The Rivalry between the Canaanite Vassal Kings Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Suwardata of Gath

The rivalry between the Canaanite Vassal Kings, ‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Šuwardata of

Gath, how this rivalry was based on competition for land, resources, and power, and how this

rivalry is reflected in the letters the rulers wrote to the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Ilka Knüppel Gray

HIST 301 – Fall 2014

December 10, 2014

1

The Amarna Letters are the correspondence between the Kingdom of Egypt and foreign powers

in the Mediterranean area, including the vassal city/states in Canaan controlled by Egypt, during

the Late Bronze Age (LBA).1 The Amarna Letters reveal the relationships between Egypt and its

correspondents. In my paper, I will argue that not only was there a rivalry between the rulers of

two cities in Canaan, ‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Šuwardata of Gath, but that this rivalry was

based on competition for land, resources, and power, and that this rivalry is reflected in the

letters the rulers wrote to the Egyptian Pharaoh.

Map of the Near East During the Amarna Letter Timeframe2

1 For the purpose of this paper, the LBA will be defined as the years 1550-1200 BC.

2 “Ancient Near East Empires Map”. Last modified on October 14, 2014. http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/ancient-

near-east-empires.html.

2

Definition of the Amarna Letters

The Amarna Letters are clay tablets that were discovered by accident in the long-forgotten site of

the Egyptian capital of Akhetaten (the “Horizon of the Solar Disk”), which Akhenaten had

established on the east bank of the Nile, about 190 miles south of Cairo.3 The tablets take their

name from el-‘Amarna, or Tell-Amarna, the geographic area where they were discovered by a

Bedouin woman in October of 1887.4 The tablets were discovered in an area that the

archaeologist William Matthew Flinders Petrie named “Block 19” in his excavation report; it

was identified by stamped bricks naming the area ‘The Place of the Correspondence of Pharaoh,

l.p.h.’.5 No one knows the exact number of tablets uncovered as scholars did not at first

recognize their importance and some tablets had been sold on the antiquities black market. To

date, more than 3806 cuneiform tablets, some complete, some broken, were eventually purchased

by various museums and private collectors.7

The Amarna Letters are held in various museums around the world: 202/203 tablets (and

fragments) are housed in the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin, Germany; 96 tablets are in the

British Museum in London, England; 52 tablets are in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Egypt; 23

tablets are in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England; seven tablets are housed in the Louvre

in Paris, France; three may be found in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, Russia; two are in the

3 William Moran, trans., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), xiii.

4 Jana Mynarova, Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna Letters (Prague:

Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2007), 15.

5 Mynarova, Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna Letters, 13.

6 Yuval Goren, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Na’aman, Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets

and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications, 2004), 1.

7 William Foxwell Albright, The Amarna Letters from Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3.

3

Metropolitan Museum in New York City, New York, USA; one is in the Oriental Institute of

Chicago, Illinois, USA; and one is in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.8

Scholars have determined that “[t]he Amarna archive covers about 25 years, from ca. the 30th

year of Amenophis III9 to Tutankhamun’s third year.”

10 William Foxwell Albright originally

calculated the dates of the letters to be 1389-1356 BC although in a note he interjects “I should

prefer the dates of 1375-1344”.11

Israel Finkelstein has further updated the established dates of

the Amarna Letters as spanning 1360-1334 BC.12

Pharaohs

No one knows for certain to which pharaoh the letters were addressed. Eric H. Cline believes the

majority of the letters were sent to Amenhotep III or to Akhenaten rather than the other rulers.13

The generally accepted timeframes for the pharaohs ruling at the time of the Amarna Letters are:

Amenhotep III (Amenophis III) 1390-1352 B.C.

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) 1352-1334 B.C.

Nefertiti and/or Smenkare 1334-1333 B.C.

Tutankhamun 1333-1324 B.C.

8 Mynarova, Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna Letters, 39.

9 Amenophis III is the Hellenized name of Amenhotep III.

10

Nadav Na’aman, ‘The Shephelah according to the Amarna Letters,” in Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the

Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David

Ussishkin (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 283.

11

Albright, The Amarna Letters from Palestine, 5.

