The Edomites entered Judah after the Assyrian conquest and exploited the territory. They suffered greatly at the hands of the Babylonians during the early 6^th century BC. Although the Edomite capital Buseirah (in Jordan) has yielded little information, evidence of Edomite presence in Judah is extensive:

The Davidic Kingdom divided in 931 BC (1 Kings 12–14,19; 2 Kings 17:21). Samaria was destroyed and repopulated in 721 BC (2 Kings 17; Ezra 4:2) and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel made their way into Judah, while some stayed behind. When Jews began to return to their homeland during the Persian Period, there was opposition between the Samaritans (People Who Remained) and the returnees (Ezra 4-5). The Myth of the Empty Land refers to the claim that the land was empty, which is likely a manifestation of radical separatism (Ezra 9-10) that just left the people who remained completely unacknowledged (those who remained had developed their own unique culture).

The Midians were caravaneers (Gen 37:28).

Aramaeans originally heralded from the Jebel Bishri hinterland, between the Euphrates and the site which was later the great caravan city of Tadmor (aka Palmyra). It is unclear why Aramaeans thrust toward the Euphrates, but it was likely due to their deforestation of the Jebel Bishri and the resulting soil erosion and rapid run-off of formerly trapped storm rains.

According to Tiglath-Pileser I, the Aramaeans crossed the Euphrates into Assyrian territory. They settled along the Euphrates from the Babylonian border to Carchemish. Noting the importance of the Euphrates as an artery, Tiglath-Pileser I drove the Aramaeans back after crossing the Euphrates on goat-skin rafts.

As the Aramaeans settled, first in Syria, they coalesced into kingdoms. One such kingdom was encountered by King Saul of Israel just before 1,000 BC. However, the Aramaeans in Syria were establishing themselves; this allowed Israel to form treaties with somewhat centralized authorities. Conversely, Aramaeans in Mesopotamia and east of the Euphrates were still nomadic peoples with no central authority; this made them a destabilizing force that could not be diplomatically addressed. By the second half of the 10^th century BC, however, Aramaeans in Mesopotamia had settled enough to cooperate with Assyrian king Ashur-dan II (934-912) and Assyrian prosperity returned.

A member of the Sea Peoples, the Philistines heralded from Aegea — possibly from the collapse Mycenaean civilization — and settled on the Canaanite coast in the early 12^th century BC. The Philistines maintained a unique identity in their cities and settlements for ~600 years. Their early history is recounted from Egyptian and biblical sources; their later history and decline are recounted in Assyrian, Babylonian and the Bible (which describes them as “uncircumcised” aliens).

Rise & Fall of PhilistiaThe Amarna letters mention seafaring mercenaries working for Egypt as early as the 14^th century BC. These mercenaries were hired to raid Byblos (in Canaan) and cities on the Mediterranean’s eastern coast. Reliefs at Luxor and elsewhere describe a 13^th century BC battle at Qadesh, where Sea Peoples helped Ramesses II fight Hittites. A power vacuum ensued, and the Philistines and other Sea Peoples opportunistically advanced inland until Ramesses III stopped them. Ramesses III’s mortuary temple provides the first specific mention of Philistines: “Foreign countries made a conspiracy…their confederation was the Philistines, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye and Weshesh… .”

Upon defeating the Philistines, Ramesses III granted them permission to settle on the southern coastal plain of Canaan (along with the Sherden and Tjeker). Thus, Philistines arrived on the Canaanite coast in two ways: hostile invaders destroying and re-settling Canaanite cities; and as mercenaries in Egyptian-controlled garrison towns. Reliefs at Madinat Habu reveal civilian, chariotry and infantry Philistines; this indicates some desire to settle in lands they conquered. Philistia initially extended from the Yarkon River, to the northwestern Negev, to the western slopes of Judea. Philistine homes at this point were sometimes outside of city walls, indicating that security was not a serious problem.

The Bible mentions five Philistine (aka Cherethites in Zephaniah 2:5; Ezekiel 25:16) capitals, forming the Philistine pentapolis of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Gath and Ekron. Ashqelon was one of the most important Mediterranean ports in its time. Gaza and Ashdod have kept their ancient names. Ancient Ekron is modern Tell Miqne and ancient Gath is modern Tell as-Safi. Semi-autonomous and smaller Philistine settlements include: Ziklag; Timnah; and Jabneh. After territorial victory over the Israelites, the Philistines grew to control the territory west of the Jordan river. Philistine material culture lost its Aegean tradition and Egyptian and Phoenician influences grew dominant. Their power peaked during ~1,050-1,000 BC.

