessary to account for the out-comes attested in the archaeological record.

To these reasons it may be added that New Kingdom pharaohs, in their effort tomaintain control of the region, would have recognized that the defense of Canaansindividual settlementsas Egypts vassalswas in the best interest of the empiresability to both maintain its holdings, particularly against would-be aggressors, and toexpand its territory during subsequent campaigns. The metaphor is that of the chainthat is only as strong as its weakest link; a weak city constituted a weak link in anetwork of defended settlements. Vassals perpetually concerned with their own de-fense are also not well disposed to provide predictable tribute, whether annual orotherwise, and would have been subject to the deprecations of their neighbors be-yond the reach of Egypt and would have been more likely therefore to ally them-

selves against their Egyptian overlords. It would have been antithetical, therefore, tothe maintenance of Egypts control of Retenu to prohibit what constituted the stra-tegic defenses of Egypts Levantine empire.121 The fortification of settlements thatwere added to Egyptian control particularly on the edge of Egyptian territorial ex-pansion would have been critical to the defense of these settlements in the face ofboth Mitannian and later Hittite attempts to conquer this same territory. Walled set-tlements, like many types of weaponry, work both ways and thus cannot be consid-ered, in and of themselves, counterproductive to Egyptian efforts to control Canaan.It appears, therefore, that following the conquest of Canaan and, especially, thesouthern coastal plainparticularly in the wake of Egyptian siegesfreestanding

defensive walls were not constructed, although the rear walls of domestic buildingsserved to provide a modest enclosure and defense of these settlements. Rather thanan Egyptian policy, the political and socioeconomic milieu,122 with Egyptian forcesin such close proximity and often garrisoned within these towns, is likely to have

121 That walls were more important to the power wishing to maintain control of a communityor territory, than they were to the inhabitants of a settlement itself, is supported by the fact thatno other ancient Near Eastern empire, whether Assyrian, Babylonian, or Achaemenid, ever ap-pears to have adopted a common policy of prohibiting or limiting the construction of fortifica-tions. Indeed, the singular case where such an effort was attempted demonstrates the point.

The Samaritans wished to block Judahs efforts to rebuild the fortifications of Persian periodJerusalem during the fifth century BC, at first by insinuating that to do so was to rebel againstthe king despite the kings approval of the plan (Nehemiah 2, 19).122 E.g., Bunimovitz 1994.


20/28

62 Aaron A. Burke

been sufficiently repressive to have resulted in the neglect of one of the most impor-tant activities of Canaanite rulers during the preceding centuries.

Bibliography

Aharoni, Y., 1993: Megiddo: The Neolithic Period to the End of the Bronze Age. InE. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand (vol. 3) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 10031012.

Allen, J. P., 2008: The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep and Dahshur: Prelimi-nary Report. BASOR 352, 2939.

Amiran, R. / Eitan, A., 1993: Nagila, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopediaof Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 3) (2nd English edition). Je-rusalem. Pp. 10791081.

Beck, P. / Kochavi, M., 1993: Aphek. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 1). New York. Pp. 6472.Van Beek, G. W., 1993: Jemmeh, Tell. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 2) (2nd English edition). Jeru-salem. Pp. 667674.

Ben-Tor, A., 1993: Hazor. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeologi-cal Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 2) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp.594606.

Blackman, A. M., 1937: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Sesebi, NorthernProvince, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 193637. JEA 23, 145151.

Bourke, S. J., 2006: Pella and the Jordanian Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In P. M.

Fischer (ed.): The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and LateBronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir Alla. Vienna, Pp. 243256.

Bourke, S. J. / Sparks, R. T. / Schroder, M., 2006: Pella in the Middle Bronze Age .In P. M. Fischer (ed.): The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middleand Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir Alla. Vienna,Pp. 958.

Broshi, M., 1993: Megadim, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Ar-chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 3) (2nd English edition). Jerusa-lem. Pp. 1011003.