12

Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman, Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient

Near Eastern Texts, 1.

13

Eric C. Cline, 1177 BC The Year Civilization Collapsed, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 61.

4

The majority of the tablets were written in Akkadian in cuneiform script14

, as Akkadian was the

diplomatic language at that time. Approximately 150 of the letters were written from or to the

area of Canaan.15

The Canaanite vassal letters were written in a form of the Akkadian language

called “Peripheral Akkadian” in two main variants: Canaanite Akkadian and Hurro-Akkadian.16

Canaanite Akkadian was mainly used in the southern regions of Syro-Palestine.17

Anson F.

Rainey states the Canaanite language letters are limited to a particular geographic area that

corresponds with the Land of Canaan as defined in Numbers and Ezekiel.18

Hurro-Akkadian, a

variant influenced by the non-Semitic Hurrian language, was mainly used in the northern regions

of Syro-Palestine.19

Karen Radner believes Peripheral Akkadian most likely served purely as a

means of written communication and was not employed as a spoken language in the areas where

it was used.20

The result was these variant forms of Akkadian fluctuated depending on the

substrate language of the scribes and their corresponding skill level.21

14



15

Albright, The Amarna Letters from Palestine, 3.

16

Karen Radner, Ed. State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 20.

17

Ibid

18

Anson F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes

from Canaan, Vol. 2, (The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1996) and the Bible: Numbers 34:1-2 and Ezekiel 47:13-49:49.

19

Radner, State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire, 21.

20

Ibid

21

Ibid

5

Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook group the Amarna Letters into three categories:

international, imperial, and for training purposes.22

The international correspondence consists of

“about 50 diplomatic documents mostly sent to Pharaoh by the rulers of other Great Powers and

lesser independent states.”23

The imperial tablets consist mainly of administrative

correspondence sent to the Egyptian court from its vassals in Canaan.24

The third type of tablets

was used solely for training Egyptian scribes to write Akkadian in the cuneiform script.25

It is

the imperial tablets I will focus on in this paper, specifically the correspondence between the

king of the vassal, or city-state, of Jerusalem, the king of the vassal of Gath, and the Egyptian

Pharaoh.

Canaan during the Amarna Times

In Syro-Palestine, the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age was

marked by a severe settlement crisis during which all urban centers were destroyed.26

Some sites

were abandoned and resettled much later and others suffered serious regression. The destruction

was particularly severe in the hill country with one hundred and twenty Middle Bronze Age sites

in the north-central hill country dwindling to about twenty-one in the LBA.27

In addition, during

the Egyptian 18th

Dynasty, the rulers of the New Kingdom directed their energies towards

22

Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginning of International Relations,

(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 1.

23

Ibid

24

Ibid

25

Cohen and Westbrook, Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginning of International Relations, 2.

26

Nadav Na’aman, Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE, Collected Essays, Vol.2. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,

2005), 1.

27

ibid

6

building up Egyptian control in Syro-Palestine.28

Thus the peoples of Syro-Palestine fell under

the political aegis of a powerful and expansionist Egypt.29

The effect of the Egyptian domination

over the Syro-Palestinian area resulted in the creation of vassal states.30

Gay Robins states much of the wealth (booty and endowments) the Egyptians brought back from

the region was given to the temples of Amun enriching them and making the priesthood of Amun

very powerful.31

By diverting resources away from Syro-Palestine, including Canaan, the

powerful Egyptian Pharaohs created a stranglehold on the economy32

and that resulted in fewer

resources available for the peoples of Canaan. This would inherently lead to power struggles

intertwined in the struggle for control of the land and remaining resources. According to

Jonathon Golden, the state of the economy in Canaan during the LBA was one of lopsidedness,

with the majority of the resources in the hands of the elite.33

This reconstruction of the economy

resulted in pressure over control of the remaining resources, not only among the elite, but with

more devastating impact among the non-elite classes.

Vassals

As Cohen and Westbrook state, much of the imperial letters dealt with the vassals’ domestic

problems, the quarrels between the vassals, trade, tribute, and internal security.34

Na’aman

28

Gay Robins, “The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th

Dynasty in Egypt”, in Images of Women in Antiquity (Detroit:

Wayne University Press, 1983), 66.

