The Southern Levant in Transition: Sociopolitical Dynamics of the Middle to Late Bronze Ages
The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant is a transition from drought and famine in EB IV to security. Those affected by these environmental changes adapted to and overcame the circumstances of the drying phase that impacted much of the northern hemisphere, learning from the failures of the past in order to create a better future.
The previous period in the Southern Levant, Early Bronze IV, was a period of disquietude. The large, walled cities of EB III were no longer in use; in their place, many small, unwalled villages appear, much like the EB I phase. The region was sparsely populated (Mazar 1990: 151), and with the exception of a few walled cities, most fortified polities were found only in the north (Bar, Cohen, and Zertal 2013: 172). As a matter of fact, the majority of EB IV settlements are established at locations different than EB III settlements (Regev et al. 2012: 527).
Rather than urban centers, the Southern Levantine populace in EB IV mainly consisted of mobile pastoralists and village dwellers (Mazar 1990: 151) living in either small, undefended villages or transitory encampments and primarily acting as herders who sold their products to the benefit of the wool industry of the north (Schloen 2017: 64). These pastoralists included semi-mobile herders (Greenberg 2017: 47) and nomadic pastoralists (Gidding 2016: 26), the latter of which would include the biblical Patriarch, Abraham.
Middle Bronze Age.
Of note, after many years of debate, Middle Bronze terminology is still confusing. William Foxwell Albright, sometimes referred to as the Dean of Biblical Archaeology, referred to Middle Bronze I as the period between the twenty-second and nineteenth centuries, B.C., and Middle Bronze II following (cf. a personal letter from W.F. Albright to Nelson Glueck dated Oct. 29, 1934). As has already been noted, that period of time has now been linked with the Early Bronze Age and represents EB IV.
To avoid confusion, many simply continue with Albright’s terminology (Yadin 1978: 1) skipping MB I and beginning the Middle Bronze Age with MB II, specifically MB IIA. Others, such as Kathleen Kenyon, William Dever, etc. have attempted to correct the issue by referring to either the Intermediate Bronze Age (Yadin 1978: 1) or Early Bronze IV (D’Andrea 2014: 151) and then immediately beginning the Middle Bronze Age with MB I (Mazar 1990: 175). Of course, this issue will not be solved any time soon, so as you read about the period, the student will need to attempt to interpret when the scholar means.
Beyond the confusion of the Early Bronze IV period, differing scholars include differing divisions to the Middle Bronze Age, stemming from the following division (Bienkowski 1989: 169):
MB IIA (MB I): ca. 1950-1800 B.C.
MB IIB (MB II): ca. 1800-1650 B.C.
MB IIC (MB III): ca. 1650-1550 B.C.
For some, Middle Bronze IIB-C is a combined phase, but others see a sharp break between the two periods (Bienkowski 1989: 169). As the original subphrases of IIB and IIC were established in an attempt to refine the ceramic typology of two sites, and as it is quite difficult to differentiate ceramically between two periods only a hundred years apart, this author will follow Amihai Mazar (1990: 193) and refer to EB IV followed by MB IIA followed by MB IIB-C.
MB IIA.
The first period of the Middle Bronze Age is known as MB IIA and extends from ca. 2000-1750 B.C. (Mazar 1990: 30). Here, a stark contrast between EB IV and MB IIA can be seen in settlement patterns, in particular the shift toward monumental architecture (Homsher 2012: 1). Of course, every period contains a transition, and this can be seen in the earliest phases of MBIIA as fortifications are practically unattested (D’Andrea 2014: 154). Interestingly, in the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe, a temporary exile to Canaan written during this period (Kemp 2006: 21), semi-nomadic pastoralists are said to have opened their encampment to the Egyptian, feeding and sheltering him for a time. Of note, although Sinuhe mentions several cities in the Northern Levant (Charaf 2013: 446), the region in which he is staying is made up of transitory camps and likely represents the very beginning of the Middle Bronze Age post EB IV (Mazar 1990: 185-86).
