Canaan

By the term “Canaan” I will refer to the region occupied by the modern states of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. Unfortunately, textual and artistic evidence is limited or non-existent from Canaan during most of the Early and Middle Bronze ages.¹ We are therefore largely dependent on archaeological evidence, along with occasional notices from the texts of Mesopotamia and Egypt, for our understanding of the ancient military history of Canaan. Although archaeology can provide evidence that war existed, it cannot provide us with a full military history. The following chart (Table 10.1) outlines the basic chronological periods of Canaan,² with rough comparisons with contemporary periods in Egypt.

Chalcolithic {4300–3300}³

The Neolithic background to warfare in Canaan has been discussed in Chapter One (pp. 29–30). Two major innovations relating to military history occurred during the Canaanite Chalcolithic period: the introduction of metallurgy and the rise of political units known by anthropologists as chiefdoms. The term Chalcolithic means “copper-stone” and refers to the development of early copper metallurgy which was introduced from Syria, and originally from Anatolia (see pp. 19–23). The period is often called Ghassulian, based on the largest and best-excavated site at Teleilat Ghassul (EA 5:161–3; DANE 127–8). Although copper working was known in Canaan and Jordan during the fourth millennium, it should be emphasized that most tools and weapons continued to be made of stone. Copper should be seen more like a valuable commodity such as gold, rather than a day-to-day metal for use by ordinary people.

There are a large number of Chalcolithic settlements in Canaan, indicating rising population density from the earlier Neolithic period. Many of these settlements are rather small villages, often clustering around a larger central location; this characteristic has led some archaeologists to posit the existence of chiefdoms, where a larger central city-state dominated smaller surrounding villages. It is significant to note that most Chalcolithic sites were not fortified; this does not mean that there was no military conflict during the Chalcolithic period, but probably implies that, to the extent there was warfare, it was generally of low intensity. Two temples from this period at Ein Gedi (ALB 66–8) and Teleilat el-Ghassul (EA 5:161–3) had enclosure walls which could have served as a citadel of last resort in time of war, and as a model for fortress building. At any rate, these sites demonstrate the capacity of Chalcolithic peoples to have built fortifications had they been needed.

From the military perspective the most important characteristic of the Chalcolithic period was the development of copper weapons. As noted in Chapter One, metal-working originated in Anatolia, with the earliest-known metal weapon in the world being a copper macehead dating to c. 5000 from Can Hasan in southern Anatolia (ET 125). By the fourth millennium copper-working and mace-making technology had spread to Canaan. Signs of copper-working, including copper maceheads and axeheads, have been found in the Beer Sheba region and at Teleilat Ghassul (ALB 72–3; AW 1:120), but the largest find of copper objects is from the “Cave of Treasure” in Nahal Mishmar, between Ein Gedi and Masada, south-west of the Dead Sea.⁴ The weapons were cast with a sophisticated “lost wax” technique, and the copper has trace elements that show it originated in north-eastern Turkey, pointing to long-distance trade either in ore, or perhaps in the finished weapons themselves. Among 436 copper objects there are 99 mace-like objects of various types (COT 52–89; THL 74). These maces have long hollow copper shafts, ranging in length from a few centimeters to a third of a meter, ending in a metal ball and frequently with a flared disk at the top. Many have spiral or horizontal grooves. Some have rather blunt, spike-like projections (COT 53, 57, 61, 64, 83–5; THL 83); others have numerous serrated knobs (COT 89), or a flared disk alone (COT 94–7). Some scholars view these as ritual objects; others see them as weapons – of course, they may have been both.

More certainly weapons are the 249 maceheads, which lack the long copper shaft of the other mace-like objects (COT 116–31; THL 84). These maces are all smooth and polished, averaging about 5 cm high and wide, generally either spherical or pear-shaped. The vast majority are of cast copper, though some are of hematite or stone. Similar maceheads have been found at other Canaanite sites (COT 116). A few axes and spiked mace-like heads were also found (COT 98–9, 112; AW 1:126). Additionally the cave contained a number of copper standards which were placed on wooden or reed poles and carried in procession (COT 40–51, 100–3). It is not clear if the standards were designed for religious purposes or were a type of clan totem carried in battle, such as were found among the Pre-Dynastic Egyptians as depicted on the Narmer Palette (TEM 27, 37, 40). The presence of nearly 250 maceheads along with another hundred mace-like objects implies a strong militant component in Chalcolithic culture. According to the proportion of archaeological finds, the mace remained the primary melee weapon during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I periods, after which it rapidly decreased in importance (MW 1:173–4), being replaced by daggers, spears, and axes.