29

Jonathon M. Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 57.

30

Ibid

31

Robins, “The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th

Dynasty in Egypt”, 66.

32

Ibid

33

Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction, 88.

34

Cohen and Westbrook, Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginning of International Relations, 1-2.

7

explains each of the vassals was personally responsible to the Egyptian king for his territory and

in his letters he reported back to Egypt that he had fulfilled all the obligations imposed on his

domain.35

But what exactly is a vassal in this context? Na’aman defined a vassal as a city-state

ruler, regardless of the scope of his territory or his political power.36

This was due to the fact the

vassals and their territory varied in size. The two vassal cities in the central hill country were

Shechem and Jerusalem.37

In the Shephelah and the Southern Coastal Plain lay the vassal cities

of Gezer, Gath, Lachish, Ashdod and Ashkelon.38

The Akkadian title used to describe the local rulers of Canaan is hazannu which means

‘mayor’.39

This term is very similar to the Egyptian word for mayor of an Egyptian town

‘hƷty’.40

However, the self-image of the Canaanite rulers was more grandiose.41

The Canaanite

rulers referred to themselves by the title of ‘kings’, and were even referred to as kings by the

neighboring territories of Babylonia and Mitanni in the Amarna Letters EA 8:25 and EA 30:1.42

‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem wrote Pharaoh in EA 288, “Behold, I am not a mayor; I am a soldier of

the King.”43

(Emphasis added.)

35

Na’aman, Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE, Collected Essays, Vol.2, 282.

36

Ibid

37


Near Eastern Texts, xiii.

38


Near Eastern Texts, xiv.

39


40

Ibid

41

Ibid

42

Ibid

43

Moran, The Amarna Letters, 331.

8

Among the vassals’ obligations to the Pharaoh in Egypt was the payment of tribute or

contributions; meeting other exactions of goods and personnel; providing corvée labor on crown-

lands; housing and supplying Egyptian troops while they were in transit and reinforcing them;

and protecting caravans.44

‘Abdi-Heba writes to the Pharaoh to complain about his caravans

being attacked. 45

Attacks on the caravans in Canaan may have been partially the result of the

struggle over resources:

I sent [as gift]s to the king, my lord [x] prisoners, 5000…[…], [and] 8 porters for the

caravans of the k[ing, my lord], but they have been taken in the countryside…of

Ayyaluna. May the king, my lord, know (that) I am unable to send a caravan to the king

my lord. For your information!46

The effect of the Egyptian imposition of tribute on their vassals in Canaan was severe.47

Most of

these obligations were performed on an irregular basis and they are mentioned in the letters to

Pharaoh.48

Tribute and gifts are rarely mentioned in the letters from Northern Canaan, but

frequently mentioned in the letters from Southern Canaan49

indicating it may have been more of

a hardship in that area. Not all of the obligations were the same for each vassal, as they

depended upon the kingdom’s size and prosperity. The regular tribute alone was a terrific

burden50

and led to economic depletion and added to competition for remaining resources

between the vassals. This would have been especially true for vassals bordering one another,

like Gath and Jerusalem.

44

Moran, The Amarna Letters, xxvii.

45

Ibid

46


47


48


49


50

ibid

9

The letters from the Canaanite vassals cannot be judged on a purely factual basis. Edward Fay

Campbell, Jr. states that, universally, the vassals were out for personal gain when they were

writing to the Pharaoh.51

In their letters to Pharaoh the vassal rulers said everything in their

power to prove their opponents in the wrong, while emphasizing their own intentions were

honorable and completely upright.52

It is unknown if the Pharaoh responded to the vassals’

complaints. Only six or seven of Pharaoh’s responses to vassals have been found.53

In fact,

contrary to theories Egypt strictly ruled over its Canaan vassals through formal treaties, the

Amarna Letters show that “Egyptians tolerated a good deal of independent action (including

warfare and subversion) among their vassals in Asia, always providing that the overlord’s

interests suffered no damage.”54

It is within this framework that one has to understand the

ongoing conflict between ‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Šuwardata of Gath. The Amarna Letters

indicate that ‘Abdi-Heba and Šuwardata’s cities, Jerusalem and Gath, were two of the most

important vassal kingdoms in South Palestine.55

51

Edward Campbell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1964), 66.

