The Late Bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek

Tel Aviv Vol. 37, 2010, 48–66 The Late Bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek* Yuval Gadot Tel Aviv University When it was first uncovered, the excavators dubbed Building 1104 at Tel Aphek the ‘Egyptian governor’s residence’—a designation some scholars have challenged. Since then, questions have been raised concerning the role played by the residence and the ethnic identity of its inhabitants: To what extent were the house and those who lived in it Egyptian? If a governor did indeed live there, what and exactly whom did he govern? If written sources describe Jaffa as an Egyptian centre, why, then, should there be another centre at Aphek, which is less than 20 kilometres away? The article addresses these matters and analyzes the variety of finds retrieved from Building 1104. These finds are presented against the environmental and socio-political background of Late Bronze Aphek in order to shed light on the functions of the residence and its inhabitants. This is followed by an examination of Aphek’s regional context and its spatial relationship with neighbouring sites such as Jaffa and Tel Gerisa. Keywords Aphek, Late Bronze, New Kingdom, Royal estate, Coastal Plain One of the most rewarding finds to emerge from Tel Aphek-Antipatris was unearthed in Building 1104 during the seventh season of excavations. It is a complete clay tablet written in Akkadian (Kochavi 1978; Owen 1981; Singer 1983)—part of an international correspondence that mentions the names of high officials in both the Egyptian and Hittite bureaucracies. This find convinced the archaeological community that the building at Aphek must have played an important role in Egyptian control of Canaan. Since then Building 1104 has been dubbed the ‘Egyptian governor’s residence’ (Kochavi 1978, 1989: 63; 1990). But the view that Building 1104 was the home of an Egyptian governor was soon challenged (Oren 1984: 49–50; Daviau 1993: 421–422; Higginbotham 2000: 289–290). Questions were raised concerning the role played by the residence and the ethnic identity of its inhabitants: To what extent can we imagine the building and its inhabitants to be * Dedicated to the memory of Prof Moshe Kochavi, 1928–2008. © Friends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2010 DOI 10.1179/033443510x12632070179388  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 49 Egyptian? If a governor did indeed live there, what and exactly whom did he govern? Written sources, presented below, describe Jaffa as an Egyptian centre; why, then, should there be another centre at Aphek, which is less than 20 kilometres away? Since the finds from the building were only selectively published (Beck and Kochavi 1985; Kochavi 1989: 63–76; 1990) the debate was restricted to single issues—the architectural remains, the ceramic finds and the written documents (see, recently, Goren et al. 2006). It is my intention to address these matters through a holistic approach and to present a micro and macro analysis of the variety of finds retrieved from Building 1104. These finds will be presented against the environmental and socio-political background of Late Bronze Aphek in order to shed light on the functions of the residence and its inhabitants. This will be followed by an examination of Aphek’s regional context and its spatial relationship with neighbouring sites such as Jaffa and Tel Gerisa. It will be shown that by examining the entire body of finds, one can reconstruct a detailed socio-economic system shaped mainly by Egyptian involvement.1 Environment and long term history Tel Aphek is located on Israel’s central Coastal Plain. The influence of its geographical setting on living conditions has been presented in detail elsewhere (Gadot 2006, 2008) and therefore will only be discussed briefly here. The region is dominated by the Yarkon–Ayalon River-beds, which merge into one stream three km before it empties into the sea (Avitsur 1957; Grober 1969). The Yarkon is fed by rain water from the Samarian Hills and the rich springs at Aphek. It serpentines its way through the Coastal Plain, forming large seasonal pools and swamps as it flows at a very slight incline from east to west on its way to the sea (Fig. 1). The current created by the convergence of the two bodies of water causes considerable land erosion along the banks. When no effort was made to manage the region’s water resources, the swamps and pools became breeding grounds for disease and the area turned into a virtual wasteland. When drainage was controlled, the area became highly fertile; the kurkar ridges to the west became suitable for grazing cattle and cultivating vineyards and wheat and barley. The environmental conditions described above had a vital influence on the social history of the region, which is characterized by cyclic shifts between periods of strong and integrated social power and periods in which the area became a frontier zone, home to pastoral groups and other marginal elements of society. The latter was the case in the the periods under discussion here. During most of the Middle Bronze Age, Tel Aphek was home to a powerful city-state that controlled the entire Coastal Plain (Gophna and Beck 1981; Kochavi 1989: 54; 2009; Finkelstein 1992; Ilan 1995; Kletter and Gorzalczany 1 This article is based mainly on the results of excavations at Tel Aphek, conducted by the late Prof. Moshe Kochavi and the late Prof. Pirhiya Beck under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. The preparation of the results of the excavation for publication (Gadot and Yadin 2009) was aided by the generous support of the Shelby White- Leon Levi program for archaeological publications. 50 yuval gadot Figure 1 Environmental conditions and settlement system on Israel’s central Coastal Plain during the Late Bronze Age.  