Bunimovitz, S., 1994: The Problems of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Pal-estine and its Socioeconomic Implications. UF 26, 120.

1995: On the Edge of EmpiresLate Bronze Age (15001200 BCE). In T. E.Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Pp. 320331.

Burke, A. A., 2007: Magdalma, Migdlm, Magdoloi, and Majdl: The HistoricalGeography and Archaeology of the Magdalu (Migdl). BASOR 346, 2957.

2008: Walled Up to Heaven: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortifica-tion Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake.

2009: More Light on Old Reliefs: New Kingdom Egyptian Siege Tactics and

Asiatic Resistance. In J. D. Schloen (ed.): Exploring the Longue Dure: Essays inHonor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake. Pp. 5768.


21/28


Burke, A. A. / Mandell, A. R., forthcoming: Egyptian Beer Jugs from Kaplans Ex-cavations at Jaffa: Cultural and Historical Implications. In M. Peilstcker / A. A.Burke (eds.): Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jaffa 1. Los Angeles.

Campbell, E. F., 2002: Shechem III, The Stratigraphy and Architecture of She-chem/Tell Balatah, Volume I: Text. Atlanta.

De Vries, B., 1992: Archaeology in Jordan. AJA 96(3), 503542.Dever, W. G., 1987: The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite

Era. BA 50(3), 148177. 1993: Gezer. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Exca-

vations in the Holy Land (vol. 2) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 496506. 1998: Hurrian Incursions and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Pales-

tine: A Rejoinder to Nadav Naaman. In L. H. Lesko (ed.): Ancient Egyptian andMediterranean Studies in Memory of William A. Ward. Providence. Pp. 91110.

Dothan, M., 1993: Acco (Tel Acco). In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of


Eisenberg, E., 1993: Kitan, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Ar-chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 3) (2nd English edition). Jerusa-lem. Pp. 878881.

Fargo, V. M., 1993: Hesi, Tell el-. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Ar-chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 2) (2nd English edition). Jerusa-lem. Pp. 630634.

Finkelstein, I. 1996: The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late BronzeAge. UF 28, 221255.

Fischer, P. M. (editor), 2006a: The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Mid-dle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir Alla. Vi-enna.

2006b: Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley II: The Middle and Late BronzeAges. 2 vols. Vienna.

Fritz, V., 2000: Bronze Age Features in Cities of the Early Iron Age in the SouthernLevant. In P. Matthiae / A. Enea / L. Peyronel / F. Pinnock (eds.): Proceedings ofthe First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,Rome May 18th23rd 1998 (vol. 1). Rome. Pp. 507511.

Glock, A. E., 1993: Taanach. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-

logical Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 4) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem.Pp. 14281433.

Gonen, R., 1981: Tell el-Ajjul in the Late Bronze AgeCity or Cemetery? EI 15,6978, 80* (Hebrew with Eng. abstract).

1984: Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. BASOR 253, 6173.Greenberg, R., 1993: Beit Mirsim, Tell. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of


Herzog, Z., 1989: Middle and Late Bronze Age Settlements (Strata XVIIXV). In Z.Herzog / G. R. Rapp / O. Negbi (eds.): Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Min-

neapolis. Pp. 2942. 1993: Gerisa, Tel. In E. Stern: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava-

tions in the Holy Land (vol. 2) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 480484.


22/28

64 Aaron A. Burke

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1990: Some Thoughts on William G. Devers Hyksos, EgyptianDestructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age. Levant 22, 8389.

1991: James Weinsteins Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IATransition in Palestine. Levant 23, 117124.

Ibrahim, M. M., 1975: Third Season of Excavations at Sahab, 1975 (PreliminaryReport). ADAJ 20, 6982.