52

Ibid

53

Moran, The Amarna Letters, xxvii.

54


55


10

Jerusalem

The city-state of Jerusalem, called “Urusalim” in the Amarna Letters, dominated a territory in the

southern part of the central hill country.56

However, scholars do not agree on its extent in the

north and the south. Some, including Finkelstein, argue Jerusalem extended over the entire

southern hill country down to the Beersheba Valley.57

Others, including Na’aman, suggest

Jerusalem was a more modest hill country city-state. Archaeological evidence neither supports

nor disproves the assumption of Jerusalem’s domination in the hill country.58

‘Abdi-Heba

complained in his letters to the Pharaoh about the isolation and the aggression of his western

neighbors and of the “uprooted and pastoral elements situated in the rugged, ‘shaggy’ areas of

his kingdom”.59

This seems to reflect the situation of Jerusalem during the Amarna Period was

one of a major town within a non-sedentary area, not a major kingdom in the central hill country

like Shechem.60

The southwest border of Jerusalem passed to the northeast of the town of Qiltu,

somewhere on the margins of the hill country.61

Gath

Gath was one of the most important city-states in the Shephelah during the LBA in Canaan.62

In

addition, Gath ruled over one of the most densely settled territories.63

Gath’s borders have been

56


Near Eastern Texts, 265. 57

Ibid

58


59


60

Ibid

61


62

Ibid

11

determined to be as follows: in the east, the border was the line dividing the highlands of the

land from the Shephelah, in the south, the border was with Lachish, in the west, Gath bordered

with Ashkelon and Ashdod, and in the north, the border was with Gezer which seems to have

been along the riverbed of Nahal Sorek.64

The town of Qiltu was situated in the southeast corner

of Gath’s border.65

Gath’s southeast border would have intersected with Jerusalem’s southwest

border in the area of the town of Qiltu.

Map of the Shephelah66

63



64

Ibid

65


66


12

‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem

‘Abdi-Heba was the King of Jerusalem. The name ‘Abdi-Heba is written partially with a

Sumerian ideogram meaning “Servant of Heba” and therefore must be Semitic because Hurrian

names are not built on “Servant of…” patterns.67

Seven letters by ‘Abdi-Heba to the Egyptian

king are known.68

Na’aman notes that they were “long, detailed letters …of unusual literary

quality and diplomatic wit, indicating the presence of a first-rate scribe in Jerusalem.”69

In every

one of his letters, EA 285 through EA 290 (EA 291 is too fragmentary and therefore its’ message

lost), ‘Abdi-Heba tells the Pharaoh how he is his servant,70

repeating stating; “I fall at the feet of

the king, my lord, seven times and seven times…”71

‘Abdi-Heba regularly sent tribute to the Egyptian Pharaoh. Examples of this are documented in

the letters. EA 287, for example, informed the Pharaoh that the caravan ‘Abdi-Heba had sent to

him had been robbed.72

In EA 288, ‘Abdi-Heba informed the Pharaoh of the servants he had

given to the Egyptian commissioner.73

It seems, over the course of his career, ‘Abdi-Heba had

conflicts with many persons. One of his many complaints was about an Egyptian officer,

67

Anson F. Rainey, “Possible Involvement of Tell es-Safi (Tel Zafit) in The Amarna Correspondence” in Tell es-

Safi/Gath I: The 1996-2005 Season (Agypten Und Altes Testament, (Tel Aviv: Otto Harrassowitz, 1996), 133.

68



69

Nadav Na’aman, “The Trowel and the Text” in Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol 35, No. 1, 52-56 and 70-71, 2.

70

Cohen and Westbrook state “To be sure, the one-sidedness in Egyptian records (where foreigners show an

unlimited subservience toward Pharaoh) is belied by the high incidence of complaints, evasiveness, and tacit

negotiation emanating from vassals in the Amarna Letters.”