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 51 2001). By the MBIIB this city had disintegrated and the region had entered a long period of fragmentation with no central political entity at its helm (Bunimovitz 1992, 1994: 181–186; Kochavi 2009). These were the social and political conditions met by Thutmose III on his march northward ca. 1475 BCE (Redford 2003). In his list of Canaanite toponyms, Thutmose III mentions a string of settlements located in the area, among them Aphek (Simons 1937; Aharoni 1979: 140–153; Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 16). His march marks the beginning of Egyptian rule in Israel’s central Coastal Plain. Egypt’s involvement deepened further after Amenhotep II’s third campaign three decades later (Aharoni 1979: 153–157; Na’aman 1984; Der Manuelian 1987). According to the annals describing this campaign Aphek was the first city to surrender peacefully to the king on his march northward (Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 17). Later historical sources describe the Egyptian stronghold and administrative centre at Jaffa. They include the Amarna letters (Moran 1992; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004) and Papyrus Anastasi I, dating to the days of Ramesses II (Aharoni 1979: 170–172). Apparently the Egyptians took advantage of the state of social and political fragmentation they met and took control of the region. Generally, their policy was to refrain from interfering with the existing political order in places where a strong city-state was in control (Redford 1990, 1992; Na’aman 1997). Centralized Egyptian dominance was a key in overcoming the environmental hazards and the large plots of arable land and plentiful water reserves were turned to an advantage. It should be noted that with the collapse of Egyptian rule the region again entered a long period of social fragmentation (Gadot 2006, 2008). The nature of Egyptian rule The 400 years of Egyptian hegemony over Canaan should not be viewed as a single stretch of time. It was a long period during which matters changed both in Egypt itself and in the way it ran its affairs in Canaan. The same has to be said for the geographical arena: The Land of Israel, so regionally diverse, should not be viewed as a monolithic geo-political entity. Egyptian interests varied for each region and its interaction with the local society and local environment differed as well. Egyptian rule over Canaan should be separated into three distinct periods: the establishment of the empire, the Amarna period and the time of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties (Redford 1992). The earlier period was characterized by the many military campaigns aimed at establishing and enforcing the new order (Redford 2003). The Amarna period was a time of internal weakness and therefore the Egyptians paid little attention to events occurring outside its borders. Redford’s work (1990) made clear that it was Egyptian policy to invest as little as possible into the country in order to satisfy its economic and political needs (see also Ahituv 1978; Na’aman 1981). This policy had vital influence over the local Canaanite culture, the shape of its social institutions and its political structure (Gonen 1992a, 1992b; Bunimovitz 1995). According to Bienkowski and Knapp it is this policy that brought about the collapse of the Canaanite culture by the end of the Late Bronze Age (Bienkowski 1989; Knapp 1989). The last phase of the Late Bronze Age is characterized by a shift in Egyptian policy as the Egyptians tightened their control over the land (Redford 1992: 192–213; 52 yuval gadot 2000: 6; first observed by Alt 1944). According to Alt, this shift in policy resulted from the pharaohs’ wish to halt the waves of immigrants from the collapsed empires southward. Alt’s view remained singular for many years, as most scholars did not see any change in the Egyptian policy as it is reflected in the written sources and therefore did not distinguish this period from the one before it (Albright 1949; Faulkner 1975; Kemp 1991; Redford 1990, 1992). In 1981, in a seminal article, Weinstein reanalyzed Egyptian policy over Canaan, this time using mainly archaeological data that had accumulated over decades of excavations. Weinstein argued that during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties Egypt had deepened its involvement in Canaan by deploying administrative and military personal at different locations throughout the country (Weinstein 1981: 17). Following this article and his own experience in the excavations at Tel Sera>, Oren proposed identifying a large number of buildings located mainly in the southern Coastal Plain as “Egyptian governor houses” (Oren 1984, 1992). These buildings were constructed in an Egyptian layout and some of the finds from them were probably associated with taxation (Goldwasser 1982, 1984; Goldwasser and Wimmer 1999). Accordingly, Oren reached the conclusion that in the days of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties Egypt had strengthened its hold over Canaan and small administrative and military centres were established at key geographical locations in order to ensure Egyptian interests. The renewed excavations at Lachish (Ussishkin 1985) and Tell es-Sa>idiyeh (Tubb 1988) and the new interpretation given to finds from old excavations, for example, Megiddo and Gezer (Singer 1986–1987, 1988; Bunimovitz 1988–1989; Maeir 1988–1989), broadened the geographical arena of evidence for Egyptian involvement in Canaan. Singer integrated the archaeological finds into a larger political picture and reconstructed the history of Egyptian hegemony over the country during the 13th–12th centuries BCE (Singer 1986–1987, 1988, 1994). This historical picture was further developed by Redford (1992) and Hasel (1998), who collected all literary sources mentioning Egyptian military campaigns during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties. The ‘governor’s residence’ at Aphek Having set the environmental and historical context, I will now examine the Late Bronze Age remains found at Tel Aphek. These were discovered mainly in Area ‘X’, located on the upper tell (Beck and Kochavi 1993: 64; Gadot 2003, 2009a). The remains were separated into three strata: X14, 13 and 12. Finds located outside of the upper tell include a set of two winepresses and a built tomb (Gadot 2009b, Frankel et al. 2009). The earliest layer, Stratum X14, includes only scant remains dating to the LBIB or perhaps even the beginning of the LBII. The transition from Stratum X14 to Stratum X13 is marked by a complete shift in the plan of the acropolis that was now occupied by a large and impressive edifice―namely Palace 4430 (Fig. 2). At one point, the palace was deserted and its architectural units, including some of the floors, were incorporated into the next palace built there. Hence, only scant remains of the earlier building were found. A plausible reconstruction of Palace 4430 is that it consisted of a large paved courtyard that extended in front of a complex of rooms. Two rows of pillar bases were found to the  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 53 north of the courtyard, probably serving as a colonnade leading towards the entrance to the courtyard. Unfortunately, we have no contextual assemblage from inside the palace. The name Aphek is mentioned in the description of Amenhotep II’s second campaign to Asia (ca. 1440 BCE; Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 17). Aphek is the southernmost town mentioned in the campaign and