Yeno‘am, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 168-177.

YENO'AM Nadav Na'aman Yeno'am appears on the "Israel stele" of Merneptah accompanied by Ashkelon, Gezer and Israel, all situated on the western side of the Jordan.! From the earliest days of research, Yeno'am was therefore regarded as being a cis-Jordanian city. On the other hand, since Yeno'am appears in an Amarna letter and on a stele of Seti I (see below) side by side with cities of the Bashan, several scholars have looked for an appropriate site in the Jordan Valley, the two most commonly accepted identifications being based on the similarity between Yeno'am and names of the proposed sites. Clauss (1907:34 f.) suggested Tell en-Na'ameh in the Huleh Valley, and Albright (1925:12 f.; 1926: 18-24; 1929: 10), concurring in this view contributed supportive argumentation. Saarisa10 (1927:112-118), however, favoured Tell en-Na'am in the Jabneel Valley, a suggestion followed by several others (Alt 1928:53; Jirku 1937:33 n.3; Noth 1937:217 L; Gardiner 1947:146*; Heick 1968-1969:28). Finally, Garstang (1931:73 f.) proposed identifying Yeno'am with Tell el-'Abeidfyeh in the Jordan Valley, south of the confluence of Wadi Jabneel with the Jordan. This proposal was forgotten for many years, until it was revived by Aharoni (1957:125-129; cf. 1967:30 f., 165 f.) in his doctoral dissertation, in which he argued that Tell el-'Abeidiyeh corresponds perfectly with all written sources in which Yeno'am is mentioned, as well as with the Karnak relief of Seti I depicting this town by a river. His small-scale excavation of the tel also yielded ceramic evidence compatible with the written sources regarding Yeno'am. Contrary to all these proposals which would locate Yeno'am west of the Jordan, it is my opinion that this site should be sought in trans-Jordan, on the periphery of the Bashan region.2 The following data support this suggestion: In Amarna letter EA 197, Biryawaza, ruler of Damascus,3 complains before Pharaoh of the deeds of Biridashwa, in my opinion, the heir of Ayyab on the throne of Ashtaroth.4 Biridashwa was accused of inciting the city of Yeno'am against Biryawaza, reFor the various suggestions for identifying Yeno'am common in the early days of research, see Gauthier 1925:169 f.; 1926:146. 2 Parts of the present article were discussed by the writer in his doctorial dissertation (Na'aman 1975) written under the supervision of the late Prof. Y. Aharoni and Prof. A. F. Rainey- For a preliminary note on the problem see Na'aman 1974:271 n. 31. 3 Some scholars held the opinion that Biryawaza was an Egyptian official (EdeI1953:55; Redford 1967:209; Hachmann 1970:65, 75 f.). However, it is evident from the Amarna letters that Biryawaza was the ruler of Damascus, while his special position in the land of Upi stems from his political power in that region and not from his delegation as an Egyptian official; see: Heick 1971:184,251,303; Kiihne 1973:62 n. 301. 4 Scholars have generally been of the opinion that Biridashwa was the ruler of Yeno'arn (Weber in Knudtzon 1915: 1291; Grinberg 1955 :44; Hachmann 1970:71; Heick 1971 :179,480). However, Biridashwa's central position in the Bashan, as well as the fact that he mobilized chariots from the city of Ashtaroth, shows that Ashtaroth rather than Yeno'am was his capital. It is to be noted that Ayyab, ruler of Ashtaroth according to E A 256 and 364, belongs to an earlier period, Le., the time of the sons of Lab'ayu(Campbell 1964:116, 134; Na'aman 1975:41-43, 52 f.), while 168 Na'aman: Yeno'am moving chariots from Ashtaroth in order to give them to his !jabiru mercenaries, and collaborating with the kings of Bu~runa and ijaluni (two cities in the Bashan) who tried to kill Biryawaza.5 Yeno'am appears in this letter alongside cities in the Bashan, contraindicating a town west of the Jordan. In a topographical list from the days of Amenhotep III published by Edel (1966:11-13; HeIck 1971 :260), the following toponyms appear: Ta1}shi, Yeno'am, Damaskus, Edrei, Bu~runa, Qanu, a group belonging entirely to Syria; a cis-Jordanian city is therefore out of the question. Finally, in topographical list from the days of Rameses II, Yeno'am appears after Qatna and T<¥Jshi and before an unidentified site called (Qm] hn (Kitchen 1965:6 No. 18; cf. HeIck 1971 :192), again in a Syrian context. These three documents strongly indicate