Cohen and Westbrook, Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginning of International Relations, 105. 71


72


73

Ibid

13

Yanhamu, whose garrison was apparently stationed in ‘Abdi-Heba’s house. According to Cohen

and Westbrook, this was a real “bone of contention”.74

In addition to addressing complaints

about Yanhamu, ‘Abdi-Heba also had conflict with two other Egyptian officials in Canaan,

Addaya and his superior officer, Puwuru75

, so much so that his entire correspondence is

overshadowed by these muddy relations.76

‘Abdi-Heba emphasized in his letters that he had

been elevated to the throne of Jerusalem thanks to the Pharaoh, and that he (‘Abdi-Heba) bore

Egyptian titles.77

‘Abdi-Heba apparently had connections in the Egyptian court since four of his

letters having postscripts addressed to the royal scribe, asking the royal scribe to support his case

before the king.78

Five of the seven letters of ‘Abdi-Heba were sent directly from Jerusalem. This is known from

the testing done on the Amarna Letter clay tablets by Yuval Goren, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav

Na’aman. Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman documented their testing of the composition of the

Amarna Letters “through mineralogical and chemical analyses of samples from over 300 tablets

housed in museums” so they were able to pin-point their geographic origins.79

They discovered

the only possible soil which may have been used for the Jerusalem letters is located in the Moza

Formation about “5-6 km to the southwest of the City of David.”80

The source of the clay is the

74

Ibid 75

Campbell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, 103.

76


77


78

Ibid

79



80



14

terra rossa soil and due to the “high content of iron minerals and organic matter, the deep red

colour [sp] of this soil increases with firing to become dark tan.”81

For five of the letters, EA

286-290, Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman concluded the clay was a “local product of the central

hill country anticline; no doubt a Jerusalem-made tablet.”82

Only EA 285 and 291 are made of

clay not local to Jerusalem. Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman believe EA 285 to have been sent

from Beth-Shean. The following is the text from EA 285:

[Say to the kin]g, [my lord: Message] of ‘Abdi-H[eba, your servant. I fall at] the feet [of

the king, my lord], 7 times and 7 ti[mes]. I am not a [mayor]; I am a soldier fo[r the king,

my lord]. Why has the ki[ng, my lord], not sent a messenger…[…]… [Acc]ordingly,

[Enha]mu sen[t] a military [force] here, [and it has not vac]ated the house [that I w]ant.

[And n]ow as for me, may the king [give heed to ‘Abdi]-Heba, his servant. [If th]ere are

no archers available, may the king, my lord, [sen]d [a commissione]r that he may fetch

[the ma]yors to himself. […]… And as for [the garrison] that belongs [to Adday]a, the

commissioner of the king, [I] want their house. So may the ki[ng] provide [f]or them,

and may he send a mess[enger qu]ickly. When [I di]e, w[hat …]…83

EA 285 contained ‘Abdi-Heba’s complaints about Yanhamu and his installation of an Egyptian

garrison in ‘Abdi-Heba’s house. Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman theorize because of the

delicate nature of this complaint ‘Abdi-Heba may have traveled to Beth-Shean to discuss the

matter with another Egyptian official and decided on this occasion to write and send the letter to

Pharaoh.84

The letter originated from this trip would have caused the differences in the physical

origin of EA 285.

81

Ibid

In Appendix 2, there is a photograph of Amarna Letter EA 288 that I took on October 1, 2014, in the

Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin, Germany. One can see from the photo the color is exactly as described by

Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman.

82



83


84



15

The other letter not composed of Jerusalem clay, EA 291, is too broken and fragmentary for

translation.85

However, it is attributed to the Jerusalem correspondence based on the script, the

writing, and the form of the verb.86

The writing on the left side of the tablet appears in several of

the known Jerusalem letters and is rare in other Amarna Letters.87

Further, the verb lumaššer is

known only from the Jerusalem correspondence.88

These three elements differentiate EA 291

from other tablets, along with a “marked contrast between the results of the petrographic

analysis.”89

Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman believe when peaceful relations existed between

the cities of Gezer and Jerusalem, the scribe of Jerusalem would visit Gezer, and it was on one of

the visits that EA 291 was written and sent from there.90

Šuwardata of Gath

Šuwardata was the King of Gath and a contemporary of ‘Abdi-Heba. According to David M.