according to the text it had surrendered peacefully. It seems reasonable to date the palace to the days following Amenhotep II’s campaign and to the Amarna period. Palaces built on similar plans are rare in 2nd millennium BCE Canaan; most palaces were built around an inner court (Oren 1992: 105–120). The only palace built in the same manner as the one from Aphek was found at neighbouring Tel Gerisa (Herzog 1993: 482–483; 1997: 183). The use of a colonnade is also unique. It seems then that the palace was built according to a foreign tradition, possibly Egyptian, where the custom of building palaces and temples along a linear axis is rooted deep in the architectural heritage (Badawy 1968; Leick 1988; Lacovara 1997). As Palace 4430 went out of use a new public structure, Palace 1104, better known as the ‘Egyptian governor’s residence’, was built on top of it. The architectural layout of the palace has been discussed widely (Kochavi 1978, 1989: 63; 1990; Gadot 2009a). It included an entrance court, two rectangular halls and three square rooms on the ground floor and stairs leading up to the second storey (Fig. 3). A fierce fire, most probably caused by human agents, brought a sudden end to life in the building. The excavators found a rich and varied assemblage of finds sealed below the destruction debris. Both palaces―4430 and 1104―were isolated buildings erected at the summit of the mound. All other excavation areas at the site did not yield architectural finds dating to the Late Bronze Age. During this period Aphek cannot be understood as a city or even a village. Kochavi turned to historical geography in order to understand the palace’s function within the wider political arena. He rightly argued that Aphek is situated at one of the most sensitive points on the Via Maris and anyone who controlled Aphek controlled all commercial and military activities along the road (Kochavi 1989: 76; 1990: XII; 2009). The Egyptians must have positioned a small army detachment commanded by a governor at the site. Pieces of armour scales found at the residence may serve as evidence (Barkai 1990: XXII; Yahalom-Mack and Shalev 2009: 428–429). The rich assemblage of artefacts and eco-facts sealed beneath the destruction debris of the building can be used to highlight other, more economical and social functions held by the residence and to map them spatially within the building. Measures were taken to avoid what Schiffer called the “Pompeii premise”: the notion that the finds in a dig always represent their place of usage (Schiffer 1983, 1985) and the formation process of the assemblage should be studied carefully.2 Special care was exerted to separate between primary refuse finds (Schiffer 1985)—that is, finds that may have gone out of use over the years and were left upon the floors, representing the long years the place was in use—from finds that were still in use at the moment of destruction. I also tried 2 For the full detailed analysis, see Gadot 2009a, where the location of each of the many finds is considered. Here only the conclusions are presented. 54 yuval gadot Figure 2 Schematic plan of Palace 4430 (line raster=stone wall; cross-hatch=stone floor). to distinguish between finds that originated on the floors of the ground floor and those that had originally been on the second floor. The filtering of the finds left me with only those directly connected with the activity executed at any specific space. The western halls Halls 1731 and 1721 are two rectangular units located next to each other on the ground floor (Fig. 3). Most of the artefacts revealed in them were found within the accumulation of mudbrick debris and far from the floor itself. Hence, prior to the destruction they must have been located on the second floor. If those are removed from consideration we are left with only a few open vessels―one complete storage jar and one complete pithos (Fig. 3). But sherds from at least 21 more storage jars were found there (Gadot 2009c)these must have been used and broken over the years (i.e., primary refuse). It seems that the halls were used for storage but at the time of the destruction they were nearly empty. This is also indicated by the large number of seeds scattered about (Kislev and Mahler-Slasky 2009). The seeds were mainly of wheat and barley mixed with weeds. The number of weed seeds exceeded that of the wheat and barley seeds. Kislev and Mahler-Slasky suggested that the mixture represents waste left behind after the wheat and barley seeds were transported. The species of the weeds are all natural to the immediate environment of Aphek. Apparently the wheat and barley grew in fields located in the heavy, wet soils neighbouring the Yarkon River. We can conclude, then, that the two halls were used for storing grain and that they were emptied just before the destruction. The size of the two halls (6.75 × 3.5 m and 8.5 × 3.5 m) indicates that the storage was not intended for household needs but rather on a larger scale.  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 55 1721 1731 1726 Figure 3 Plan of Building 1104, the ‘Egyptian governor’s residence’. Finds associated with the floors of Halls 1721 and 1731 (insets). 56 yuval gadot The eastern rooms Three square rooms were located in the eastern part of the building. One of the rooms (1726) had a paved floor. The access could not be located and it is possible that entry was from the second floor. Only a small number of finds were located in these rooms. They include mainly open pottery vessels and some personal objects (Gadot 2009c). There is nothing to indicate that the spaces were used for storing agricultural surplus. A reasonable possibility is that the rooms were used as residential quarters or for administrative purposes. The second storey Many of the personal objects found under the destruction seem to have originated on the second storey. These items include jewellery, ivory, bone hairpins and numerous pottery vessels for daily use (Kochavi 1990: 41–43; Guzowska 2009). The mudbrick walls of this level were plastered and in some cases decorated with paint (Kochavi 1990: 39). The nature of the second storey assemblage and the way it was formed may best be explained through the example of the Mycenaean pottery collection (Guzowska and Yasur-Landau 2009). Forty-three pieces of mostly closed container vessels were found within the burnt mudbricks of the second storey collapsed debris. The long chronological span represented by the pottery vessels dating both to the 14th and 13th centuries BCE brings to mind the assemblage found at the Amman airport site (Hankey 1974). It seems that we are facing a collection of vessels hoarded by the occupier of the palace for generations and stored