that Yeno'am was east of the Jordan, roughly in the southern Bashan. In this very same region stands a tel which corresponds perfectly with all the archaeologic and topographical data concerning Yeno'am: Tell esh-Shihab, situated west of Edrei on the Yarmuk River, controlling the main road to Ashtaroth and Damascus. The site is strategically located on a high mound, surrounded almost completely by the Yarmuk gorge, with a waterfall in the vicinity (Smith 1901:344 f.). This location accords well with the portrayal of the conquest ofYeno'am on a Karnak relief of Seti I, where a bush-lined river surrounds the town (Wreszinski 1935 :PI. 36). Moreover a stele of Seti I was found on this very tel (Smith 1901; 344-350) showing that it is one of the sites conquered by Seti in the course of his campaign to this region. A survey of the tel by Albright (1925:16 f.) revealed sherds representing all the Bronze Ages, while Iron Age pottery is missing, thus corroborating the historical records concerning Yeno'am, which is mentioned in Late Bronze Age documents - but not thereafter. letters E A 196-197, which mention Biridashwa, belongs to the last period of the Amarna correspondence, when Aziru of Amurru and Aitakama of Kadesh gathered strength and, with Hittite support, threatened the Egyptian holdings in central Syria (Campbell 1964:124, 135; Redford 1967:218 ff.). 5 Important parts of E A 197 were translated (in addition to Knudtzon's main edition) by Grinberg (1955 :43 f.); see also Moran 1973:50, 53. The passage concerning us (lines 7-26) is divided into two distinct parts; in lines 7-12 Biridashwa is accused of stirring up Yeno'am against Biryawaza while the later was entering the town, probably in his status as the person responsible to the Egyptian authorities for the land of Upi. For lines 13-26, which are somewhat damaged, we suggest the following translation: "When the king of Bu~runa and the king of }Jaluni saw (this deed) they conducted war with Biridashwa against me saying: 'Let us go and kill Biryawaza and not let him go to .... But I escaped from them and took a stand in the [country of Api and) the city of Damascus. When [they saw t)hat [I) am serving [the king my lord) they said: '[We are servants of the king of Ha) tti.' But I said: 'I am servant of the king of Egypt'." Regarding line 19: it should be noted that Knudtzon's restoration [mat tal h:se does not fit the geographical context of the passage, which clearly deals with the Bashan region and not with the district of Kadesh. Regarding the r~mainder of EA 197: Knudtzon's restoration of line 2 as uru A-[pi) is to be rejected, while Ap'i (Upi) appears in the Amarna letters as a region and not as a name of a town. Lines 41-42 might be restored "the kings of [the land of Tagshi and k) in[g) s of the land of Api" by comparison to E A 189 (rev. 12) and general context of the passage. 169 Tel Aviv 4 (1977) Let us now examine the other texts where Yeno'am is mentioned: Thutmose Ill's references to Yeno'am will be dealt with at the end of this article, since they are of no assistance in identifying the town. On the other hand, the inscriptions of Seti I are very indicative (see: Albright 1926:20; Alt 1926:115-117; Noth 1937:210-229; Aharoni 1964; HeIck 1971:191-193). In his stele from Beth-shean (Wilson in ANET:253; Gardiner 1961 :254), Seti describes the rebellion against Egypt during which Hamath (a city of the Beth-shean Valley) conquered the Egyptian centre at Beth-shean while collaborating with Pehe1, its ally on the other side of the Jordan. In retaliation, Pharaoh sent troops to Beth-shean, Hamath and Yeno'am, which suppressed the rebellion in a "single day." Since Pehel is mentioned, it is clear that the revolt spread to both sides of the Jordan and that troops were also sent to Yeno'am (Tell esh-Shihab) situated on the main road leading towards the Bashan. The conquest of Yeno'am was depicted on the above-mentioned Karnak relief of Seti I (Wreszinski ibid.), but unfortunately, the accompanying inscription did not survive. After the conquest, Seti erected his stele at Yeno'am (Smith 1901:344-350), analogous to the one he erected in Beth-shean during the same campaign. In addition, we have a number of topographical lists of Seti I, all arranged roughly in Aharoni 1957:57-63; parallel order based on a single Vorlage (Noth 1937:212-215; HeIck 1971:192 f.). The