The Ghassulian Chalcolithic Age ended rather abruptly around 3300. Many of the most important sites were abandoned and remained unoccupied. It is often speculated that the large copper hoard found at the Cave of Treasure was originally from the Ein Gedi temple, which, it is assumed, served as a religious pilgrimage site for southern Canaan (ALB 66–8; EA 2:222–3). The treasure was removed from the temple in the face of some threat, and carefully buried in the cave in Nahal Mishmar, where it remained until discovered by archaeologists five thousand years later. The assumption here is that the treasure was hidden in the hope of bringing it back to the temple; but the temple was abandoned and the treasure never returned. There is certainly a strong possibility that there was a military factor in the collapse of the Ghassulian Age, although there is little archaeological evidence for fire or other violence at the abandoned sites (ALB 88–9). Some scholars speculate about the possibility of the migration of new peoples into Canaan, again with military elements in the migration, bringing with them new cultural patterns.

Early Bronze Age {3300–2300}⁵

Archaeological evidence for large-scale endemic warfare in Canaan begins in the early Bronze Age. Bronze Age Canaan is distinguished from the earlier Chalcolithic period by a number of characteristics: new styles of pottery, use of cylinder seals, changing settlement patterns, intensification of agriculture, increasing population, shifting trade patterns, and, of course, the use of bronze. Many of these developments had military significance. Intensification of agriculture and increasing population created larger cities, capable of building bigger fortifications and fielding larger armies. Broader trade connections brought cultural and technological exchange, and hence the transfer of military technology.

For the military historian, however, two characteristics are especially important. First, we see not only the spread of the use of copper in weapon making, but the development of new weapon types, including the axe, tanged daggers, and spear and javelin points.⁶ The most important archaeological find of Canaanite arsenic-copper weapons comes from Kefar Monash, dating to around 2700, which reveals the standard weapons of the Early Bronze Canaanite warrior: spear and dagger (ALB 134; AW 1:42; MW). However, not all burials uniformly contain each of these weapons. Some contain only one or the other, while others contain both; a few examples of axes begin to appear as well. The dagger alone seems to be the weapon of choice for burial (MW 1:164–5). It must be emphasized that, although such arsenic-copper weapons existed, flint knives and projectile points were still widely used, indeed, probably more widely than copper (ALB 103), with copper weapons remaining “either rare or very expensive” (ABL 134). With the development of the arsenic-copper fighting axe during this period, we also see the decline in use of the copper mace, which had been the most widespread melee weapon of the Canaanite Chalcolithic (MW 1:173–4).

The second development of the Early Bronze Age is the rapid spread and improvement of fortifications (ALB 119–25; C1/2:214–18). Jericho's earlier Neolithic stone walls and tower were almost unique in Neolithic Canaan; the vast majority of pre-Early Bronze sites in Canaan were unfortified. This would imply that whatever military threat Jericho faced was intense, but local. By the Early Bronze Age military threat had become universal and constant. Although smaller villages remained unfortified, all major cities had massive stone or brick fortifications. The building of these fortifications came in two phases. The first phase of the fortification process began in Early Bronze I {3300–3050} and II {3050–2700}, when cities built defenses of simple stone walls generally 3–4 meters thick. By Early Bronze III {2700–2300}, these walls had doubled in thickness to an average of 7–8 meters, and were reinforced by semi-circular or rectangular towers, bastions, and fortified gates. Some of the towers were huge, reaching 10 meters thick and nearly 30 meters long. Glacis are found at many of the cities, both to strengthen the foundation of the walls and to prevent ladders and other siege equipment from being placed near the walls. The largest surviving fortifications of Early Bronze Age Canaan are found at the city of Tel Yarmut, with walls made of huge uncut stones surviving to nearly eight meters high; the original walls were even higher (ALB 119–23; EA 5:369–72). The foundations of the Early Bronze walls at Arad have also been fully excavated, including numerous projecting towers (EA 1:169–74).

Although the cities of Early Bronze Age Canaan shared a single material culture, it seems that they were politically divided into about two dozen rival city-states.⁷ The largest Early Bronze Age cities of Canaan ranged in size from 8 to 22 acres, with populations probably ranging from 2000 to 5000 people per city (ALB 111–13). This would give a maximum fighting force of between 500 and 1000 men per city-state. However, most cities seem to have been supported by a number of surrounding farming villages, which could double or even triple the overall population, and hence the potential military force, of any given city-state. Realistically the Canaanite city-states probably seldom fielded armies of more than 1000 men. Most armies were probably numbered in the hundreds.

While the existence of fortifications in Canaan clearly indicates the presence of conflict, it does not tell us who was involved in the conflict. A destruction layer at a site can tell us there was a war, but not who attacked. The phenomenon of the intensive fortification of Early Bronze Age city-states has been attributed to a combination of three factors: inter-city military rivalry, invasion by Egyptians, and nomadic raids. Due to the nearly complete lack of indigenous Canaanite written records or martial art during the Early Bronze Age, the military history of the Canaanite city-states cannot be fully known. A number of assumptions, however, are often made. First, it is assumed that each city-state was independent, broadly along the lines of the Greek city-state system in the fifth century BC, and in Bronze Age Syria and Mesopotamia. This would imply complex shifting patterns of alliances and confederations, with one city-state occasionally rising to temporary regional hegemony. A confederation of eight of the two dozen city-states of Canaan could possibly field armies of at most 3000–6000 men, a force large enough to threaten and conquer enemy cities.