on the second floor. The second storey was also where the seven fragments of inscribed documents, among them the famous letter mentioned above and two fragments of lexical lists (Kochavi 1978, 1990: XIV–XIX; Horowitz et al. 2006: 29–38) came from. The fragments and the letter were examined under the petrographic microscope and found to be made of local clay (Goren et al. 2006). This surprising result, together with the context in which the documents were found, may hint at the possibility that the second storey was also the location of a scribe’s chamber (ibid.: 167). Having established that the long halls on the ground floor were used for storing agricultural surplus, it seems reasonable to assume that the task of recording incoming and outgoing surplus was done by a scribe. Kemp (1991) compared Middle Kingdom models of granaries with architectural plans of such granaries and showed that the scribe chamber was always on the second floor. Open spaces around the building Other activities were found to be accomplished outside of the building. The most notable of them was wine making. Two large winepresses, capable of holding up to 3500 litres of liquid each, were found ca. 40 m northwest of the palace (Kochavi 1989: 76; Frankel et al. 2009). The winepresses stand out in two respects: first, they are not hewn out of the rock, like most known winepresses, but are rather built of stones and covered with many layers of plaster. Second, they are located next to the building, unlike traditional winepresses, which are located in the vineyards. Thanks to another fortunate find, we can safely date the time of their use to the time of the palace: A concentration of crushed grapes, grape  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 57 pip and grape skin was found next to the palace’s southern outer wall (Kislev and Mahler- Slasky 2009), undoubtedly pomace that was brought from the two winepresses after it was separated from the must. The crushed grapes were all carbonized by the fire that destroyed the palace. Kislev and Mahler-Slasky suggested that the pomace was separated from the must before the initial fermentation. They conclude from this that the Aphek winepresses were used for the production of white wine. Producing white wine is considered a more sophisticated process than producing red wine, since it demands the aging of the wine at low temperatures in sealed containers (Lesko 1995). White wine was associated with elite drinking customs. The location of the winepresses next to the palace and the size of the vats are an indication of its inhabitants’ will to control and centralize production (Kochavi 1989: 76). Apparently, as there is no exposed bedrock at the site, their wish to centralize production forced them to build the presses out of plaster and stones. As in the case of the grain, we can assume that grapes grew in the surrounding areas and were transported to the residence. There, under the watchful eye of a vintner, the careful processes of producing, storing, and probably shipping the wine was accomplished. Lesko presented a detailed study of wine production in New Kingdom Egypt (1995). Two points that he makes are important for the present discussion. The first is that in New Kingdom Egypt, grapes for wine were usually grown on specialized estates owned either by the monarchy or the temple (Lesko 1995: 227). The second point is the elevated status enjoyed by the vintner in Egyptian society (ibid.: 221). This point is highlighted by the example of the sealed wine jars found in Tutankhamun’s tomb. The seal was inscribed with information not only about the kind of wine and the year and place of its production but also the name of the vintner responsible for the brew and for its taste. There is also clear evidence regarding the manufacture of pottery (see Fig. 4). Petrographic examinations preformed on a distinctive group of Egyptian-styled vessels (Martin et al. 2009) show that they were made from local terra rossa soil. This phenomenon is known from other LBII and LBIII sites in Canaan (Cohen-Weinberger 1998; Martin 2004; Killebrew 2004, 2005: 67–80). The Egyptian-styled vessels consist of common, every-day vessels, mainly open bowls. The clay chosen for their manufacture looks to the naked eye very much like Egyptian Nile silt (Martin 2004). It seems that the potter who worked at Aphek did his best to produce vessels that would look as Egyptian as possible. It should be noted that the Aphek potter did not produce the few Canaanite-styled vessels that were checked petrographically. Rather, they were found to be made from clay that originated in the nearby Ayalon Valley. Evidence of cooking activities are scarce and include only complete cooking-pots that were found outside the building (Gadot 2009c); there are no cooking installations such as tabuns. Unprovenanced activities Two spinning bowls (Martin et al. 2009) and a few weights show that weaving was performed at the site. Among the seeds found on the floor of Hall 1731 were flax seeds, which are used for weaving (Kislev and Mahler-Slasky 2009). Since the remains were few 58 yuval gadot and scattered within the destruction debris it was not possible to locate where weaving was actually preformed. Finally, there is circumstantial evidence for another product that might have been manufactured at Aphek: papyrus sheets. The Cyprus papyrus that grows ubiquitously along the Nile Delta is rare in Israel. The Yarkon swamp at Aphek is one of only three or four of its habitats. Bein and Horowitz (1986) examined the pollen remains from drilling into the soil of the swampy Hula Valley, which has been dominated by Cyprus papyrus for hundreds of years. They discovered that the papyrus was not native to the Hula Valley and that it was first introduced there in the 2nd millennium BCE. During the Late Bronze Age there was certainly a need for a good and permanent supply of fresh papyrus sheets, especially by the Egyptian bureaucratic centres such as the one at Jaffa. Not much is known about the procedure needed to turn the long stems of the papyrus plant into writing sheets (Parkinson and Quirke 1995; Leach and Tait 2000, 2001); even less is known about the manner in which the plant was cultivated. In light of the large demand for papyrus sheets it seems reasonable to suggest that the plants were grown on specialized farms and not just collected from natural habitats (Leach and Tait 2000: 228). Since the moisture in the plants is a key for bonding the stems into sheets, we can assume that the manufacturing process was carried out close to where the reeds were harvested. In the case of Aphek, the nearby natural swamp was ideal for that supply. Could it be that the Jaffa administration