1987: Sahab and Its Foreign Relations. ADAJ 31, 7381. 1989: Sahab. In D. Homs-Fredericq / J. B. Hennessy (eds.): Archaeology of

Jordan II. 2, Field Reports: Surveys and Sites LZ. Leuven. Pp. 516520.Jasmin, M., 2006: The Political Organization of the City-States in Southwestern

Palestine in the Late Bronze Age IIB (13th Century BC). In A. M. Maeir / P. D.Miroschedji (eds.): I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeologicaland Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth

Birthday (vol. 1). Winona Lake. Pp. 161191.Kaplan, J., 1972: The Archaeology and History of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa. BA 35(3), 6695.Keegan, J., 1993: A History of Warfare. New York.Kelso, J. L., 1968: The Excavation of Bethel. Cambridge, MA. 1993: Bethel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Exca-

vations in the Holy Land (vol. 1) (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 192194.Kempinski, A., 1974: Tell el-AjjlBeth-Aglayim or Sharuhen? IEJ 24(34), 145

152. 2002: Tel Kabri: The 19861993 Excavation Seasons. Tel Aviv.Kenyon, K. M., 1993: Jericho. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Ar-

chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp.674681.

Kitchen, K. A., 2000: Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (AbsoluteChronology I). The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt: A Current Assess-ment. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Synchronisation of Civilisa-tions in the EasternMediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of an InternationalSymposium at Schloss Haindorf, 15th17th November 1996 and at the AustrianAcademy, Vienna, 11th12th of May 1998. Vienna. Pp. 3952.

Kochavi, M. 1967: Notes and News: Tel Malhata. IEJ 17, 272273. 1992: Malhata, Tel. In D. N. Freedman (ed.): The Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol.

4). New York. Pp. 487488. 1997: Hadar, Tel. In E. M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archae-

ology in the Near East (vol. 2). New York. Pp. 450452.van der Kooij, G., 2006: Tell Deir Alla: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Chronol-

ogy. In P. M. Fischer (ed.): The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during theMiddle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir Alla.Vienna. Pp. 199226.

Larkman, S. J., 2007: Human Cargo: Transportation of Western Asiatic People dur-ing the 11th and 12th Dynasty. JSSEA 34, 107113.

Marcus, E. S. 2007: Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the Mit Rahina

(Memphis) Inscription. uL 17, 137190.Master, D. M. / Monson, J. M. / Lass, E. H. E. / Pierce, G. A. (eds.), 2005: Dothan I:

Remains from the Tell (19531964). Winona Lake.


23/28


Mazar, A., 1997: Timnah (Tel Batash) I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. (2 vols.).Jerusalem.

Morris, E. F., 2005: The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolu-tion of Foreign Policy in Egypts New Kingdom. Leiden.

Naaman, N., 1994: The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age in Pales-tine. Levant 26, 175187.

1997: The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod.UF 29, 599625.

Oren, E. D., 1993a: Haror, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Ar-chaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp.580584.

1993b: Sera, Tel. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 13291335.

Phythian-Adams, W. J., 1923: Report on the stratification of Askalon. PEFQS

(April), 7690.Prausnitz, M. W. / Mazar, E., 1993: Achzib. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclope-

dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jeru-salem. Pp. 3236.

Redford, D. B., 1992: Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. 2003: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmoses III. Boston.Schulman, A. R., 1964: Siege Warfare in Pharaonic Egypt. Natural History 73(3),

1221. 1982: The battle scenes of the Middle Kingdom. JSSEA 12, 165183.Sellers, O. R., 1933: The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia.

Sethe, K. (ed.), 1907: Urkunden der 18 Dynastie. Urkunden des gyptischen Alter-tums IV.

Simpson, W. K., 2003: The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories,Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (3rd edition). New Haven.

Stager, L. E., 1985: Merenptah, Israel and Sea Peoples: New Light on an Old Relief.EI 18, 56*64*.

2008: Tel Ashkelon. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of ArchaeologicalExcavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 15781586.

Stern, E., 1984: Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (19731976), Pt. 2: The Bronze Age.Jerusalem.