The second source of military conflict in Canaan was military intervention from Egypt, which can be documented in a fragmentary way (ALB 105–8; ECI 24–8); these military operations will be discussed later (see Chapters Twelve, Thirteen and Sixteen for Egyptian sources discussed here). Some scholars posit a possible struggle over control of the copper resources of Sinai and southern Canaan. The earliest Egyptian kings of the First Dynasty have brief notices of campaigns against Easterners (EDE 71–4). Archaeologically, Egyptian artifacts have been found in a number of southern Canaanite towns, but these could have been introduced through trade or invasions. At Tel Erani, the largest Early Bronze site in south-western Canaan, Egyptian artifacts predominate, probably indicating permanent Egyptian occupation of the city for a century or so under Narmer and his successors {c. 3025–2915} (ALB 106–7). This city would have served as a military base for further raids and attacks, such as those carried out by king Den {2965–2915}. The Canaanite reaction to the ongoing military intervention of the First Dynasty Egyptian kings into Early Bronze I Canaan was probably a key factor in the rapid militarization and fortification of Canaan.

The military threat from Egypt decreased, but did not entirely disappear, in the subsequent centuries. The large Canaanite city of Arad was sacked and burned in around 2800,⁸ possibly by Egyptian invaders. Arad's connection with the copper resources of southern Canaan and the Sinai may have made it a magnet for attack (ALB 134). The Egyptian king Peribsen {2734–2714} claims to have been the “conqueror of Canaan (inw Stt)” and “conqueror of foreign lands (inw h3st)” (ANET 228a = EDE 89–90), indicating military intervention in that region. Under Khasekhemwy {2714–2687}, Egyptian trade with Canaan seems to have begun to shift to sea-routes through Byblos, bringing declining interest and military intervention in southern Canaan.⁹ None the less, massive fortification of Canaanite cities continued throughout Early Bronze III {2700–2300}; if Egyptian military intervention declined during this period, there remained other significant military threats requiring continued fortification and vigilance.

Throughout its history Canaan has been a land of mixed ecological zones with sedentary and pastoral populations. Even today, a few miles west of Jerusalem on the road to Jericho, you can find Palestinian nomads herding sheep. The Early Bronze Age was no different. While there were numerous possible shared interests – kinship, religion, economic – between nomad and farmer which might lead to cooperation, there was also stress and competition that could lead to conflict, such as competition over water or other limited resources. While it is quite certain that there were struggles between the city-dwellers and the nomads, it is likely that this rarely took the form of all the nomads uniting against all the city-dwellers. Rather, based on anthropological analogy, we can assume that nomadic clans were often related by descent, marriage, or shared interests with nearby city-dwellers; wars more probably were often fought between one city-state and its nomad kinsmen and allies, and a rival city-state and its nomad confederates. Nomadic warfare would be characterized by plundering raids; generally speaking, nomads would not besiege and assault the massive city walls of the period on their own. None the less, nomads would have been a constant and sometimes decisive element in Canaanite warfare.

Middle Bronze Age I (or Early Bronze IV) {2300–2000}¹⁰

Although we still have found no contemporary written records and few artistic sources from Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, we do have increased written sources from Egypt, and, for the first time, Egyptian artistic depictions of Canaanite warriors. We are thus able to have a fuller understanding of Middle Bronze warfare.

The most striking characteristic of the shift from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age is the massive destruction and abandonment of the Early Bronze Age cities. Those large cities that were not entirely abandoned were only inhabited by scattered squatters rather than the former dense urban populations of the Early Bronze period. Most of the population of Canaan early Middle Bronze I seems to have consisted of semi-nomadic herders. There were three factors which contributed to the collapse of urban life in the early Middle Bronze Age: ecological degradation, tribal migration, and Egyptian invasion. The exact balance and interrelationship between these three factors cannot be determined, but each played a significant role. As discussed elsewhere (pp. 249–51), from an ecological point of view the twenty-third and twenty-second centuries seem to have been periods of serious crisis and drought in the Near East. This was perhaps compounded by deforestation and over-utilization of limited resources by Early Bronze cities. Cities facing decreasing productivity would be hard pressed not to attack their neighbors to resolve their crisis. Extended drought would have not only created a struggle for increasingly limited resources between cities, but would have compelled the nomads to increasing militancy as they sought for depleted water and grazing lands, culminating in tribal migration from the marginal ecologically stricken steppe country into the farmland. As nomads plundered weakly defended farming villages, the already stressed food resources of the city-states would be further depleted. Such cities might be willing to submit to a rising nomadic warlord and his confederate clans, and, in predatory fashion, join the attack on the next citystate. Some scholars see widespread nomadic migrations throughout the Near East during this period, and have associated events in Canaan with the contemporary rise to power of Amorite princes in Mesopotamia and Syria,¹¹ broadly paralleling much later Near Eastern migrations of nomadic Arabs, Turks, and Mongols.

