Amarna Letters

The Amarna Letters are among the most significant discoveries in the study of the archaeology of Israel and the ancient Near East. This collection consists of hundreds of clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, primarily in the Akkadian language. The letters were found in Egypt at the site known as Tel el-Amarna, dating to the Late Bronze Age. This site is identified as the capital of Pharaoh Akhenaten (14th century BCE). The first letters were discovered in 1887 by local residents. Initially, they were sold to antiquities collectors and eventually made their way to museums worldwide. Additional letters have been unearthed through both looting and organized archaeological excavations.

Five of the El-Amarna letters in the British Museum, London. By Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=95958735

A minority of the letters were sent by rulers of other kingdoms, such as the kings of Mitanni, Ugarit, and Babylon. These letters shed light on Egypt’s diplomatic relations and the connections between the great empires of that era. The Amarna Letters are particularly valuable for the study of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age, providing information on the political situation in the mid-14th century BCE.

Most of the letters were sent by local Canaanite rulers to various pharaohs. Among the cities mentioned are Hazor, Megiddo, Akko, Shechem, Gezer, Gath, Jerusalem, Gaza, Ashkelon, Lachish, and others. The recipients of the letters were various officials within the Egyptian Empire. The correspondence often followed a fixed format, wherein the subordinate rulers referred to themselves as ‘hazannu’ (city governor, a rank lower than ‘king’) and depicted themselves as bowing down seven times and seven times before the pharaoh they addressed.

The Apiru: Canaan’s Mysterious Raiders

Many of the letters describe the activities of a mysterious group referred to as the ‘Apiru’ (or Habiru) operating in the Canaanite region during the 14th century BCE. According to the letters, the Apiru’ attacked various Canaanite cities, such as Megiddo and Ta’anach, and robbed travelers. The repeated appeals from Canaanite governors to the pharaohs suggest that the pharaohs, particularly Akhenaten, often ignored these governors and did not assist them when they were attacked by the Apiru’. This neglect led some Canaanite city-states, like Shechem, to revolt against the Egyptians.

The letters reflect a period of decline in the Egyptian Empire, during which the northern provinces of the kingdom were neglected. This neglect necessitated numerous Egyptian military campaigns in subsequent generations to regain control over the region.

Scholars debate whether the Apiru can be identified with the Hebrews (Israelites). Most researchers believe the groups were not identical. The Apiru were undoubtedly a multi-ethnic group, whereas the Hebrews/Israelites represented a specific ethnic group. Additionally, the etymological connection between the names is unclear. Some scholars, however, suggest a possible link between the groups. This is partly due to a potential etymological connection and the fact that the Apiru operated in regions similar to those conquered by Israel during the period of conquest and settlement. Furthermore, two of the letters mention ‘men’ and ‘soldiers of Judah.’

Sources:

Y. Bin Nun, ‘Hebrews and the Land of the Hebrews’, Megadim 15 (1992), pp. 9-26.

Y. Elitzur, ‘Dating the Letters of the King of Jerusalem in the Amarna Archive and the Settlement in Bethlehem: An Appendix to the Paper Bethlehem in the Time of the Conquest of the Land and the Days of the Judges’, Hebron and Judah Studies 5 (2016), p. 39.

M. Jastrow, Jr., ‘“The Men of Judah” in the El-Amarna Tablets’, Journal of Biblical Literature 12 (1893), pp. 61-72.

W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore and London 1992.

Na’aman N., ‘The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence’, in: R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds.), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of Internation Relations, Baltimore and London 2000, pp. 125-138, 252-253.