Sugerman, M. 2009: Trade and Power in Late Bronze Age Canaan. In J. D. Schloen(ed.): Exploring the Longue Dure: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Wi-nona Lake. Pp. 439448.

Tufnell, O., 1958: Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East (Vol. IV). Lon-don.

Tufnell, O. / Kempinski, A., 1993: Ajjul, Tell el-. In E. Stern (ed.) The New Ency-clopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition).Jerusalem. Pp. 4953.

Urk. = Urkunden des gyptischen Altertums IV (Sethe 1907)

Ussishkin, D. 1993a: Dothan. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-logical Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 372373.


24/28

66 Aaron A. Burke

1993b: Lachish. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Ex-cavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 897911.

2004: Area P: The Middle Bronze Age Palace. In D. Ussishkin (ed.): The Re-newed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (19731994). Tel Aviv. Pp. 140187.

Vieweger, D. / Jutta Hser, J., 2005: Der Tell Zeraa im Wadi el-Arab: Das GadaraRegion Project in den Jahren 2001 bis 2004. ZDPV 121(1), 130, Tafel 3133.

2007: Tall Ziraa: Five Thousand Years of Palestinian History on a Single-Set-tlement Mound. NEA 70(3), 147167.

Watkins, L., 1997: Shiloh. In E. M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ar-chaeology in the Near East (vol. 5). New York. Pp. 2829.

Weinstein, J. M., 1975: Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom.BASOR 217, 116.

1981: The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241, 128. 1991: Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine.

Levant 23, 105115.Wimmer, D. H., 1997: Safut, Tell. In E. M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Archaeology in the Near East (vol. 4). New York. Pp. 448450.Yisraeli, Y., 1993: Farah, Tell el- (South). In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia

of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (2nd English edition). Jerusalem.Pp. 441444.


25/28

Alter Orient und Altes TestamentVerffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients

und des Alten Testaments

Band 372

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich Oswald Loretz Hans Neumann

Lektor

Kai A. Metzler

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz Joachim Bretschneider

Stefan Maul Udo Rterswrden Walther Sallaberger

Gebhard Selz Michael P. Streck Wolfgang Zwickel

2010Ugarit-Verlag

Mnster


26/28

Studies on War

in the Ancient Near East

Collected Essays on Military History

Edited by Jordi Vidal

2010

Ugarit-Verlag

Mnster


27/28

Studies on War in the Ancient Near EastCollected Essays on Military History

Edited by Jordi VidalAlter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 372

2010 Ugarit-Verlag, Mnster

www.ugarit-verlag.de

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.

Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Gttingen

Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-035-7

Printed on acid-free paper


28/28

Contents

Jordi Vidal

Introduction.................................................................................................................1

Juan Carlos Moreno Garca

War in Old Kingdom Egypt (26862125 BCE)..........................................................5

Aaron A. Burke

Canaan under Siege. The History and Archaeology of Egypts War

in Canaan during the Early Eighteenth Dynasty.......................................................43

Trevor R. Bryce

The Hittites at War....................................................................................................67

Juan-Pablo Vita

The Power of a Pair of War Chariots in the Late Bronze Age. On Letters

RS 20.33 (Ugarit), BE 17 33a (Nippur), and EA 197 (Damascus region)................87

Jordi Vidal

Sutean Warfare in the Amarna Letters......................................................................95

Jaume Llop

Barley from lu-a-Sn-rabi. Chronological reflections on an expedition

in the time of Tukult-Ninurta I (12331197 BC)..................................................105

Davide Nadali

Assyrian Open Field Battles. An Attempt at Reconstruction and Analysis............117

John MacGinnis

Mobilisation and Militarisation in the Neo-Babylonian Empire.............................153

Roco Da Riva

A lion in the cedar forest. International politics and pictorial

self-representations of Nebuchadnezzar II (605562 BC)......................................165

Indices.....................................................................................................................193

2010 burke ane war ashkelon

Documents