The third factor in the collapse of Early Bronze urbanism was Egyptian invasion. The most striking examples of these are the five campaigns of Weni, undertaken in the late Sixth Dynasty {c. 2340}, which are discussed in detail on pp. 336–40.¹² Unfortunately, we are not told the precise chronology or the motivation for these attacks. Weni simply tells us he invaded Canaan at the head of an army of “many tens of thousands from all of Upper Egypt” along with Nubian mercenaries. This number is presumably hyperbole, but none the less Weni was probably at the head of an army which was virtually unstoppable by the Canaanite city-states. The devastation wrought by Weni is vividly described in his triumph poem:

This army returned in safety,

It had ravaged the Sand-dwellers’ land.

This army returned in safety,

It had flattened the Sand-dwellers’ land.

This army returned in safety,

It had sacked its strongholds.

This army returned in safety,

It had cut down its figs, its vines.

This army returned in safety,

It had thrown fire in all its [dwellings].

This army returned in safety,

It had slain its troops by many ten-thousands.

This army returned in safety,

[It had carried] off many [troops] as captives. (AEL 1:20)

The fundamental problem in interpreting this text is to decide if Weni is engaged in vainglorious hyperbole, or an accurate description of the actual campaign. Weni describes destroying the agricultural infrastructure, fortresses, cities, and houses, and killing or enslaving thousands. Furthermore, he engaged in five campaigns:

His majesty sent me to lead this army five times, to attack the land of the Sand-dwellers as often as they rebelled, with these troops. I acted so that his majesty praised me [for it beyond anything].

(AEL 1:20)

If each of Weni's five campaigns conquered and sacked two Canaanite city-states, half of the land would have been left desolate. And, in fact, archaeologically, that is precisely what we see; all Early Bronze Age Canaanite cities are destroyed or abandoned within a generation or two. It is quite tempting to see Weni's campaigns – and perhaps other similar unrecorded campaigns – as a crucial factor in the collapse of Canaanite urbanism at the end of the Early Bronze Age (ECI 63–9).

The long-term result of the combination of climatic change, environmental degradation, intense competition between rival city-states, nomadic migration, and Egyptian invasions was the collapse of urban life for several centuries. On the other hand, several sites in modern Jordan – such as Iktanu (EA 3:143–4), Khirbet Iskander (EA 3:188–9), and Aroer (Ara'ir) (EA 1:177–8) – seem to have escaped this collapse. These cities show continuity in urban life between the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Ages, with continuation of the Early Bronze tradition of massive fortification building (ALB 158). For the most part, however, fortification building disappears during the early Middle Bronze period.

This is not to say that warfare disappeared; only that it changed from city-state to nomadic clan warfare. The development of pastoralism and small village subsistence agriculture as the predominant form of social and economic organization in Canaan for several centuries was not accompanied by a loss of metallurgical skills (AW 156–7). Whether acquired by trade or indigenous manufacture, copper and bronze weapons remained important in Canaan, probably used in ongoing clan warfare between rival nomadic groups. Indeed, true tin-copper bronze alloying becomes widespread only in the Middle Bronze period. Metalworking seems to have been a specialty among some nomadic clans, one of which is depicted as migrating to Egypt to sell their metalwork (ALB 166; AW 1:166–7, 59; EWP 124). Some early Middle Bronze burial sites include copper or bronze weapons with the grave goods (MW; ALB 160, 165–6). These generally include daggers and/or spearheads, precisely the same weapons found in the panoply of Early Bronze warriors, demonstrating the continuing importance of the warrior in early Middle Bronze Canaan.

In his manual of political advice for his son Merikare, king Akhtoy of Egypt {c. 2090–2070?} gave a description of these warlike nomadic Canaanites of Middle Bronze I:

But now, these things are said about the barbarian [nomadic] bowmen: the vile Easterner is wretched because of the place where he is – lacking in water, barren of trees, whose roads are painful because of the mountains. He has never settled in any one place, lack of food makes him wander about on foot! He has been fighting since the [mythical] Time of Horus [at the beginning of the world]. He cannot conquer; he cannot be conquered. He does not announce the day of battle, but sneaks about like a gang of thieves.… Do not worry about him! The Easterner is a crocodile on its riverbank that can snatch [his victim] from a lonely road but cannot take from the quay of a populous town.

(TS 223–4 = ECI 67 = AEL 1:103–4)

Even when the cultural bias of this Egyptian view of Canaanite nomads is taken into consideration, this text none the less gives us an important insight into the nomadic warriors of Middle Bronze I: migration through barren terrain; constant raids and counter-raids, stealthy tactics in search of plunder, and the unwillingness to come to decisive battle.