Rohl, Šuwardata was the “leading figure in the western city-state confederacy.”91

Gath (modern

85

Ibid

86

Ibid

87

Ibid

88

Ibid

89

Ibid

90



91

David M. Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest, (California: Crown Publishers, 1995), 202.

16

Tell es-Safi or Tel Zafit) is known in Akkadian as Gintu/Gimtu.92

The name Šuwardata is of

Indo-Aryan descent93

and means “the sun has given”.94

Šuwardata wrote at least eight letters to the Pharaoh of Egypt, EA 278-284 and EA 366.

According to Campbell, the letters now assigned to Šuwardata “connect him directly with the

events at the close of Amenophis III’s reign.”95

Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman examined the

physical composition of seven of the letters and determined that EA 279, EA 281-284, and EA

366 were all “sent from the lower Shephelah, most probably from”96

Gath. EA 278 was different

in that it was not made of materials from Gath’s immediate environment, but may have been sent

from a town in the eastern territory of Gath, such as Qiltu.97

Qiltu is a town that is fought over

by Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba since it lies on the border between Jerusalem and Gath. I will

examine Qiltu further later in this paper.

In his letters, Šuwardata follows the standard greeting of the vassals to Pharaoh:

Say to the king, my lord, my Sun, my god: Message of Šuwardata, your servant, the

servant of the king and the dirt at your feet, the ground you tread on. I prostrate myself at

the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun from the sky, seven times and seven times, both on

the stomach and on the back.98

92

Rainey, “Possible Involvement of Tell es-Safi (Tel Zafit) in The Amarna Correspondence”, 133.

93

Richard S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 198.

94

Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest, 224.

95

Campbell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, 110.

96



EA 280 is in Cairo, Egypt, and was unavailable for the study.

97



98


17

In a letter, Šuwardata mentioned the same Egyptian official as ‘Abdi-Heba had mentioned,

Yanhamu, but apparently did not have a conflict with him. In fact, in EA 283, Šuwardata

implored the Pharaoh to speak with Yanhamu about his need for archers by having Yanhamu

verify was “the war against Šuwardata severe or is it not?”99

Šuwardata may not have had any

conflicts with the Egyptian but he clearly was fighting with ‘Abdi-Heba as well as some of his

other Canaanite vassal leaders, such as Lab’ayu of Shechem.

Rivalry

Being kings of neighboring areas probably would not have been particularly difficult and

challenging in times of economic prosperity. However, the fact that both ‘Abdi-Heba and

Šuwardata were rulers under Egyptian control when Egypt was requiring tribute and draining

resources out of Canaan inevitably led to a power struggle for control of remaining resources.

One effect of Egyptian domination was the diversion of resources. This was felt most acutely by

the people living in Canaan, for these people were unable to benefit from either agriculture

surpluses or profits from trade.100

The competition for the remaining resources was a major

factor inciting the rivalry between Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba as they competed to get larger

slices from a now smaller pie. Indeed, Rainey states that Šuwardata’s arch-rival was ‘Abdi-

Heba.101

99


100

Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction, 88.

101


18

Šuwardata requested help from the Egyptian king against ‘Abdi-Heba in EA 280 when he

accused his rival of trying to expand into his territory.102

Wherefore did ‘Abdi-Heba write to the men of Keilah, [Qiltu] “Accept money and come,

follow me”? So may the king, my lord, be apprised that ‘Abdi-Heba took my town away

from me. Furthermore, let the king conduct an inquiry as to whether I have taken a man

or one ox or a sheep from him. And this is the truth! Moreover, Lab’ayu, who used to

take our towns, is dead by now ‘Abdi-Heba is another Lab’ayu! And he is taking over

our towns.103

Conversely, ‘Abdi-Heba accused Šuwardata of being in collusion with Milkilu, the King of

Gezer, and trying to take his land. Letter EA 280 documents that the two kings’ main dispute

with each other was the control of the main routes from the Coastal Plain to the central

watershed in the mountains.104

Attacks on caravans in the area were prevalent. Rainey states

that in EA 287 it appears that ‘Abdi-Heba complained “about the loss of three towns that

dominated the main routes from the Coastal Plain to the hills around Jerusalem and its coastal

neighbors, Gezer and Gath.”105

Control of the town of Qiltu was another ongoing dispute between Jerusalem and Gath.106

Qiltu

was located on the mutual border of the kingdoms.107

It was probably located on the southeast

corner of Gath’s border.108

Jerusalem’s border passed the town of Qiltu on the northeast.109

102

Na’aman, “Trowel and Text”, 2.