During the latter part of Middle Bronze IIA (D’Andrea 2014: 154) in the Southern Levant there was an almost complete change in material culture from Early Bronze IV (Mazar 1990: 175). This period witnessed a regeneration of urban societies (Morr and Pernot 2011: 2613), initially along the coastal regions and routes of both transportation and communication (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 453), and the region of the Levant developed into a unified Canaanite culture (Dever 1987: 175) as a result of the rise of that urbanization (Mazar 1990: 174) that intertwined the north with the south.
Fortifications at the time include such defensive installations as earthen ramparts, mud brick walls on stone foundations, rectangular towers, and glacis, many sites of which appear on virgin soil (Mazar 1990: 176). These cities sometimes contained multi-entry gates, and the urban planning was different than that of EB III (Homsher 2012: 1). The rather rapid onset of this “second urbanization” was likely strongly influenced by the Northern Levant (D’Andrea 2014: 151-52), particularly as fortified cities sprang up in the northern parts of the Southern Levant (Mazar 1990: 178-79) and contained many similarities to Northern Levantine sites, such as Ebla (Mazar 1990: 180-81).
Ceramics, too, were quite different than the previous EB IV period, as first determined at major urban centers such as Aphek (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 455). This newly formed, combined Canaanite culture allowed for the interchange of ideas to spread across the region, including that of the potter’s fast wheel, resulting in new varieties and shapes that appear unrelated to the ceramics of the deflated EB IV period but recall types from the first urbanization period under EB III (Mazar 1990: 182).
In the earliest phases of MBIIA, pottery assemblages are quite similar to the inland regions of the Northern Levant, but by the middle phase of the period, red slipped and burnished pottery is common (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 455), and decorations of red or black paint are quite similar to the ceramic assemblage at Byblos (Mazar 1990: 182-83).
Of particular interest to a later chapter in this study are a group of ostraca from Egypt, inscriptions on pottery fragments, dating to the Middle Bronze Age called Execration Texts. Execration Texts cite places or peoples to be cursed who were hostile to Egypt. Of note, later Execration Texts contain many more place names in Canaan than the earliest Execration Texts, possibly suggesting a continued expansion in the Southern Levant (Mazar 1990: 186). Interestingly, earlier texts include theophoric place names in the Southern Levant using ’el or ilu elements, establishing the semitic El as a deity of note in the region; later Execration Texts reveal a shift as theophoric place names now include Hadad rather than El, Hadad being another name for Ba’al (Gray 1997:119).
A third major innovation during the Middle Bronze IIA concerns the use of metals, specifically the large-scale introduction of bronze alloy (Morr and Pernot 2011: 2613). After two millennia of copper and arsenic copper use in the Levant, complex metal alloying is introduced (Shalev 2009: 69).
New metallurgical practices brought new tools and weapons, including the “duckbill axe” discovered in the Southern and Northern Levant and as far away as the Mari region (Mazar 1990: 184), suggesting interchange between the Levant and northern Mesopotamia. Other new weapons and tools include the before mentioned chisel-shaped axe, shafted spearheads, a new dagger design, and the sickle sword (Mazar 1990: 184-85).
MB IIB-C.
Interestingly, most MBA sites in the Southern Levant contain a great quantity of either MB IIA or MB IIB-C materials (Ilan, Bonfil, and Marcus 2019: 6), establishing a somewhat clear break between the two periods. Of note, the transition was rather smooth and peaceful, and the growth of MB IIB-C likely had much to do with a dwindling Egypt whose thirteenth dynasty was a period of weakness (Mazar 1990: 191). The instability of Egypt at this time allowed for independent growth on the part of the Levantine city-states.
Thus, from MB IIB is introduced a trend of settlement expansion, as seen at Shechem, Hebron, Jerusalem, and beyond (Ilan, Bonfil, and Marcus 2019: 6), including great fortification systems suggesting an organized central authority within those cities and even a rivalry between them (Mazar 1990: 197). This expansion may be explained by the wetter seasons during MB IIB-C as compared to earlier dates (Cohen 2022: 220), water increasing food and other resource yields.