In one sense, the collapse of the Early Bronze city-states strengthened the military position of the Canaanites relative to Egypt. The Early Bronze city-states of Canaan represented an ideal target for Egyptian military intervention. They were small enough that they could not single-handedly resist the overwhelming military force of an Egyptian invading army such as Weni's. On the other hand, they were large enough to provide enough potential plunder to make military action attractive to the Egyptians. The nomads of the early Middle Bronze period, on the other hand, did not have sufficient wealth to economically justify a major Egyptian attack. The costs of such a campaign to the Egyptians would outweigh any potential economic benefit from plunder. Furthermore, when faced with an invading Egyptian army, the nomads would simply practice their traditional strategy of withdrawal and dispersal, waiting for the Egyptian army to depart, after which they would return to their grazing grounds. Added to this was the problem that, during Middle Bronze I, Egypt was fragmented politically into several rival kingdoms; there were therefore no major Egyptian military expeditions during this period. Rather, as discussed on pp. 379–81, there are a number of indications that Canaanite and Sinai nomads migrated into the north-eastern delta during this period, whether as mercenaries, traders, or raiders, or simply to graze their flocks in Egyptian pastures. Rather than conquering and plundering cities in Canaan, as Weni had in the late Old Kingdom, Akhtoy III was found fighting Canaanite nomads in the delta of Egypt {c. 2025} (TS 223–4 = AEL 1:104).

Middle Bronze Age II {2000–1550}¹³

With the coming of the Middle Bronze II period we find a much richer set of sources for the military history of Canaan, with archaeology supplemented by texts and martial art, both indigenous Canaanite and Egyptian. Middle Bronze II was an era of ”almost total revolution in all aspects of material culture: settlement pattern, urbanism, architecture, pottery, metallurgy, and burial customs” (ALB 175). The same is true for warfare. The most striking difference between Middle Bronze I and II is the re-emergence of a number of large cities with massive fortifications (ALB 176–81, 197–208; AW 1:65–9).¹⁴ While most small rural farming settlements remained unprotected, nearly all large cities were strongly fortified. Most of the new fortification techniques found in Canaan seem to have been introduced from Syria, from which colonists migrated into northern Canaan and down the coast (ALB 178–9). A spreading feature of Middle Bronze II fortifications is the building of massive earthen ramparts in addition to city walls.¹⁵ These seem to have been designed largely to prevent siege equipment from being placed against the walls, but also to raise the overall height and size of the fortifications. Other sites built large glacis to attempt to perform a similar function with less expenditure of resources (ABL 202–5). Middle Bronze Canaanite fortresses were built from stone or brick, usually with massive towers and bastions at key positions. Walls ranged from 3 to 10 meters thick and up to 10 meters high. Some sites, like Hazor, had fortified citadel and palace complexes on higher ground which could be defended independently in the event of the fall of the main city. Hazor was the largest Canaanite city-state during this period, covering an area of 80 hectares, with a potential population of 20,000. One of Hazor's kings, Ibni-Adad {c. 1770}, is known from northern Syrian texts to have been involved in international affairs there (SHP 54). City gates were strongly fortified, with long narrow hallways, chambers for guards, and huge wooden gates. A remarkable arched brick gateway survives at Dan (Figure 7; ALB 207; THL 93). By the late Middle Bronze II a standardized fortified gate begins to appear; surviving examples are found at Gezer, Hazor, Yavneh-Yam, and Shechem.¹⁶ These new gates, sometimes called “Solomonic”, were flanked by two huge towers, with guardrooms, and stairs allowing ascent to upper levels. The gatehouse was divided by pilasters into two inner chambers and had two huge wooden gates, allowing a double defense against any assault (ALB 205–8). These massive fortification programs indicate that Middle Bronze II was an age of serious and sustained military threat.

Figure 7 Middle Bronze Age gate at Tel Dan, Israel {c. 2000–1800}. This gate includes stone foundations, a brick arch over the gateway, thick high walls, and projecting towers flanking the gate. Source: Photograph by William Hamblin.

Archaeologists have discovered a number of well preserved bronze weapons from Middle Bronze II which give us a good understanding of the basic Canaanite panoply of this period (MW 1:168–70; ALB 184–5, 218–19; AW 1:166–75). In addition to the spear and dagger of earlier times, the axe becomes increasingly prominent, as it does in late Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt (Figure 2j–l, p. 69). This spear–axe–dagger weapon combination in tombs is not, however, universal. Some burials have only one, while others have a combination of only two of the three (MW 1:168–70). Another striking characteristic of the archaeological record is that, although the bow appears as an important Canaanite weapon in numerous Egyptian textual and artistic sources from the Middle Kingdom, arrowheads are rarely found in Middle Bronze tombs in comparison to other weapon-types (MW 1:144–6). This should alert us to the fact that weapons associated with burial practices are more concerned with social status and religious ritual than with the actual practical military usage of the living (MW 1:149–61). Likewise, perishable weapons, such as bows, will be inherently under-represented in archaeology when compared to bronze weapons.