103


104


105

Ibid

106



107

Na’aman, Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE, Collected Essays, Vol. 2, 175.

108

Ibid

109

Ibid

19

Šuwardata referred to Qiltu as his city.110

Qiltu, also known by the name Keilah, was listed in

two separate letters from Šuwardata to the Pharaoh. In EA 279, Šuwardata asked “Shall I move

(and) advance to the town of Keilah, against the re[bels]?”111

In EA 280, Šuwardata replied to

the Pharaoh that he has retaken Qiltu by force as the Pharaoh had apparently given him

permission too, “The king, my lord, permitted me to wage war against Qeltu [Qiltu]. I waged

war. It is now at peace with me; my city is restored to me.”112

Qiltu was also mentioned in a

letter from ‘Abdi-Heba to the Pharaoh. In EA 287, he claimed that Milkilu of Gezer and his

father-in-law, Tagi, (apparently in alliance with Šuwardata) brought troops into Qiltu against

him.113

To have the town of Qiltu mentioned so frequently in the vassal rulers’ correspondence

with the Pharaoh illustrates the intense rivalry over the land that lie on their mutual border. Each

vassal was consistently seeking to procure more land for themselves in a continuing struggle for

more power.

The rivalry between Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba is further revealed in the Amarna Letters when

they mention each other (or complain of each other) to the Pharaoh. Šuwardata directly

mentioned ‘Abdi-Heba in two of his letters, EA 280 and EA 366. ‘Abdi-Heba directly

mentioned Šuwardata in EA 290. However, it may be presumed they were referring to each

other as well when they complained in general of ‘enemies’, such as Šuwardata did in EA 279,

EA 281, and EA 283 and ‘Abdi-Heba did in EA 286.

110

Ibid

111

Ibid

112


113


20

It is unclear if Egypt was truly concerned about their rivalry with one another. As long as Gath

and Jerusalem, as well as the other vassals, continued to supply Egypt with tribute and the

passage of Egyptian troops, Egypt did not seem too dismayed.114

In fact, as Cohen and

Westbrook state Egypt’s position was that to the extent that the vassals were fighting their

neighbors for a “local balance of power”115

, the less likely they were to “even think about

banding together against Pharaoh…Divide et impera.”116

Common Enemy

Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba set aside their differences for a time and joined forces to fight against

a mutual enemy, Lab’ayu, the ruler of Shechem. This is where the old proverb, “The enemy of

my enemy is my friend” proves true. Both Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba wrote an appeal to the

Pharaoh for help in EA 289 and EA 366, respectively. In their letters, they asked that the Pharaoh

send protection against Lab’ayu, the ruler of Shechem. In EA 366, Šuwardata explained that he

and ‘Abdi-Heba had gone to war against Lab’ayu and that his other former allies had abandoned

him in the fight:

Only ‘Abdi-Heba and I have been at war with (that) ‘Apiru…so that it seem right in the

sight of the king, my lord, and may he send Yanhamu so that we may all wage war and

you restore the land of the king, my lord, to its border.117

Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba were not the only ones who complained about Lab’ayu in the

Amarna Letters. Biridiya of Megiddo wrote a letter of complaint to the Pharaoh because

Lab’ayu was attempting to expand his territory at the expense of his neighbors.118

114

Cohen and Westbrook, Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginning of International Relations, 119. 115

Ibid

116

Ibid

117


21

It is unknown if the Pharaoh responded directly to Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba’s requests for

assistance. Cohen and Westbrook note that the Pharaoh intervened only at his convenience.119