first four names in this list, Pehel, Hamath, Beth-shean and Yeno'am, appeared also on the stele from Beth-shean, clearly indicating that this was the first real military action during the campaign of Seti. Of other events connected with this campaign we know nothing and can appreciate its overall dimensions only by analysing the names mentioned in the topographical lists. Three places, qdr qrt- 'nb and hdr, appearing in the same order at the end of the list, are important for our inquiry. Qdr is described also on a relief of Seti I, and it might be connected with dgr (metathesis) mentioned in Papyrus Anastasi I, and with the Hellenistic city Gadara south of the Yarmuk (HeIck 1971 :193). Qrt-"nb also appears in Papyrus Anastasi I as well as among the towns of the Land of Gari (written tIeni-anabi) in an Amarna letter (E A 256, line 26). Albright (1943:14 n. 41) suggested locating it at Nab or near the neighbouring spring 'En Nab situated about 10 km. north of the confluence of Wadi Raqad and the Yarmuk. In the village of Nab only Roman-Byzantine pottery was found (Epstein and Gutman 1972:285 No. 162), but a tel was discovered at Khirbet 'En Taruk, situated some 3 km. southeast of Nab, with Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age I pottery (Epstein and Gutman 1972 :286 No. 177), and it is possible that here is the site of Qrt- 'nb. Hffr is, of course, Hazor of the Hu1eh Valley. It seems therefore that Geder and Qrt- 'nb were also conquered during the war conducted in the vicinity of the Yarmuk on the way to Yeno'am; the Egyptian army, after completing its military actions in this area, turned back to the Jordan Valley, continuing north to Hazor and then to the Phoenician coast. Another document sometimes brought up by scholars in connection with Yeno'am is Papyrus Anastasi I (Wilson inANET:477; for detailed discussion, see Maroni 1957:123, 128 f.). But the toponym in the document, .r'n, is not comparable with the Egyptian transcription of the name Yeno'am. Albright (1926:21) has suggested rendering it as 170 Na'aman: Yeno'am y'm [u] , but Egyptologists have not followed suit (e.g. Wilson ibid. ; Heick 1971 :316). In view of the uncertainty concerning this name, it would best be dropped. The latest source in which the name Yeno'am appears is the Hymn of Merneptah, where it follows Ashkelon and Gezer and precedes Israel (Wilson ibid.:378; HeIck 1971:224). While this passage is of no assistance in identifying Yeno'am, the abovesuggested location of Yeno'am may be an important contribution in interpreting this text: Israel appears in the hymn just after Yeno'am, and may refer to a confederacy of tribes sojourning at the time in trans-Jordan and not necessarily to a cis-Jordanian group of tribes, as scholars have commonly held. Finally, we must note the negative evidence: in the biblical descriptions of the Israelite occupation and settlement, the absence of Yeno'am is curious since the Merneptah stele proves that even at such a late date Yeno'am was still an important town. Its location in trans-Jordan solves the difficulty: it is possible that Yeno'am was one of the sixty cities of the Bashan "fortified with high walls, gates and bars" that, according. to the biblical tradition, were conquered by the Israelite tribes (Deut. 3.3-5). Identifying Yeno'am with Tell esh-Shihab enables us to resume the discussion of the two difficult passages of the annals of Thutmose III in which Yeno'am is mentioned. After the detailed list of booty taken from the city of Megiddo, appears the following: "List of what was carried off afterward by the king from the household goods of that enemy (the king of Kadesh) which were in Yeno'am, ngs and J;zlnkr together with the property of these towns which were in vassalage to him"; a list of the booty from the latter towns then follows (Wilson in ANET:237; Heick 1968-1969:28). In a second inscription from the temple of Karnak, Thutmose states that he presented the God Amon with "three towns in upper Retenu - ngs the name of one, Yeno'am the name of another and ~lnkr the name of another - taxed with annual dues for the divine offerings of my father Amon" (Wilson in ANET:237 n. 42). The main difficulty in interpreting these two passages stems from the inclusion of ngs. Gardiner (1947: 168* f.), who identified this ngs with the northern Syrian kingdom of NulJasse, was forced to postulate that the three towns were conquered only in the 34th year of Thutmose and that the two passages were composed subsequently (cf. Noth 1938:63 n. 1). Heick, on the other hand, accepted the commonly held opinion regarding the passage in the annals as belonging to the Megiddo campaign of year 23 and accordingly suggested dissociating this ngs from the kingdom Nu!