Another development in weapons technology in Middle Bronze II is the appearance of the curved sickle-sword, or scimitar (Egyptian ḫpš) (AW 1:60–1). The origins of this weapon in twenty-first century Mesopotamia are discussed elsewhere (see pp. 66–71; Figure 2a–f, p. 67). In Palestine a single example is known from Shechem, although three such weapons were found at the royal tombs of Byblos (MA 1:142–3, 2:514; AW 1:172). Syrian or Canaanite sickle-swords may also be mentioned as plunder taken in an Egyptian raid in Syria during the reign of Amenemhet II {1929–1895} (ECI 79 n49). They are also depicted as divine weapons in contemporary Mesopotamian art (AW 1:173). Their association with royal tombs and gods has led Graham to suggest that they may have been special or even uniquely royal weapons (MW 1:170–1). A final new weapon to appear in Middle Bronze II is the almost spike-like narrow-bladed axe (Figure 2g, p. 69; AW 1:60, 174; MW 2: figs 1–4, 8, 57). Yadin suggests it originated in Mesopotamia, where it was specially designed to pierce helmets or armor (AW 1:60; MW 1:176–7); it was later traded or copied in Canaan, even though there is no evidence of armor in either Egypt or Canaan during the Middle Bronze.

Egyptian artistic sources confirm and supplement our archaeological information about Middle Bronze Canaanite dress and weapons.¹⁷ The most famous of these is the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (Tomb 3), with its splendid color murals depicting the arrival in Egypt of an armed Canaanite caravan under the chieftain Abisha (AW 1:166, OHAE 192). Canaanites in Egyptian art are generally shown dressed in multi-colored kilts and tunics, but none are shown with armor or helmets. Canaanite warriors are armed with all types of Middle Bronze weapons, including bows (AW 1:166–7; EWW 38), javelins (AW 1:166–9), fighting sticks (BH 2 §15b; AW 1:159, 166–7), slings (BH 2 §5b, §15b; AW 1:159), axes (BH 2 §5b, §15b; AW 1:59, 169), large curved axes (BH1 §16; AW 1:166–9), and bronze daggers (BH 2 §5c). Many Canaanite warriors were double-armed with either a missile and a melee weapon, or with two melee weapons. These include nearly every possible combination of weapons:

· axe and fighting stick (or sling?) (BH 2 § 15b)

· bow and sling (or fighting stick?) (BH 2 §5c, 1 §47)

· bow and bronze dagger (BH 2 §5c)

· sling and bronze dagger (BH 1 §47)

· bow and axe (BH 2 §5c, 1 §47; AAK 2/1.8)

· large curved axe and javelin (AW 1:169; AAK 2/1.7)

· large curved axe and axe (AW 1:169)

· bronze dagger and large curved axe (TEM 150–1)

Although no Canaanites have armor or helmets, some are shown carrying a distinctive rectangular shield with triangular indentations on the top and bottom (BH 2 §15b; EWW 38; AAK 2/1.9); only one Canaanite is shown with an Egyptian-style shield (BH 2 §5b). All Canaanites with shields are armed with axes.

Egyptian martial art depicting Canaanite warriors can be supplemented by indigenous Canaanite art from scattered scarabs, seals, and religious artifacts, much of which is stylistically strongly influenced by Egyptian, Syrian, and Mesopotamian iconography (ALB 222–3). From the military perspective, these sources often depict gods or heroic figures armed with contemporary weapons. The weapons depicted include knives (GG §7–8), bronze daggers (GG §39c¹⁸), axes (GG §29), and long-handled “duckbill” axes (GG §35). Some warrior-gods are double-armed with mace and axe (GG §30) or mace and sickle-sword (GG §31a). Highly abstracted and stylized depictions of the Canaanite weather-god shows him standing in the traditional pharaonic smiting pose; the weapon held by the god, if any, is unclear, but would presumably be an axe or mace (GG §32). These few examples of Middle Bronze Canaanite martial art confirm the archaeological and Egyptian data reflecting the military importance of daggers and axes. To these can be added an eighteenth century vase painting showing two Canaanite warriors in a duel with daggers (AW 1:72). Both the overall quantity and detail of art and the prevalence of martial themes greatly increase in the Late Bronze Age (GG 49–132).

