The ‘Apiru and Lab’aya of Shechem

One of the main complaints of the rulers to the pharaoh in the Canaanite letters is about the ‘Apiru, upstart rulers and even military coalitions who worked together to take over key cities and to control trade. Some scholars have tried to connect the Amarna Age ‘Apiru to the much later Iron Age term “Hebrew.”^[1] However, the Amarna Letters date to the mid-14^th century B.C.E. and reflect a completely different political, economic, and cultural context than the first millennium B.C.E., when we find the earliest evidence for the designation “Hebrew.”  Furthermore, in these letters, the ‘Apiru are not a distinct political or cultural group. This term is used for very different people, in different regions who took military action against local elites, and Egypt.

Some letters describe local elites “joining” the ‘Apiru to overthrow local rulers and take control of the region. For instance, ‘Abdi–Ḫeba (“the worshiper of the goddess Hebat”), ruler of Jerusalem (see part 8), asks the pharaoh how such a mighty king, who conquered Nahrîma[2] (i.e., the region of Syria) and Kush (ancient Nubia), is being challenged by the ‘Apiru fighters in Canaan:^[3]

^{EA 288: 34–47} The strong hand (Can. gloss: arm) of the king captured the land of Mittani and the land of Cush, but now the habiru are capturing the king's cities. There is not a single city ruler belonging to the king, my lord. All are out of (his) control! Look, as for Turbazu, he was killed (Akk. gloss: he was killed) inside the gate of Silu; the king was silent.

Look, as for Zimri-Haddu of Lachish, servants allied with habiru attacked him. As for Yaptiḥ-Haddu, he was killed (Akk. gloss: he was killed) [inside] the gate of Silu; [the king] was silent. [Why] did [the king] not ask about th[em]?

Canaanite rulers also use the term ‘Apiru pejoratively in their letters to call out their rivals. They frequently mention either being attacked by the ‘Apiru, or colluding with them, and using them as a military force.

For example, Milkilu the ruler of Gezer writes to the pharaoh, asking for aid and relief from the ‘Apiru. He and his neighboring ally (for the time being), Šuwardata of Gath, face a similar struggle against them:

^{EA 271:9–21} The king, my lord, should know that the hostility towards me and against Šuwardata is severe, so may the king, my lord, rescue his land from the might of the habiru. If not, send chariots, O king, my lord, in order to take us away lest our servants attack us.

The letter concludes with a reference to Yanḥamu, an Egyptian official who plays the role of an on-the-ground member of the pharaoh’s Levantine office, i.e., the pharaoh’s eyes and ears in Canaan:

^{EA 271: 22–27} Something else: The king, my lord, should ask Yanḥamu, his servant, about what is being done in his land.

This letter is sparse in terms of its details about what exactly is happening. To fully understand the political crises facing Milkilu and Šuwardata, the pharaoh and his officials would have needed more background and context. We must imagine that the details were communicated orally, perhaps by the very same messengers who brought the written messages to Egypt or by the officials, military troops, and messengers which the Amarna Letters and other Egyptian texts from the Late Bronze Age suggest were moving between the Levant and the pharaoh’s court.

Labʾayu of Shechem

Labʾayu is the most notorious figure in the Canaanite Letters. This ruler has captured scholarly imagination because Labʾayu was based in the central highlands, at Shechem (ancient Tell Balata, the modern-day city of Nablus in the West Bank), though it is unclear if he is a king, or just a leader of a group with a base there.

In several letters, local rulers also complain about the “sons of Labʾayu,” noting that he and his ‘Apiru are attacking cities and taking control of the region. For instance, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem complains about this local troublemaker:

^{EA 289:5–29} Look, Milki-ʾili does not dif[fer] from the sons of Labʾaya and the sons Arzayu in desiring the king's land for themselves. As for the city ruler who did this deed, why did the king not ask about him? Look, as for Milki-ʾili and Tagi, this is the deed that they did: capturing Rubbutu. Now, as for Jerusalem, if this land belongs to the king, why (did this happen)? Like Gaza, it is appointed for the king.

Look, the land of Gintu-Kirmil belongs to Tagi, but men of Gintu(-Kirmil) are (i.e., comprise) the garrison in Beth-shean. Should we act like Labʾaya and the land of Shechem? They gave to the habiru. Milki-ʾili sent a message to Tagi and the sons: “Be men! Give their every request to the men of Qiltu! Let us desert Jerusalem!”

The letter continues to complain that the local Egyptian representative has removed a garrison from Jerusalem and left the city defenseless. ‘Abdi-Ḫeba writes, begging the pharaoh to send another force to protect his city.

^{EA 289: 30–46} Haddaya took away the garrison that you dispatched via Haya, son of Miya-Reʿ. He placed (them) in his house in Gaza and dispatched twenty men to the land of Egypt. The king should know: There is no royal garrison with me. Consequently, as the king lives, indeed, his irpi-official, Piwuruthi, left me. He is in Gaza. The king should remember (this) on his arrival, and he should dispatch a garrison of 50 men in order to guard [his] land. All of the king's land has deser[ted]. Dispatch Yanḥamu here so that he may take care of the king's land.

Labʾayu’s Defends Himself

While Labʾayu himself leaves behind only three known letters (EA 252–254), they are quite provocative. EA 252 stands out because the introduction is clipped. Instead of a longer deferential letter heading and greeting, the scribe offers a bare-bones greeting and cuts right to the chase. The other two letters left by this ruler are more deferential. These letters also are more conventional: they employ Canaano-Akkadian.

EA 252 also stands out because at the end of the letter, the scribe code-alternates to Canaanite. We therefore see that the less polite letter introduction and the use of Canaanite might reflect a specific moment when Lab’ayu was angry and wanted to send a clear message about his discontent to the pharaoh. The scribe had the challenge of transforming this angry message into a cuneiform letter.

^{EA 252:1–5} Speak to the king, my lord, a message from Labʾaya, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord.

^252:5–15 Inasmuch as you sent a message to me, “Guard the men who seized the city!” how can I guard the men? The city was seized in war! It is the complete truth. I swore the truth, a senior official (was) with me. The city was seized, as well as my god. Slander was spoken about me (Can. gloss: I was slandered) before the king, my lord. The letter ends with two snarky statements based on a Canaanite parable:

^252:16–22 Something else: “If {Can. an ant} is struck, it does not roll (itself) up but bites the hand of the man who struck it.” If I am afraid on this day, a second city of mine will be seized!

^252:22–31 Something else: If you command, moreover, "{Can. Fall beneath them} so that they can strike you," I <will a>ct. I will guard the men who seized the city <and> my god, plundered things of my father. I will guard them!

Combined, these statements make the point that the pharaoh is not reasonable and that Labʾayu’s actions against his enemies are justified.

A letter from Šuwardata ruler of  Gath complains that when Lab’ayu died, ‘Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem rose in the region and became another Lab’ayu.

^{EA 280:30–35} Something else: Labʾaya is dead [^mla-ab-a-ya BA.UŠ₂]—he who used to capture our cities—but, now ‘Abdi[IR₃]-Hebat is another Labʾaya, and he is capturing our cities!

The scribe employs a common Sumerogram to write about Lab’ayu’s death. We do not have any details about how he died in this letter. However, it appears that he was so feared in his lifetime that rulers in the region continued to refer to him and to use him as a taking point to get pharaoh’s attention even after he was gone.