}asse lying far away in the north (Heick 1962:137). But in a later article he reversed his opinion, arguing that ngs mentioned in our passage should indeed be identified with the northern ngs Nu~asse, which appears in identical transcription in all other Egyptian sources. He therefore suggested that these three towns, ngs, Yeno'am and blnkr, were the respective capitals of the three principal districts of the "empire" of Kadesh, with ngs Nubasse denoting the region north of Kadesh, which Thutmose reached in the course of his first campaign (Heick 1968-1969:28; 1971 :133). In another discussion (Na'aman 1974:270 f.) we have already rejected the historica1geographical reconstruction suggested by Heick in the above-mentioned article. Equally impossible is the hypothesis according to which Thutmose reached NuIJasse, north of 171 Tel Aviv 4 (1977) Kadesh, during his first campaign. Assuming, that the two passages belong to the campaign of year 23, we would be obliged to dissociate ngs of our passages from the northern kingdom of NuVaSse (the general consensus of scholars such as Breasted 1906:187 n. 1 and Drawer 1973:451). Moreover, the designation of NuhaSse is known from all written sources as the name of a kingdom but not as a city or town (Klengel 1969: 18-57), while ngs appears in the inscriptions of Thutmose as a town. The location of the other two towns also suggests a southern location for ngs: Yeno'am is on the Yarmuk in trans-Jordan; lflnkr (ha-12-kti-r, according to the transcription of HeIck) probably to be identified with !)lkr appearing in the topographical list of Thutmose III (Albright 1926:19; Jirku 1937:15 n. 7; HeIck 1968-1969:28; 1971:128), is located in the Bashan or in southern Lebanon.6 Thutmose's inscription refers to the three towns as situated in upper Retenu, a name denoting the mountainous region north of Eretz Israel according to its use during the Middle Kingdom and onwards (Gardiner 1947:142* f.; HeIck 1971 :266, 268). It would seem that while besieging Megiddo, Pharaoh dispatched some of his troops to the north in order to subdue the Lebanon and the Bashan regions, resulting in the conquest of these three towns. Here we must deal with the problem of the special status of these three towns, viz. ngs, Yeno'am and Itlkr, during the short period of Kadesh's hegemony in southern Syria and Eretz Israel. Thutmose's annals distinguished between the property of the ruler of Kadesh in those three towns, which belonged to his private domain and the property of other towns, which were merely subject to him. There are numerous examples from the Mitanni empire indicating that private ownership of territories situated in distant occupied lands, was commonly held by Mitanni. According to the ISmeriga treaty, nobles from WaSsukanni (the capital of Mitanni) held estates in ISmeriga and Kizzuwatna (Kempinski and Kosak 1970:215 f.; Na'aman 1974:270). In a letter from Nuzi (HSS IX No.1), SatiStatar, king of Mitanni, granted estates to his vassals in the distant kingdom of Arrapha, and it is clear that the transferred territories had previously belonged to him (Speiser 1929; Lewy 1942:7-9,33 f.). With these examples in mind, we may assume that after the conquest of Canaan by Mitanni and its main ally Kadesh (Na'aman 1974:268-272), the king of Kadesh annexed the three towns to his own royal domain; after the Egyptian re-conquest the ownership of these towns passed to the victor. 6 Tentatively, J;zlkr ofThutmose might be compared with the mountain Hukkuruna mentioned in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal in connection with his wars against the Arabs east of Damascus (Weippert 1973:45 lines 15, 25; 80 lines 17, 32), most probably identical with the mountain of el-Leja (Weippert 1973:65 f. n. 99). Albright (1934:53) and Edel (1966:76) showed that the first sign in I}lkr has the phonetic value of I}u (for a different opinion see Heick 1971:554; but see Heick 1971:555 for the value J;zu); accordingly, the Egyptian toponym could be transcribed as 1julkuru. It is possible that assimilation of Ilk occurred in Ashurbanipal's inscriptions, with the common west-Semitic suffix -on attached at the end. If this equation is valid, then the Egyptian town I;zlkr is located in the el-Leja mountain, some 30-40 km. east of Tell esh-Shihab. (See Appendix). 