Indigenous contemporary Canaanite written sources appear for the first time in the Middle Bronze Age. Unfortunately, these amount to half a dozen texts from Hazor and Gezer written in Akkadian on clay tablets, none of which contain significant military information (ALB 224). The other major possible Middle Bronze text is the Abraham tradition in the Bible. However, the use of the Bible as an historical source for the Middle Bronze Age is fraught with controversy. Interpretations range from fundamentalist views that every detail of the biblical narrative is not only historical, but inerrant, to minimalist views that nothing in the biblical accounts can be accepted as authentic history unless confirmed by non-biblical sources.¹⁹ In many ways such debates are more about theology than history, often thinly masking a much deeper debate about the overall spiritual authenticity and authority of the Bible. None the less, similar debates have occurred in classical studies, concerning for instance the historicity of Homer's account of the Trojan War, or late Greek traditions about much earlier Greek history. The fundamental question is: how much historical credence should be placed in a late text purportedly describing events that occurred centuries earlier? This is linked to related questions concerning the reliability and durability of oral traditions. The answer is, of course, that some parts of oral traditions preserve authentic ancient information, while other parts represent later misunderstandings, accretions, conflations, or outright fabrications. The problem becomes determining which parts of the ancient tradition are authentic and which parts are inaccurate. Thus, although the biblical Abraham tradition should be approached with caution as a source for Middle Bronze warfare, it should not be ignored.

From the perspective of military history, the most interesting Abraham tradition is Genesis 14, which describes a war between rival city states in Canaan (M = MBA §24). The story is apparently a very old one, since the author of the text feels the need to repeatedly explain things to his contemporary readers (i.e. Iron Age Israelites), such as the current names for a number of the ancient place-names he uses (Genesis 14.3, 6, 7, 15, 17). Attempts to identify the kings mentioned in the story through other contemporary records have failed. In military terms the story tells of a coalition of four kings from the north (14.1), who forced a coalition of five kings of Canaan to “serve” them as tributaries for twelve years. After this, the southern Canaanite kings rebelled (14.2–4), bringing swift reprisal by way of an invasion from the army of the northern coalition. The story describes a patchwork of ethnic groups in Canaan – Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, Amalekites, and Amorites (14.5–7) – each of whom inhabited small independent enclaves in Canaan and Transjordan, and were defeated in turn by the northern coalition. The land of Canaan is inhabited by numerous tribal groups and city-states, each ruled by an independent king (melek), which form into rival coalitions competing for hegemony. Defeated enemies flee and are ruthlessly hunted down (14.10); defeated cities are plundered and their inhabitants enslaved (14.11). A wealthy and powerful nomad, Abraham, whose semi-urbanized kinsman Lot is swept up in the chaos of war (14.12), calls upon his allied tribal chiefs (14.13), while mustering men from among his own tribal warriors (hanīk “trained” or “dedicated”?) (14.14) to rescue his captured kinsman. Abraham's tribal army of 318 men was perhaps matched by similar numbers from his three allied Amorite nomadic chiefs Mamre, Eshkol, and Aner; this would give the nomads an army of 1000–1200 men, a force which was apparently strong enough to ambush and defeat the combined field armies of the four enemy kings (14.15) and free his kinsman Lot and all the other captives (14.16). A sacrifice of thanksgiving for victory in battle, along with a tenth of all the plunder, is piously offered to Melchizedek, the priest of the god El Shaddai (“God Most High”), who then blesses Abraham (14.18–19). Thereafter some of the remaining spoil is returned to its rightful owners and punctiliously divided among the nomads (14.21–24). The story makes overall military sense when compared with all the other fragmentary contemporary Middle Bronze evidence that we have. This does not, of course, prove that the story is historical – it may simply be a fictional legend with historical verisimilitude. But this obscures the real point for our purpose here; as we have seen elsewhere, ancient military fiction often tells us more about the realities of ancient warfare than the often tendentious contemporary royal propaganda inscriptions.

Biblical traditions also provide us with possible ethnographic and geographic information on the Middle Bronze Age, in the form of traditions about ancient inhabitants of Canaan who preceded the rise of Israel. These people are known as Nephalim (Numbers 13.33), Anakim (Numbers 13; Joshua 14–15), Rephaim, Emim and Horites (Deuteronomy 2:10–12). They are described as ancient, warlike, and fearsome people of great strength and size (Numbers 13.32–3). Such descriptions are believed to represent Israelite recollections of the warlike pre-Israelite peoples from perhaps the late Middle Bronze through the Late Bronze Age who built the huge ancient ruined fortresses the Israelites saw – it must be remembered that, by the time of the Israelite kingdom, some of the ruined Bronze Age cities were already well over a thousand years old.²⁰

Egyptian military intervention in Middle Bronze Canaan will be discussed in detail in Chapter Sixteen. These Egyptian sources contain several striking descriptions of the warfare of Middle Bronze II Canaanites. The historicity of the Egyptian “Story of Sinuhe”, like the tale of Abraham's war with the four kings, is disputed. None the less, the tale of Sinuhe is certainly contemporary with the Middle Bronze Age, and thus provides a crucial snapshot of contemporary Canaanite warfare. The broader context of the story will be discussed later (pp. 430–3); here we will only review Sinuhe's description of Canaanite arms and warfare. Sinuhe describes the military life of Amorite pastoralists in the nineteenth century:

When the Canaanite [rulers of the city-states] conspired to attack the [nomad] rulers of the Hill-Countries, I opposed their movements. For this ruler of Canaan [Amunenshi, the tribal chief and Sinuhe's father-in-law] made me carry out numerous missions as commander of his troops. Every hill tribe against which I marched I vanquished, so that it was driven from the pasture of its wells. I plundered its cattle, carried off its families, seized their food, and killed people by my strong arm, by my bow, by my [tactical] movements and my skillful plans.