Israelites remained subordinate until Saul established a monarchy, his son Jonathan defeated the Philistines at Michmash and David famously encountered Goliath (a Philistine). When David established the United Monarchy about ten years later, he had “defeated the Philistines and subdued them, and he took Gath and its villages out of the hand of the Philistines” (1 Chronicles 18:1). David then continued to invade Philistine territories, possibly even reducing some to vassaldom. At most Philistine cities, thick layers of debris and ash have been found that date to the start of the 10^th century.

In the four centuries after their military eclipse by David, Philistine cities suffered huge military defeats by Assyria and Babylon. Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC), Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC) and Sargon II (721-705 BC). all of Syria and Palestine to the Egyptian border succumbed to Assyria’s hegemony. Although these territories were divided into vassals, some cities enjoyed an 8^th century BC renaissance. Ashdod had its own king, and Ekron reached its economic zenith only by the beginning of the 6^th century BC. However, local uprisings led to mass deportations (other deportees replaced them). One inscription from Sargon II’s palace at Khorsabad reads:

The Istanbul Prism, a Babylonian document, mentions that Nebuchadnezzar II campaigned in Philistine ~600 BC and imprisoned the king of Ashdod. Philistine cities became part of Neo-Babylonia, and centuries of assimiliation, decimation, deportation and re-settlement had destroyed Philistia’s ethnic distinction. Gaza, Ashqelon and Ashdod flourished again in the Perisan, Hellenistic and Roman periods; however, their heritage had been scrubbed of any Philistine traces.

Philistine CultureThe Philistines initially worshipped the Great Goddess of the Aegean. The Bible mentions Philistian worship of Dagon, a Canaanite god only adopted by the Philisines at the end of the 11^th century BC as local customs were assimilated. A Philistine temple at Tell Qasile was built ~1,1150 BC in an Aegean style. enlarged ~1,100 BC and then rebuilt after destruction by Israelites. Amidst the artifacts are various pottery stands, ceremonial masks, libation vessels and figurines. Bones have been found of sacrificed Goats, sheep, camels, cattle and even hippopotamses. At Ashdod, a female deity shaped like a chair was worshipped until Sargon II’s conquest. An enormous yet airy palace at Ekron was discovered with a cult stand reminiscent of those made for Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem by Hiram, king of Tyre (1 Kings 7:27-30). Philistia’s pentapoli have not yielded burial grounds, but Philistine cemetaries at other sites have shown great diversity. Egyptian anthropoid coffins, Mycenaean rock-cut chamber tombs and even cremation have all been noted. In a nod to Aegean culture, dramatically grieving female terra-cotta figurines have been found in burials. The Philistines eventually fully assimilated into Canaanite culture.

In Summary

Amorites were an ethnolinguistic group of Semites living west of the Euphrates. The English term Amorite is derived from ĕmōrî, a word found in the Hebrew Bible that is adapted from the Akkadian word for Amorites amurrû; the Sumerian term for Amorites is Mar.tu, which like its Akkadian equivalent also mean the compass direction west. It is sometimes unclear when somebody designated as Martu or amurrû is Amorite or just a westerner; the individual’s name can sometimes be of help. Amorites (an ethnolinguistic group) used Akkadian bureaucratically, but there was no written Amorite language and as such Amorite tales and lore have been lost to history. Mesopotamian and Syrian literature, written in Akkadian and often contradictory, is the primary source of Amorite history; Egyptian and other documents are secondary; and scant, intermixed Amorite archaeological finds are tertiary. No Amorite pots nor weapons have even been concretely identified.

Amorites in the Late 3^rd Millennium

A ~2,600/2,500 BC tablet from Fara (ancient Shuruppak) provides the earliest mention of Mar.tu when an individual with a Sumerian name is described as Mar.tu. Later, ~2,400-2,350 BC texts from Ebla describe the country Mar-tu^ki/Mar-tum^ki, and even mention a Mar-tum^ki king named Amuti. These individuals’ names are not Amorite, however, and they may just be other inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia. Shar-kali-sharri (a descendent of Sargon from ~2,200 BC) provides the first account of an Amorite tribe in a date formula from his reign that describes defeating Mar.tu near modern Jebel Bishri, a low mountainous region west of the Euphrates. Mentions of Amorites grow increasingly frequent in the 3^rd millennium and distinctively Amorite names begin to appear.