172 Na'aman: Yeno'am In view of this practise one may ask: What was the status of Yeno'am after the Egyptian conquest? Was the town annexed into the Pharaonic domains in Asia or did she continue to exist as a Canaanite city-state, paying her taxes to the temple of the god Amon, albeit not to the royal treasury? There is no conclusive answer; we may only raise some arguments in order to clarify the matter. Firstly, it is to be remembered that no ruler of Yeno'am is recalled in the Amarna documents (it has been shown above in note 4, that Biridashwa was the king of Ashtaroth and not of Yeno'am)- but admittedly not all of the names of the rulers of the city-states are known from the Amarna documents, while the seats of many rulers appearing in the epistolary are obscure; such argumentation is therefore not compelling. Secondly, there is a certain degree of similarity between the attitude of Seti I toward Beth-shean, which was an Egyptian garrisoncity (Stutzpunkt) from the time of Thutmose III and onwards,7 and his attitude towards Yeno'am: Seti sent troops to both cities, perhaps because both were threatened or taken over by the rebels, and in each of them he set up a stele commemorating his victory. (Although, of course, one may argue that Yeno'am took an active part in the rebellion and was conquered and subjugated as a result). Finally, it is to be noted that Biryawaza, ruler of Damascus, entered into the city of Yeno'am (E A 197 lines 8-9). Upon analysing the Amarna letters, it is obvious that Biryawaza held a special position in southern Syria, including the right of inspection of the Egyptian garrison-city of Kumidi (Hachmann 1970:65-84; Helck 1971:184, 251, 303; Kiihne 1973:62 n.301). Accordingly, it may be assumed that his entrance into Yeno'am was connected with his responsibilities of inspecting and guarding Yeno'am as an Egyptian garrison-city, although this does not necessarily preclude the existence of a local ruler in the town, as would be the case with the city of Kumidi (E A 198). 7 The suggestion of Alt (1926: llO~ 117), according to which Beth-shean became an Egyptian garrison-city (Stutzpunkt) only late in the Amarna period, is not valid. Alt's main support was EA 289 lines 18-24, from which he drew the conclusion that Tagu, ruler of Gath-carmel, had conquered the city of Beth-shean, in Alt's opinion still a Canaanite city-state. But the term ma~~artu appearing in that passage is consistently used in the Amarna letters to denote a garrison or a guard in the service of Egypt (Schulman 1964:17 f.; Heick 1971:253 f.); the passage, therefore, deals with the service of men from Gath-carmel in the Egyptian garrison-city of Beth-shean (cf. parallel passages in EA 253, lines 32-35; EA 294, lines 18-22; EA 296, lines 30-33), and by no means with the conquest of the city. In the above-mentioned passage (E A 289, lines 18-24) 'Abdi-heba warns pharaoh of impending dangers to Beth-shean and the trade route passing in her vicinity from the encamping garrison of Gath-carmel (an ally of Gezer, Shechem and Pehel at the time). It is to be concluded therefore that Beth-shean was an Egyptian garrisoncity even prior to the Amarna period; in my opinion, it was Thutmose III who has founded the Egyptian centre there (for detailed discussion of the problem see Na'aman 1975:189-193). There are also archaeological evidences for the early date of the Egyptian hold over the city. Level IX is the first stratum in which a great quantity of Egyptian material was found, including the stele of Mekal "lord of Beth-shean" (Beth-shan I: 11-17; Beth-shan III :X). One may suggest that the earlier level, Xa, came to an end in year 23 of Thutmose III, and Stratum IX was then founded as an Egyptian centre. The newly established stronghold held a central position in the Egyp tian militaristic and administrative disposition in Canaan until the collapse of Egyptian rule in Eretz Israel. 