planted papyrus in the swamps of Aphek? In order to evaluate whether the activities at Aphek indeed represent economic and political centralization, the spatial and functional analysis of Building 1104 should be compared to contemporary buildings found elsewhere in Canaan. The manner in which Late Bronze Age houses and public buildings have been excavated and published allows little opportunity for comparison. Still, the characteristics of houses and households dating to the Late Bronze Age are different from those of Building 1104 (Ben-Dov 1992; Daviau 1993; Schloen 2001): They are generally built in quarters, have an open central court, and have dedicated food preparation areas. There is no doubt that the 400 sq m building standing in isolation on the Aphek acropolis should be understood as a public building. Certain resemblances and some differences come to mind when comparing Building 1104 and the governor’s residence found at Tell el-Far>ah (S) (Macdonald et al. 1932: 28; Oren 1984; Daviau 1993: 409; Higginbotham 2000: 265). The ground plan of the two buildings is markedly different. Most notable is the fact that the residence at Tell el-Far>ah, unlike Building 1104, has a central hall that connects other ground floor rooms. But, as at Aphek, food preparation activities at Tell el- Far>ah were located in the open areas next to the building and most of the ground floor areas were devoted to storage. The volume of the storage capacity in the two buildings exceeded what is considered the norm for household needs—another indication that the two buildings should be understood as public. It can be concluded that Building 1104 of Stratum X12 functioned as a centre for collecting, storing and shipping agricultural surplus and for the production of secondary products, among them choice goods. It also served for housing influential figures such as a scribe, a vintner and possibly a governor on the road. Other people living or at least working at the site included a potter, possibly the soldiers of an army unit and a group of workers toiling in the fields and at the production centre. It is possible that these workers  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 59 Figure 4 Locally produced Egyptian-style pottery vessels. were forced labourers from the surrounding city-states, a practice documented in the Amarna letters (Moran 1992: EA 294, EA 296). In light of all these factors, the term ‘governor’s residence’ for Late Bronze Aphek seems inadequate. ‘Estate’ better describes the variety of actions preformed there. Estates had plots in their immediate environment where agricultural products such as grapes, wheat and barley were raised. The yield was brought to the estate where it was stored and where secondary products were produced. An example that sheds light on the size and organization of such an estate can be found in the Anastasi IV papyrus (Lesko 1995). The scribe in this tutorial letter reports on a small estate dating to the Nineteenth Dynasty that belonged to the mortuary temple of Seti II. According to the scribe there were 21 workers at the estate: seven men, four boys, four old men and six children (ibid.). They were responsible for manufacturing 1500 jars of wine, 50 jars of pomegranate wine, 50 jars of other kinds of wine and for filling sacks of fruits seasonally. Discussion Regional context The finds from Jaffa and Tel Gerisa, both located on the central Coastal Plain, are instructive for understanding the regional and political context of Aphek. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the Egyptians turned Jaffa into an administrative centre. Amarna letters EA 60 yuval gadot 294, EA 296, and possibly EA 138 and EA 365, mention that there was a granary at the site and that corvée labour was sent to work there (Moran 1992; Goren et al. 2004: 320–325). Sources from the Ramesses II period describe workshops serving Egyptian officials criss- crossing the land of Canaan. Excavations conducted at ancient Jaffa, first by Kaplan and more recently by Herzog, unearthed ample finds that support the evidence. The earliest structure found in the excavation is the so-called Lion Temple, dated by Kaplan to the beginning of the Iron I period (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 658). According to Herzog (personal communication), his renewed excavations at the site have proven that the Lion Temple should in fact be redated to the 14th century BCE. Inside the temple Kaplan found a lion skull with a scarab bearing the name of Queen Tiy, wife of Amenhotep III. Above the Lion Temple he unearthed the remains of a gate and a fortification wall; both were parts of two fortresses that existed in succession (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 656–657). On a fragment of the jamb of the earlier gate (Stratum IVb), an inscription mentioning the name of Ramesses II was found, dating the early fort to his lifetime and helping to correlate between the finds at Jaffa and the Aphek estate. This fortress was heavily burned and a new fortress was then built on top of its ruins. A group of Egyptian-styled pottery vessels, found by Herzog (NEAEHL 5: 1791), also resemble those found at Aphek. Similar vessels were found at Tel Gerisa, excavated by Herzog (1993, 1997: 183). Tel Gerisa resembles Aphek in its proximity to a river (the Yarkon) and in its architectural layout (a solitary edifice at the summit of a mound). Like Palace 4430 at Aphek, the edifice is composed of a court built in front of a complex of rooms. The finds from the edifice at Tel Gerisa have not yet been published and it is therefore not possible at this point to make a deeper comparison between the economic functions of Aphek and Tel Gerisa. Nevertheless, the finds presented thus far are sufficient to conclude that Aphek was not an isolated case: both Jaffa and Tel Gerisa show evidence of Egyptian presence and involvement. Chronological context The absolute chronology of Strata X13 and X12 at Aphek and the contemporaneous strata at Jaffa and Tel Gerisa is based mainly on the finds that bear Egyptian royal names. The material remains from Stratum X13 are scarce and none of the pottery or glyptic finds can be clearly associated with its architecture. The key for dating the establishment of Palace 4430 of Stratum X13 is its architectural layout, which shows Egyptian traits. It seems reasonable to suggest that the Aphek palace together with the palace at Tel Gerisa and the Lion temple found at Jaffa were all built following Amenhotep II’s third campaign and the symbolic surrender of Aphek. Apparently, the material remains prove that in addition to establishing an administrative centre at Jaffa, known to have taken place during the Eighteenth Dynasty, the Egyptians annexed the Yarkon–Ayalon basin as a territory that belonged to Jaffa (contra Goren et al. 2006: 167). During the reign of Ramesses II, Egyptian involvement across Canaan intensified. This can be established from the finds both from Jaffa, where the first of the two fortresses was built, and from Aphek, where Building 1104 was erected. This intensification is well in accord with other finds from Israel’s northern Negev and southern Coastal Plain.  