This continuation of MB IIA developments led towards a centralization of economic, political, and social systems, as well as a standardization of material culture (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 459). Fortifications during this time were unparalleled in sophistication, specifically including massive glacis and earthen ramparts designed to negate siege devices and techniques by creating steep artificial slopes below the city walls (Mazar 1990: 198).
Of note, as the Middle Bronze Age continued, rural settlements are abandoned in favor of the safety and security of walled cities, and these walled cities develop well-planned public buildings, suggesting a palace economy (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 459-60), but note that Tell el-Hayyat remained an unwalled village during MB IIB-C despite the presence of a classic Canaanite temple of a smaller scale to those at neighboring urban sites (D’Andrea 2014: 155).
Pottery at this stage moves away from the regionalistic differences and red burnished ware of MB IIA, and although basic forms continue from the previous period, significant changes are made (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 460). As much time had passed since the introduction to the fast wheel, the use of the fast wheel was perfected, creating particularly good quality ceramics (Mazar 1990: 214), including the now wheel-made cooking pots (Killebrew, Steiner, and Cohen 2013: 460). The red burnished surface treatments were now replaced with a white or creamy slip, and painted decorations are rare (Mazar 1990: 214).
Weapons, too, go through a stage of improvement, the transition being quite complex as tin-bronze appears abruptly (Kan-Cipor-Meron 2018: 2). The use of the earlier arsenic alloy in spears no longer appears and is exchanged for high tin bronze (Shalev 2009: 75). Shafthole axes, on the other hand, were diversely made, containing either arsenic copper or tin bronze (Shalev 2009: 73). Middle Bronze IIB-C also saw an increase in prestige grave goods (Marcus 2002: 250), though the so-called “warrior burials” dating to MB IIA declining in occurrence by MB IIB (Kan-Cipor-Meron 2018: 1).
Late Bronze Age.
Whereas the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant is a period of prosperity, the Late Bronze Age in the region experienced both a high point, technologically, mercantilely, and artistically (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 535), and a period of decline, in terms of the number and sizes of settlements, including the abandonment or destruction of fortifications, and the quality of some material culture (DePietro 2012: 1). The period is dually characterized by the domination by the Egyptian Empire and both economic and culture involvement in world affairs, thus marking the Late Bronze Age as a pivotal moment in the history, culture, and society of the region (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 535).
The political entities that existed in the Southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age were basically the same political entities that existed in the Late Bronze Age (Pfälzner 2012: 770), except now the region consists of differing vassal kingdoms who were subject to foreign rule (DePietro 2012: 2), the south being controlled by Egypt. Interestingly, many of the destructions found at the dawn of the Late Bronze Age may had been partly due to Egyptian pursuit of the Hyksos (Dever 1987: 175), having chased the Hyksos into the Levant and recaptured the region at the same time. In fact, the subdivisions of the Late Bronze Age are intricately tied to the New Kingdom of Egypt (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 535). Additionally, at this time, the entirety of the Near East, but also Anatolia, the Iranian plateau, the Aegean, and Nubia, became intertwined in an international system that would continue until today (Van de Mieroop 2015: 215).
The Late Bronze Age is divided into either three or four subdivisions, depending on the scholar. These are either a split between LB I-III or LB IA-B and LB IIA-B, as per Mazar (1990: 238). As a whole, the period reveals the Levant as a hub of communication and exchange (Pfälzner 2012: 770), the region being squeezed between Anatolia and Egypt, but also central Mediterranean and Mesopotamian contact and influences, including the Aegean, Cyprus, Syria, and beyond, altogether demonstrating intensive mercantile interactions (Akar 2009: 7).
Settlements and Population.
It is important to note that the population and density of sites declined during this period, the fringe areas becoming deserted and some MB II polities being abandoned (Mazar 1990: 239) and some sites being replaced with Egyptian fortresses (Mazar 1990: 239). Compared to Egypt, the remaining polities in the Southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age were rather small, existing as clusters of semi-autonomous city-states rather than having any imperialistic ambitions (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 537-38).