(AEL 1:227)

Sinuhe also provides us with the most detailed narrative description of the arms and combat methods of an unnamed Middle Bronze Canaanite warrior, with whom Sinuhe engages in single combat; “Easterner” is an Egyptian term for Canaanites, who lived to the north-east of Egypt.

He [Sinuhe's Canaanite enemy] raised his battle-axe [minb] and shield, while his armful of javelins [nywy] flew toward me. When I made his [missile] weapons attack me, I let his arrows pass me by without effect, one following the other. Then, [when he was out of missiles], he charged me, and I shot him, my arrow sticking in his neck. He screamed and fell on his face; I slew him with his [own] axe. I gave my war cry, standing on his back, while every Easterner [in my tribe] bellowed [in triumph].

(AEL 228)

Complementing both the archaeological and artistic data discussed above, Sinuhe's Canaanite enemy is armed with shield, axe, and multiple javelins. The warrior first engages in an exchange of missiles, after which he charges for a melee with his axe.

Another Egyptian warrior, Sebek-khu, described an undated campaign of Senwosret III {1878–1843} against Palestine:

[After the Nubian campaign] his majesty traveled downstream [northward] to overthrow the Bedouin of Canaan. His majesty arrived at a foreign land, Shechem [skmm] by name.… Then Shechem fell, together with the vile Retjenu [Canaanites], while I acted as the rearguard [for the army on its return march to Egypt]. Then the soldiers joined in to fight with the Easterners [who attacked the rear of the column]. Thereupon I [personally] captured an Easterner. Then I had his weapons seized by two soldiers. There was no turning back from the fray, but my face was [always] to the fore [of the battle]. I did not show my back to the Easterner [in retreat].

(AI 120 = ARE 1:304–5)

Here we see an army from Egypt invading Canaan and sacking one of the city-states. As in the story of Abraham's war, other Canaanites wait until the Egyptian army is marching homeward, slowed down by plunder and women and children slaves. The Canaanites then ambush the Egyptians, but, unlike Abraham, their attack is thwarted by Sebek-khu's firm defense.

Like the Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Canaan was organized into about two dozen major city-states, each ruled by its own independent king (melek), and dominating the surrounding satellite agricultural villages. These city-states formed various coalitions, with shifting patterns of dominance and submission punctuated by warfare between rivals as well as battles with Syrian, Egyptian, and nomadic enemies. The names of most of these city-states, kings, and wars are lost to history. None the less, a very broad pattern can be discerned through the Egyptian Execration Texts, ritual magic designed to curse the enemies of Egypt.²¹ Scholars generally think that the early Execration Texts (the Mirgissa and Berlin collections) {c. 1950} (CS 1:50–2) describe a different political situation in Canaan than the later Execration Texts (Brussels collection) {c. 1800}. The earlier texts appear to describe regions and tribes rather than towns. The later texts focus more on specific towns and individual rulers following more organized itineraries. This has led scholars to speculate that we are seeing a military transformation in these texts from domination of the region by semi-nomadic clans and their chiefs representing the type of political situation in Middle Bronze I, to the world of Canaanite city-states and kings of Middle Bronze II. This seems to confirm the evidence of archaeology concerning the domination of Canaan by nomads during Middle Bronze I and the restoration of urban life at the beginning of Middle Bronze II. What is clear is that Canaan is a land fragmented into numerous clans and city-states, and that the Egyptians felt the need to curse the lot of them: “their strong men, their messengers, their confederates, their allies, the tribesmen in Canaan, who will rebel, who will plot, who will fight, who will say that they will fight, who will say that they will rebel in this entire land” (CS 1:52). Unfortunately, the texts amount to little more than a list of place, tribal and personal names, providing no specific information about alliances or ongoing feuds. None the less, we get a quick glimpse at the complexity of Canaanite political order, with dozens of cities, kings, and tribal chiefs.

Middle Bronze IIB Canaan {1750–1550} belongs to a new phase in ancient Near Eastern military history. This period was the most dynamic in ancient Canaanite military history, in which the introduction of the chariot, composite bow and metal armor from Anatolia and Syria (see Chapter Five) revolutionized warfare, both in Canaan and throughout the Near East. During this period Canaanites first emigrated into and later invaded the Egyptian delta, creating the most powerful Canaanite military confederation of the late Middle Bronze known to the Egyptians as the “foreign rulers” or Hyksos.²² This will hopefully be the subject of a future study.