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 61 Identifying the date of destruction of the Egyptian centres along the Yarkon–Ayalon River-beds is complicated and cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The centres at Jaffa, Tel Gerisa and Aphek were all violently destroyed. Since 14C dating cannot be used for this period (due to the nature of the calibration curve), the dating of these destruction layers is based on conventional tools: the relative chronology of the pottery assemblage and the absolute chronology of the finds bearing Egyptian royal names. As for the relative chronology the only pottery assemblage fully published hitherto is the one from Aphek Stratum X12 (Gadot 2009c; Guzowska and Yasur-Landau 2009; Martin et al. 2009).The locally produced pottery (local and Egyptianized) as well as the Cypriot and Mycenaean imported pottery are all typical of the 13th century BCE. While some types of pottery also appear in the early days of the 12th century BCE, not even a single vessel can be dated solely to the 12th century BCE. The evidence of the pottery assemblage is well in accord with the glyptic finds and the written documents. The date of the Ugaritic letter as established by Singer (1983) is ca. 1230 BCE. Kochavi claimed that since there is no archive at Aphek the date of the letter should be seen as the date of the destruction of the estate (Kochavi 1989: 74; Beck and Kochavi 1985), but as noted by Finkelstein (1983: 35; Goren et al. 2006: 169) the letter provides only a terminus post quem―the earliest date possible for the destruction at Aphek. In any event, all the other artefacts that bear Egyptian royal names found within the destruction debris are to be dated to the Nineteenth Dynasty. Since the letter, the contextualized glyptic finds and the entire pottery assemblage are all in accord it seems reasonably safe to date the destruction of the Aphek estate to the end of the 13th century BCE, probably the same time that the earliest fortress at Jaffa was destroyed. The sole object that is dated later than the days of Ramesses II is a scarab bearing the name of Ramesses IV (Lalkin 2006: 453 Scarab 14 ). Goren et al. (2006) have suggested that this scarab may date the destruction of the Aphek estate to the 12th century BCE. However, the scarab was found in a later pit (Stratum X9 or X10, dating to the time of the Philistines) and may have originated in Stratum X11, which is later than Stratum X12 but earlier than the appearance of Philistine Bichrome Ware. Political and ethnic context Apparently, after establishing a command centre at Jaffa, the Egyptians exploited the political void that existed in the central Coastal Plain at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and annexed lands located along the Yarkon–Ayalon River-beds to establish estates owned by the crown or by a temple. Royal, and even more than that, temple estates were a common feature in Egypt proper during the New Kingdom (Lesko 1995). Temple estates started out as means to feed the deity living at the temple. During the New Kingdom, temples won greater economic autonomy and their estates owned large plots of lands. Lesko (ibid.) reports on more than 30 such estates that existed along the Egyptian delta during the Nineteenth Dynasty. Na’aman (1988) suggested that royal estates were established by Egypt in the Jezreel Valley and that they were probably subject to Beth Shean. This proposal was based mainly on written sources. Although we do not have direct historical references for such estates along the Yarkon–Ayalon River-beds, the archaeological 62 yuval gadot evidence seems to indicate that Aphek and Tel Gerisa served as Egyptian estates rather than Canaanite towns or villages. The fact that the entire region was annexed by the Egyptians as early as the days of Amenhotep II may explain why we have no textual knowledge of a Canaanite city-state in the region. Except for Jaffa, nothing about this area is mentioned in the Amarna archive; indeed all the reconstructed maps of the political boundaries in Late Bronze Canaan that are based on the Amarna archive show that the area falls in between the lands of Gezer to the southeast, Ginti-Kirmil (Jatt) to the north and Ashdod to the south (Finkelstein 1996; Na’aman 1997; Goren et al. 2004: 320 ). These city-states are located too far from the region to have been able to effectively control it. Although the political entity behind these estates was probably the Egyptian New Kingdom, that is not to say that Aphek, or any other site for that matter, was settled by Egyptians. Many of the finds from Aphek, such as the locally-made Egyptian-style pottery and the use of paint on bricks, can be related to Egyptian culture. On the other hand, many of the finds can be related to Canaanite culture: the layout of the building and the fact that its first floor was built of stones, Tomb 1200 found near the site (Gadot 2009b), a group of women figurines (Kochavi 1990: XXI) and so on. Higginbotham argued that the Egyptian administrative system was comprised mainly of local Canaanites who assimilated into Egyptian culture and were trained in Egyptian matters (Higginbotham 2000). The hybrid cultural assemblage of Aphek seems to strengthen her assumption. Still, even if the scribe at Aphek was born in Canaan, he achieved his status by studying at Egyptian schools and adopting Egyptian habits, and his work implemented the interests of the Egyptian empire. The destructions of the administrative centre at Jaffa, the estate at Aphek and probably the estate at Tel Gerisa in the final days of Ramesses II’s rule should be understood as a violent act committed against the Egyptian empire that stood behind these centres. Though no historical documents from Egypt are extant, it seems reasonable to assume that a degree of unrest prevailed soon after the death of Ramesses II (Faulkner 1975: 232; Kitchen 1982: 215; Singer 1988, 1994: 289). Merneptah, the son and heir of Ramesses II, set out on a military campaign in his fifth regnal year and reported capturing and destroying three cities, among them Gezer (Singer 1988, 1994: 287–288). The campaign was probably aimed at the rebellious city-states that had taken advantage of