Although the region was subject to Egypt, it was ruled locally by kings (Gonen 1992: 216). In fact, an Ugaritic letter to the king of Egypt at the time refers to Canaan as the Egyptian king’s land, the inhabitants as the “sons of Canaan,” and the local kings as servants of Egypt (Naʾaman 1999: 35). As such, Canaanite society, culture, and economy oscillated between dependence and autonomy (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 537), between pleasing Egypt and administrating the city-state.
Thus, the political and territorial organization of the Southern Levant was quite diverse and somewhat less integrated than during the Middle Bronze Age (Panitz-Cohen 2013: 537-38). For the first time in the region, peaceful co-existence was possible as settlements negotiated territorial apportionment between themselves (Bryce 2003: 2), appealing to the king of Egypt when needed.
Ḫabiru/Ḫapiru.
During the Amarna Period of the Southern Levant and Egypt, fourteenth century B.C., letters sent to the Egyptian king refer to a people who were continually causing problems in the southern Levantine cities, of which were under the control of Egypt. Within the Amarna Letters, these ‘Ḫabiru’ are seen as enemies who wish to destroy the Canaanite feudal system (Waterhouse 2001: 32), and therefore must dislike Egypt. These enemies appear to have been non-sedentary and lived in the hill country of the southern Levant (Gonen 1992: 217). It has been suggested that these Ḫabiru are in some way related to the Hebrews of the Old Testament (Akers 2012: 271), particularly as the Semitic radicals or letters are the same, H-B-R or H-P-R, and the location and time period somewhat match that of the Hebrew Conquest under Joshua.
The oldest sources that discuss the Ḫabiru come from Kaniš, a city in Anatolia that contained an Assyrian exchange outpost dating to the nineteenth century B.C. (Lemche 1992: 7). Here, it is difficult to ascertain the identity of those referred to with the term, and the time period places the Israelites in Egypt, rather than Anatolia, establishing a difference between the Hebrews and the Ḫabiru.
Still, there appear to have been similarities between the two groups. Firstly, the term ‘Hebrew’ may have had derogatory origins in the Old Testament, particularly as early on, the term was used by Egyptians and Philistines in reference to the Israelites (Feder 2015), such as the instance of Potiphar’s wife referring to Joseph as a Hebrew (Akers 2012: 693). In fact, according to some, it is only later that the term ‘Hebrew’ loses its derogatory connotations (Isserlin 2001: 50), and even today some Jewish commentators believe the term to have anti-Semitic overtones (Feder 2015). Similarly, the term Ḫabiru may be etymologically related to the Semitic root ‘br, meaning “to trespass” (Lemche 1992: 7). In the Amarna Letter EA 318, the name appears alongside the term “robber,” and in EA 290, it would appear that one could become Ḫabiru through warlike challenges to the then present political powers (Akers 2012: 693). Thus, both the Hebrews and the Ḫabiru of the time could be considered “bad guys” by the Egyptians and others.
It would appear that the term Ḫabiru is not an ethnic designation but a name representing a social class of individuals (Naʾaman 1986: 271). Some argue that the Ḫabiru were a peasant class within Canaanite society that revolted against their overlords, a theory that some scholars argue includes the Hebrews who they believe not to be a separate ethnic group as the Bible explains (Dever 2006: 73-74).
On the contrary, what is common to all designated as Ḫabiru is that they appear to have been peoples uprooted from their political frameworks and forced to adapt to new circumstances, having broken away from their former social ties because of war, famine, disasters, and so forth (Naʾaman 1986: 272).
The Ḫabiru seem to be a people who may include the Hebrews. While it would be imprudent to argue that all Ḫabiru are Hebrews, certainly, at least some instances of the Ḫabiru in the Amarna Letters are referring to invading Hebrews attempting to follow the pattern established by Joshua and drive out the inhabitants of the Southern Levant.
Check out the Bible Land Explorer!
[This is a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Fall 2023 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bibliographical material will be posted under Research on this site.]
Comments