173 Tel Aviv 4 (1977) Contrary to all these arguments, it should be noted that Yeno'am appears in some Egyptian topographical lists side by side with the Canaanite city-states (versus Egyptian garrison-cities), and that Yeno 'am is mentioned in the stele of Merneptah as a rebellious city conquered by the Pharaoh. Pending the discovery of new material on the subject, there is no definitive solution to the obscure status ofYeno'am either before or after it's conquest by Seti I. APPENDIX: O N T H E T O P O N Y M I J 1/12kr R an NA lfukkuri/una Z adok which apparently ends in the West Semitic plural suffix-in/un (see Zadok 1977:205), can be related to lJl/12kr (in Egyptian transcription), provided that the 1 of the latter form is not radical but dissimilatory (Le. lk<* kk). Admittedly, no case of kk>lk is recorded in Semitic, but as dissimilatory 1 occurs together with consonants of various types (sibilants, cf. Brockelmann 1908; par. 85 cd; Ruzicka 1909:124; labials, laryngeals, cf. Brockelmann 1908; par. 90; Ruzicka 1909:124,8 dentals, p!ys in the Isaiah Scroll for paU ls in the Massoretic text),9 to assume that dissimilatory 1 can occur together cf. Heb. one is entitled with a palatal consonant (in this case k) as well. We do have examples where dissimilatory n occurs together with a palatal consonant (cf. Brockelmannl908: par. 90; Ruzicka 1909: passim). Dissimilatory consonants such as the liquids l, m and n, are apt to interchange; cf., e.g., NA An-qar-u-na-a-a and Am-qar-u-na (etc., Parpola 1970:16; see Hurwitz 1968-1969:18 f.; one and the same locale) on the one hand, and NA Ija-an-{a-su (Borger 1956:Klch. A:24) and Ijal-p-su (Borger 1956:Nin. A, iv:62, one and the same locale) on the other. The latter form may be related to the personal names (NA and NB/LB) Ija-an-ta-si, Jja-an-ta-su, lja-an--{u-(u-)su and other related names. The comparison between Ija-an-.tu-(u-)su and the biblical personal name lfattus (see Tallqvist 1905:66b; 1914:86a) may prove that the n (and consequently the l) of the abovementioned names in cuneiform renderings is dissimilatory (cf. Zadok 1977:207, 260). The possiblity that the 1 was radical in Jjl/12kr, and that it was assimilated in Jjukkurz/ una is less likely, as the only examples of assimilation to the following palatal, Hebrew yiqqalJ «*yilqa'/:l) and yuqqaJ:z (~yulqab), are caused by an analogy to yitten and yuttan respectively, according to Ungnad (1903:278; cf. Brockelmann 1908:par. 61b). 8 von Soden (1967:297-300) is of the opinion that there exists a I-infix in Semitic. Note the ancient Palestinian mountain name Gilboa;which RliZicka (1909:124) believes is derived from g-b"' (with dissimilatory 1) and "Yhichhe interprets as "hill country." 9 See Kutscher 1974:515. 174 Na'aman: Yeno'am REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Settlement (Hebrew). of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee. Jerusalem. Aharoni, Y. 1964. The Canaanite Campaigns of Seti 1. Apud Liver, J. ed. The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times. Tel Aviv:40-46. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. London and Philadelphia. Albright, W. F. 1925. Bronze Age Mounds of Northern Palestine and Haman. BASOR 19:5-19 Albrigllt, W. F. 1926. The Jordan Yalley in the Bronze Age. AASOR 6:13-74. Albrigllt, W. F. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: The Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR 35:1-14. Albright, W. F. 1934. The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. (American Oriental Series 5). New Haven. Albright, W. F. 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Yalley. BASOR 89:7-17. Alt, A. 1926. Zur Geschichte von Beth-sean 1500-1000 v. Chr. PJb 22: 108-120. (repr. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. Munchen:246-255). Alt, A. 1928. Das Institut im Jahre 1927.PJb 24:5-74. Beth-shan I. Rowe, A. 1930. The Topography and History of Beth-shan. Philadelphia. Beth-shanII1.Rowe, A. 1940. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan. I, The Temples and Cult Objects. Philadelphia. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Konigs von Assyrien. (Archiv fUr Orientforschung, Beihen 9). Graz. Breasted, J. H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents II. Chicago. Brockelmann, C. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. I, Laut-und Formenlehre. Berlin. Campbell, E. F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Clauss, H. 1907. Die Stiidte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel. ZDPV 30: 1- 79. Drower, Margaret S. 1973. Syria c. 1550-1440 B.C. Apud CAH II, 1 (3rd ed.):4l7525. EA. EI Amarna Tablets, text nos. from Knudtzon, J. A. 1915. Die El Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig. Edel, E. 1953. Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses' II. Festschrift fur Albrecht Alt. Tubingen:29-63. Edel, E, . 1966. Die Ortsnamenlisten aus der Totentempel Amenophis III. Bonn. Epstein, Claire and Gutman, S. 1972. The Golan. Apud Kochavi, M. ed. Judea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967-1968. Jerusalem:244-298. Gardiner, A. H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica 1 Oxford. Gardiner, A. H. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford. Garstang, J. 1931. Joshua-Judges. London. Gauthier, H. 1925, 1926. Dictionnaire des noms geographiques contenus dans les textes hieroglyphiques I, III. Cairo. 175 Tel Aviv 4 (1977) Grinberg, M. 1955. The Habjpiru. (American Oriental Series 39). New Haven. Hachmann, R. 1970. Kamid el-Loz - Kumidi. Apud Edzard, D.O., Hachmann, R. a.o. Kiimid el-Loz - Kumidi (Saarbriicker Beitrage zur Alertumskunde 7). Bonn: 6394. He1ck, W. 1962. Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden. He1ck, W. 1968-1969. Zur Staatlichen Organisation Syriens im Beginn der 18. Dynastie. Archiv fur Orientforschung 22:27 -29. He1ck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen A.gyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2. verbesserte Auflage). Wiesbaden. Hurwitz, A. 1968-1969. A K K apoIJ =Amqar(r)nna= (Hebrew). )1ip)l. Lesonenu 33:18-24. Jirku, A. 1937. Die A.gyptischen Listen palristinensischer und syrischer Ortsnamen in Umschrift und mit historisch-archiiologischen Kommentar. (Klio Beihen 38). Leipzig. Kempinski, A. and Kosak, S. 1970. Der lSmeriga Vertrag. WO 5:191-217. Kitchen, K. A. Theban Topographical Lists, Old and New. O r 34: 1-9. Klengel, H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.z. II Berlin. Knudtzon, J. A. 1915. Die El Amarna-Tafeln. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Kiihne, C. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna. (AOAT 17). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Kutscher, E. Y. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isaa). Leiden. Lewy, Hildegard. 1942. The Nuzu·Feudal System. Or 11: 1-40,209-250,297-349. Moran, W. L. 1973. The Dual Personal Pronouns in Western Peripheral Akkadian. BASOR 211:50-53. Na'aman, N. 1974. Syria at the Transition from the Old Babylonian Period to the Middle Babylonian Period. Ugarit Forschungen 6:265-274. Na'aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna Letters. (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv. Noth, M. 1937. Die Wege der Pbaraonenheere in Palastina und Syrian. ZDPV 60: 183-239. Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palastina und Syrian (cont.). ZDPV 61:26-65. Parpola, S. 1970. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the EighteenthDynasty' Seven Studies. Toronto. RMicka, R. 1909. Konsonantische Dissimilation in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig. Saarisalo, A. 1927. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali. Helsinki. Schulman, A. R. 1964. Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom. (Miinchner agyptologischen Studien 6). Berlin. Smith, G. A. 1901. Notes of a Journey through Hauran, with Inscriptions Found by the Way. PEQ 33 :340-361. 176 Na'aman: Yeno'am von Soden, W. 1967. Kleine Beitrage zum ugaritischen und hebraischen. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. (VTSup 16). Leiden:291-300. Speiser, E. A. 1929. A Letter of Saushshatar and the Date of the Kirkuk Tablets. JAOS 49:269-275. Tallqvist, K. L. 1905. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch. (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 32:2). He1singfors. Tallqvist, K. L. 1914. Assyrian Personal Names. (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 43: 1). He1singfors. Ungnad, A. 1903. Uber Ana10giebildungen im hebraischen Verbum. Beitriige zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 5 :233-278. Weippert, M. 1973. Die Kampfe des assyrischen Konigs Assurbanipa1 gegen die Araber. WO 7:39-85. Wreszinski, W. 1935. Atlas zur altiigyptischen Kulturgeschichte II Leipzig. Zadok, R. 1977. On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. Jerusalem. 177