the temporary weakness of Egypt. Following the campaign, Merneptah took the title ‘Subduer of Gezer’, indicating that the capture of the city was seen by the new king as the most significant achievement of his campaign (Singer 1994: 288). The powerful city-state of Gezer (Goren et al. 2004: 270–279) is located close to the Yarkon River. Could it be that the Egyptian centres along the Yarkon–Ayalon River-beds were torched by the rebellious king of Gezer? Merneptah was victorious but the lands and estates along the Yarkon River never recovered. As suggested by Singer, Merneptah turned Gezer into his main administrative centre (Singer 1986–1987, 1988), probably subjugating the entire central Coastal Plain to the new centre. While the fortress at Jaffa was rebuilt, Building 1104 at Aphek was not; it was the final structure in a succession of public edifices constructed on the mound. Unlike at other regions where the pharaohs of the Twentieth Dynasty left their bureaucratic fingerprint  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 63 (Weinstein 1981, 1992; Oren 1984; Ussishkin 1985), the Yarkon–Ayalon region slowly fell (again) into neglect and abandonment as the swamps encroached on cultivated land and conditions grew harsher. At Aphek, the heaps of debris stood in full view of the settlers of Stratum X11―a symbol of the destruction of what had been the great era of Egyptian order in Canaan. References Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Trans. from Hebrew by A. Rainey. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1978. Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan. IEJ 28: 93–105. Albright, W.F. 1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. Middlesex. Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZDPV 67: 216–230. Avitsur, S. 1957. The Yarkon: The River and Its Environment. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Badawy, A. 1968. A History of Egyptian Architecture, Vol. 3: The Empire (The New Kingdom). Berkeley and Los Angeles. Barkai, G. 1990. Weapons. In: Kochavi, M. Aphek in Canaan: The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds (Israel Museum Catalogue 312) Jerusalem: XXII–XXIII. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13th Century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12: 29–42. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in the Sharon). NEAEHL 1: 62–72. Bein, A. and Horowitz, A. 1986. Papyrus—A Historic Newcomer to the Hula Valley, Israel? Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 47: 89–95. Ben-Dov, M. 1992. Middle and Late Bronze Age Dwellings. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R., eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: 99–104. Bienkowski, P. 1989. Prosperity and Decline in LBA Canaan: A Reply to Liebowitz and Knapp. BASOR 275: 59–63. Bunimovitz, S. 1988–1989. An Egyptian ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Gezer? Another Suggestion. Tel Aviv 15–16: 68–76. Bunimovitz, S. 1992. The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine. EI 23 (Avraham Biran Volume): 21–25 (Hebrew, English summary pp. 145*–146*). Bunimovitz, S. 1994. Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze–Iron I Transition. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 179–202. Bunimovitz, S. 1995. On the Edge of Empires—Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE). In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: 322–331. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 1998. Petrographic Analysis of the Egyptian Forms from Stratum VI at Tel Beth-Shean. In: Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and Stern, E., eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Jerusalem: 406–412. Daviau, P.M.M. 1993. Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine. Sheffield. Der Manuelian, P. 1987. Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim. Faulkner, R.O. 1975. Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses III. CAH II2A (History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380– 1000 B.C.). Third edition. Cambridge: 217–251. Finkelstein, I. 1983. Israelite Settlement in the Foothills, 13th–10th Century B.C. in the Light of Excavations at >Izbet Sartah. Cathedra 27: 33–38 (Hebrew). Finkelstein, I. 1992. Middle Bronze Age ‘Fortifications’: A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formations. Tel Aviv 19: 201–220. Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. UF 28: 221–255. Frankel, R., Gadot, Y. and Bachi, G. 2009. Late Bronze Age Winepresses. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck 64 yuval gadot Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 72–83. Frankel, R. and Kochavi, M. 2000. History of Aphek-Antipatris. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek–Antipatris I (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 19). Tel Aviv: 16–38. Gadot, Y. 2003. Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Central Coastal Plain (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English summary). Gadot, Y. 2006. Aphek in the Sharon and the Philistine Northern Frontier. BASOR 341: 21–36. Gadot, Y. 2008. Continuity and Change in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Israel’s Coastal Plain: A Long Term Perspective. In: Fantalkin, A. and Yasur-Landau, A., eds. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden: 55–73. Gadot, Y. 2009a. Late Bronze (Strata X14–X12). In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 41–71. Gadot, Y. 2009b. Late Bronze Age Stone-Built Tomb. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 84–87. Gadot, Y. 2009c. Late Bronze and Iron Age Pottery. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 182–341. Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. 2009. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains on The Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv. Goldwasser, O. 1982. The Lachish Hieratic Bowl Once Again. Tel Aviv 9: 137–138. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera> in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11: 77–93. Goldwasser, O. and Wimmer, S. 1999. Hieratic Fragments from Tell el-Far>ah (South) BASOR 313: 39–42. Gonen, R. 1992a. The Late Bronze. In: Ben-Tor, A., ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven and London: 211–257. Gonen, R. 1992b. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Canaan. Winona Lake. Gophna, R. and Beck, P. 1981. The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II. Tel Aviv 8: 45–80. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 23). Tel Aviv. Goren, Y., Na’aman, N., Mommsen, H. and Finkestein, I. 2006. Provenance Study and Re- evaluation of the Cuneiform Documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek. Egypt and the Levant 16: 161–171. Grober, Y. 1969. The Drainage System and the Exploitation of Water Resources. In: Morton, S., ed. The Western Ayalon Basin. Tel Aviv: 32–48 (Hebrew). Guzowska, M. 2009. Figurines and Small Finds. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 396–413. Guzowska, M. and Yasur-Landau, A. 2009. Mycenaean Pottery. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 342–361. Hankey, V. 1974. A Late Bronze Age Temple at Amman: The Aegean Pottery. Levant 6: 131–159. Hasel, M.G. 1998. Domination and Resistance. Leiden. Herzog, Z. 1993. Gerisa, Tel. NEAEHL 2: 480–484.  The late bronze Egyptian Estate at Aphek 65 Herzog, Z. 1997. The Archaeology of the City: Architectural and Social Aspects of Urbanization (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 13). Tel Aviv. Higginbotham, C.R. 2000. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Leiden. Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. and Sanders, S. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem. Ilan, D. 1995. The Dawn of Internationalism. The Middle Bronze Age. In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: 297–319. Kaplan, J. and Ritter-Kaplan, H. 1993. Jaffa. NEAEHL 2: 655–659. Kemp, B.J. 1991. Large Middle Kingdom Granary Buildings. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache 113: 120–136. Killebrew, A.E. 2004. New Kingdom Egyptian-Style and Egyptian Pottery in Canaan: Implications for Egyptian Rule in Canaan during the 19th and Early 20th Dynasties. In: Knoppers, G.N. and Hirsch, A., eds. Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford. Leiden and Boston: 309–343. Killebrew, A.E. 2005. Biblical People and Ethnicity: Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta. Kislev, M.E. and Mahler-Slasky, Y. 2009. Food Remains. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 499–525. Kitchen, K.A. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II. Warminster. Kletter, R. and Gorzalczany, A. 2001. A Middle Bronze Age II Type of Pottery Kiln from the Coastal Plain of Israel. Levant 33: 95–104. Knapp, A.B. 1989. Response: Independence, Imperialism, and the Egyptian Factor. BASOR 275: 64–68. Kochavi, M. 1978. The Archaeological Context of the Aphek Inscriptions. In: Kochavi, M., Rainey, A., Singer, I. and Demsky, A. Aphek–Antipatris 1974–1977: The Inscriptions. Tel Aviv: 1–7. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris: Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan: The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds (Israel Museum Catalogue 312). Jerusalem. Kochavi, M. 2009. The Aphek Acropolis in Context. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 592–602. Lacovara, P. 1997. The New Kingdom Royal City. London and New York. Lalkin, N. 2006. Scarabs and Other Seal Amulets. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 444–459. Leach, B. and Tait, J. 2000. Papyrus. In: Nicholson, P.T. and Shaw, I., eds. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: 227–253. Leach, B. and Tait, J. 2001. Papyrus. In: Redford, D.B., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 3. Oxford: 22–24. Leick, G. 1988. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture. London and New York. Lesko, L.H. 1995. Egyptian Wine Production during the New Kingdom. In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming, S.J. and Katz, S.A., eds. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia: 215–230. Macdonald, E., Starkey, J.L. and Harding, L. 1932. Beth Pelet 2. London. Maeir, A.M. 1988–1989. Remarks on a Supposed Egyptian Residency at Gezer. Tel Aviv 15–16: 65–67. Martin, M.A.S. 2004. Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery in Late Bronze Canaan. Egypt and the Levant 14: 265–284. Martin, M.A.S., Gadot, Y. and Goren, Y. 2009. Imported Egyptian and Local Egyptian-Style Pottery from Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The 66 yuval gadot Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 362–386. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172–185. Na’aman, N. 1984. Topographical and Historical Considerations of Amenhotep II’s Campaigns to Canaan. EI 17: 257–262 (Hebrew, English summary p. 11*). Na’aman, N. 1988. Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E., eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (C. 1500– 1000 B.C.). Leuven: 177–185. Na’aman, N. 1997. The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. UF 29: 599–625. Oren, E.D. 1984. ‘Governors’ Residencies in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37–56. Oren, E.D. 1992. Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R., eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 105–120. Owen, D.I. 1981. An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel-Aphek. Tel Aviv 8: 1–17. Parkinson, R. and Quirke, S. 1995. Papyrus. London. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom (Beer-Sheva 4). Beer-Sheva. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Redford, D.B. 2000. Egypt and Western Asia in the Late New Kingdom: An Overview. In: Oren, E.D., ed. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: 1–20. Redford, D.B. 2003. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden. Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Towards an Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48: 675–706. Schiffer, M.B. 1985. Is There a “Pompeii Premise” in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41: 18–41. Schloen, J.D. 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake. Simons, J. 1937. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden. Singer, I. 1983. Takuḫlinu and Ḫaya: Two Governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3–25. Singer, I. 1986–1987. An Egyptian “Governor’s Residency” at Gezer? Tel Aviv 13: 26–31. Singer, I. 1988. Merneptah’s Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine. BASOR 269: 1–10. Singer, I. 1994. Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 282–338. Tubb, J.N. 1988. Tell es-Sa>idiyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons of Renewed Excavations. Levant 20: 23–88. Ussishkin, D. 1985. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. In: Tubb, J.N., ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: 213–230. Weinstein, J.M. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1–28. Weinstein, J.M. 1992. The Collapse of the Egyptian Empire in the Southern Levant. In: Ward, W.A. and Sharp-Joukowsky, M., eds. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque: 142–150. Yahalom-Mack, N. and Shalev, S. 2009. Metal Objects. In: Gadot, Y. and Yadin, E. Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27). Tel Aviv: 413–443.