By Shulgu’s ~2,050 BC reign of Ur, Amorites pressure on the Sumerian kingdom in southern and central Mesopotamia necessitated a massive fortification wall spanning from the Euphrates to an area just north of Baghdad. Amorite villages were controlled or even raided by Mesopotamians; however, some Amorites were given governance and mercenary duties. Letters in Eshnunna (modern Tell Asmar) have revealed uneasy truces arising from marriages between Amorites and the rulers of the city-states they inhabited. However, Amorite’s disruption of Sumerian communications allowed city-states to grow in power to the point that Ibbi-Sin (1,963-1,940 BC), Ur’s last ruler, lost control of his kingdom’s major urban centers. Reports that hostile Amorites had entered the country were heard, and all the grain, 144,00 kor, (that had been bought) was brought into Isin. Now the Amorites in their entirety have entered the heart of the country and have taken the great fortresses one by one. (After Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Reign of Ibbĭ-Suen,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, p. 40)To the right is an excerpt of a letter written by Ishbi-Irra to his overlord Ibbi-Sin. Within a few years, Ibbi-Sin’s reign had fallen (Ishbi-Irra founded his own dynasty at Isin) and a century-long dark age ensued in Mesopotamian history.

Amorites in the Early 2^nd Millennium

During the Mesopotamian dark age after Ur III’s collapse, Amorite mercenaries became the strongest military force and overtook the cities they originally protected (including Larsa, Kish, Babylon, Sippar, Marad and Uruk). A surge in Amorite names is the only evidence of their infiltration; they integrated into Sumero-Babylonian culture so deeply that mentions of Mar.tu grew rare. In ~1,800 BC, Yakhdun-Lim of the Khaneans (Amorite tribes in the Mari region) embarked on ambitious infrastructure projects after overthrowing the Mari king. A nearby Amorite named Shamshi-Adad invaded Mari and seized control upon Yakhdun-Lim’s death, which was possibly by Shamshi-Adad’s orders. Shamshi-Adad placed his younger son Yasmakh-Addu on the Mari throne. When Shamshi-Adad died ~20 years later, Yakhdun-Lim’s son Zimri-Lim assumed the kingship. Zimri-Lim lived opulently in a palace with over 300 rooms across ~3 hectares. The palace contained a massive tablet archive that is a primary source for Old Babylonian Syria and Mesopotamian history for this time period. These tablets were fired for eternal preservation when Hammurabi of Babylon, also an Amorite, conquered Mari in his 35^th year and permanently obliterated it. Another notable kingdom, Yamkhad, stood northwest of Mari and was dominant eastward across north Syria; Yamkhad consisted of Akkadians, Amorites, Hurrians and some Indo-Aryans from the east.

After Hurrians in the north and Kassites had destabilized Amorite kingdoms, the ~1,600 BC raid on Babylon both destroyed Hammurabi’s dynasty and left Syria in shambles. The Amarna period ensued, with opportunistic Hittite, Mitani, Egyptian and eventually even Assyrian rulers fighting for control of territory in Syria. Amurru was a loose confederation of small kingdoms in Syria, Palestine and Arabia that is mostly known through Egyptian execration texts. The term Amurru continued to refer to the region’s kingdoms even after Amurru’s collapse, but only the Hebrew Bible still noted an Amorite ethnicity, referring to Palestine’s inhabitants that would be displaced by the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

Political Organization

The mostly tribal structure of the Amorites has been reconstructed from the archives at Mari. The main tribal population at Mari was Khana (Khaneans), although the word khana later referred to any nomadic population. Khana branched into Sim’al (Sim’alites; literally sons of the left) and Yamina (Yaminites; literally songs of the right); the Sim’al and Yamina were geographically but not ethnically separate. Sim’al was further subdivided into Amnanu, Yakhruru, Uprapu/Ubrabu, Yarikhu and Rabbu/Rababu tribes. Another major tribal group was Sutu (Sutians), which included Almutu, Mikhalizayu and Yakhmamu tribes. In addition to the Khana and Sutu tribes were: Numkha and Yamutbal, along the Khabur; and the Ya’ilanu, found east of the Tigris.