However, Lab’ayu was summoned to Egypt to meet with the Pharaoh and was killed on his way

there.120

This murder happened at about the same time that another Canaanite vassal king,

‘Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru, was captured and killed, apparently under the orders of the Pharaoh.121

Of the seven Pharaoh’s responses to the vassals found among the Amarna Letters, two were

order preparations of supplies or troops before the arrival of the Egyptian Army; one ordered a

dispatch of a bride with her dowry; and one directed the acquisition of female cupbearers.122

However, two response letters written by the Pharaoh to the King of Amurru reflected the

diplomatic pressure on ‘Abdi-Ashirta.123

The seventh letter was fragmentary and could not be

translated.

Once their common enemy, Lab’ayu, was no longer a threat, Šuwardata and ‘Abdi-Heba’s

temporary alliance fell apart. Immediately after the death of Lab’ayu, ‘Abdi-Heba began an

offensive in the Shephelah and tried to expand westward, toward the fertile areas which were

governed by Gezer and Gath.124

Šuwardata wrote to Pharaoh about the encroachment of ‘Abdi-

118


119


120


121

Ibid

122


123

Ibid

124


22

Heba in EA 280 once again revealing their rivalry: “Moreover, Lab’ayu, who used to take our

towns, is dead, but now [an]other Lab’ayu is ‘Abdi-Heba and he seizes our town.”125

Conclusion

‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Šuwardata of Gath were drawn into a rivalry against each other

because of the Egyptian domination of the land of Canaan that resulted in the draining of

resources from their kingdoms and their boundary struggles for control of land, specifically the

town of Qiltu. Their rivalry and power struggle revealed itself in many of their letters written to

the Pharaoh during the Amarna Letters period.

125


23

APPENDIX 1 Author’s Own Photographs

.

1 The author in Berlin at the Vorderasiatisches Museum with Amarna Letter EA 288.

2 The author in 'Abdi-Heba's hometown.

3 The author is Šuwardata’s hometown.

24

APPENDIX 2

Author’s photograph of EA 288 taken at the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin, Germany, on

October 1, 2014.

25

Bibliography

Albright, William Foxwell. The Amarna Letters From Palestine: Revised Edition of Volumes I

& II. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Campbell, Edward Fay, Jr. The Chronologies of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore, MD; The Johns

Hopkins Press, 1964.

Cline, Eric, H. 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University

Press, 2014.

Cohen, Raymond and Raymond Westbrook. Amarna Diplomacy, the Beginnings of

International Relations. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Golden, Jonathon, M. Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press 2009.

Goren, Yuval, Israel Finkelstein, Nadav Na’aman. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the

Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near East Texts. Tel Aviv, Israel: Emery and Claire Yass

Publications, 2004.

Hess, Richard, S. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. Die Indo-Arier im Alter Vorderasien, mit einer analytischen

Bibliographie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966.

Moran, William L. (Ed.) The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1992.

Mynarova, Jana. Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna

Letters. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2007.

Na’aman, Nadav. Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE, Collected Essays, Vol. 2. Winona

Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Trowel vs the Text: How the Amarna Letters Challenge Archaeology,”

Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, 52-56, 70-71, (2009 Jan/Feb).

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Shephelah According to the Amarna Letters”, Fire Signals of Lachish:

Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian

Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Radner, Karen (Ed.). State Correspondence in the Ancient World, From New Kingdom Egypt to

the Roman Empire. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Rainey, Anson, F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect

Used by Scribes From Canaan, Vol. 2. The Netherlands; E.J. Brill, 1996.

26

Rainey, Anson, F. “Possible Involvement of Tell es-Safi (Tel Zafit) in The Amarna

Correspondence.” In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996-2005 Seasons (Agypten Und Altes

Testament). Edited by Aren Maier. Tel Aviv, Israel: Otto Harrassowitz, 2012.

Robins, Gay. “The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th

Dynasty in Egypt,” Images of Women in

Antiquity, edited by A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1983.

Rohl, David, M. Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest. California: Crown Publishers, 1985.

The Rivalry between the Canaanite Vassal Kings Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem and Suwardata of Gath

Documents