Each tribe had a sug?gu, a liaison with central palace authorities who assembled census information and provided army and corvé conscripts. Amorite nomadism remains vague, but surely included seasonal movement of sheep and goats between traditional tribal grazing grounds along the middle Euphrates and the valley of the Khabur. Near Mari, some pastoralists began to settle as sedentary agriculturalists. As certain Amorites shifted into the urban palace lifestyle, they still had to deal with their sometimes unruly nomadic neighbors.My lord should give his majesty honor. Since you are king of the Kahneans and you are, secondly, king of the Akkadians, my lord ought not ride horses; rather, it is upon a chariot and mules that my lord ought to ride, and in this way he can give honor to his majesty. (After Kupper, Correspondance de Bahdi-Lim, no. 76) In one case, a governor of a Mari district sent a letter to Zimri-Lim to complain about Yaminite troublemakers. However, many rulers still noted their nomadic Amorite heritage that was just a few decades old. In the capital city of Mari, a high official wrote to the king the advice shown to the left. Note that in later times, Hebrew kings and messiahs rode mules as a symbol of their status.

Amorites seizing power in Mesopotamia rapidly took in Sumero-Babylonian traditions, including titles (ie, kingship) and forms, but even after many generations remained aware of their Amorite heritage. For example, the Urukian king Anam wrote to Hammurabi of Babylon’s father Sin-muballit that their mutual Amnan-Yakhruru tribe was grounds for alliance. Some rulers hinted at tribal origins: some kept the title king of the Amnanu alongside the title king of Uruk; others used the title rabiānu (Akkadian for chief), for example rabiānu amurrim (chief of the Amorites), rabiān amnan šadlaš (chief of the Amnanu of Shadlash and even rabiān rababim (chief of the Rababu; used by a ruler of Kisurra); still others used the traditional tribal title abu (father), such as the Elamite Kudur-Mabuk who appointed his son as king of Larsa and thus began a dynasty. A millennium later, Shamshi-Adad (an Amorite from Ekallatum who conquered Ashur) and his ancestors were placed atop the Assyrian Kinglist; in addition to mentions of Khana and Ditanu, this reflects the importance of tribal solidarity. Another list, written for funerary offerings amidst Ammi-saduqa’s early 16^th century reign in Babylon, also mentions the Khana and Ditanu tribes and provides a link between Amorite tribes of Mesopotamia and Syria.

In Summary

Amorite Kingdoms of the Northern Levant in ~1700 BC were: Yamhad; Ugarit; Qatna; Byblos; and possibly Apum.

Bibliography

Whitting 1995.

Before the MittanniThe Hurrian language was very different from Sumerian and Akkadian; presence of distinctive Hurrian names helps to trace when and where Hurrians were present. Also, cuneiform clay tablets from the Mittanni have been found amongst the El Amarna letters. Hurrians entered Mesopotamia from the north as early as the Agade period, possibly from a homeland in highland Armenia. Short-lived minor Hurian states existed by the Agade’s end, and Hurrians existed north of the river Diyala by the Third Dynasty of Ur. By Shamshi-Adad I’s reign, Hurrians had fully permeated northern Mesopotamia and Hurrian princes ruled west of the Tur Abdin. The Zagros also had a strong Hurrian element; a grandson of Shamshi-Adad I even married a princess of a powerful Hurrian tribe. Less than a century after Shamshi-Adad I, Hurrians were an important element in Alalakh. Hurrians were still a loose confederation in the 17^th century BC text, as evidenced by a text from this time that mentions four kings of Hurrian people. However, Hurrians had a cohesive enough identity that a Hittite king’s inscription describe an attack by Hurrians (and Hanigalbat, another term for Hurrians).

MittanniJust after 1550 BC, a Hurrian kingdom called Mittanni has arisen just east of the Euphrates and which was more powerful than its Hurrian neighbors in Syria and Cilicia. The Mittanni kingdom negotiated — and even fought — on equal terms with the Hittites and Egypt, the two other main powers of the 2^nd millennium BC. In 1,472 BC, a Mittanni king clashed with Tuthmosis III as Egypt seized Syria and even penetrated as far as the Euphrates. Assyria, Babylonia, Hittites and other Near Eastern states sent congratulatory presents to Tuthmosis III for defeating the Mittanni. Shortly thereafter, the Mittanni king Saustatar annexed Assyrian territory and reduced Assyria to vassaldom (this is described in the timeline of Assyria).

Bibliograpy

Saggs, 1985. The Might That Was Assyria.

There were simultaneous racial movements:on the other side of the Euphrates, Amorites moved in from the Syrian desert, along the middle Ephrates, Amorites were predominant and exerted influence in Babylonia; but furher north it was the Hurrians who became the most important element, after coming into Mesopotamia and Syria from the northeast, later dominaing Assyria –particularly in the Upper Habur — in the second millennium both culturally and politically; and in Anatolia, neighboring the Hurrian territory, were Hittites, a group of people speaking Indo-European languages.