about the size of the population through the mention of specific numbers of slaves, soldiers, and plunder. Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem sent as gifts to the Pharaoh prisoners, porters, and perhaps 5,000 slaves (Moran 1992: EA 287: 53–59). Although there is a lacuna, the 5,000 may refer to slaves since it sits between two other designations of people—prisoners and porters—and slaves from Canaan are often taken by the Pharaoh or sent to the Pharaoh. If these are 5,000 slaves that Abdi-Heba is sending, it indicates a substantial population in the Jerusalem area. A letter from Baaluya in Amurru describes a massive army that is approaching from the north, containing an alleged 90,000 infantry (Moran 1992: EA 170: 19-35). If this figure is accurate, it suggests a significantly larger population for the eastern Mediterranean as a whole, and Canaan as a subset of that, than has been estimated in previous studies on the Bronze Age. It is possible that the number could have been erroneous or an exaggeration, but even if reduced by a factor of ten, the number would still be quite large for a single military force in the region at 9,000 infantry. This still indicates the existence of massive army sizes, and by relation, the possibility of populations in the hundreds of thousands for separate regions in the eastern Mediterranean. Additionally, if the leader of this army thought sending a large force such as this into Canaan, then it may be deduced that there would be significant resistance in Canaan through both population and fortification in cities. The spoil of Megiddo after the victory under Thutmose III records 924 chariots, 200 suits of armor, and 507 bows looted by the Egyptians (Breasted 1906a: 187). Since each chariot required at least two soldiers to operate and some of the chariots were likely destroyed in the battle, there would have been at least approximately 2,000 men fighting in the Megiddo chariot core.74 A supply chain could have required even more
74 The presence of nearly 1,000 chariots on the side of Megiddo brings up the question as to where all of the chariots were stored during times of peace. Since there would not have typically been sufficient space in most cities to store
men as part of the chariot core, as would the addition of a third man in the chariot as a secondary archer or melee soldier. The 200 suits of armor indicate an infantry of at least 200, while the 507 bows indicate over 500 archers. If any of the armor or bows were broken in the battle and therefore not looted and accounted for by the Egyptians, the army of Megiddo would have been even larger. Together, the army of Megiddo would have included 2,700 men or more. As men of fighting age and condition would only be a small segment of the population, the military spoil from Megiddo implies a total population of well over 10,000 for the city-state. Additionally, the records of Thutmose III about plunder from Yanoam, Nuges, and Herenkeru record the taking of 1,796 male and female slaves and their children (Breasted 1906a: 188). If the slaves only had an adult to child ratio of 1:2, as free families in the southern Levant typically had75, the slaves would have numbered approximately 5,400. This was a total for three towns, but also may not have included every slave that lived there before the attack. If it was inclusive of all slaves, it still suggests an average of 1,800 slaves living in each of the three towns, and by inference town populations of several thousand. The Memphis Stele of Amenhotep II records the plunder of approximately 100,000 people from Canaan, including ‘apiru and shasu and 13,500 weapons of war (Hallo and Younger 2000: 22). The first number, the total number of people taken from Canaan, indicates that the population of Canaan much larger than a total of 90,000 or 100,000—an amount supposedly taken captive. Even if this was a false claim “census” type of figure rather than what Amenhotep II actually took back to Egypt, it still demonstrates that Canaan would have had, at least in the Egyptian view, well over 100,000 people total.
The 13,500 weapons accounted for as part of the loot even indicate a large population, as weapon owners or users would only be a small percentage of the population.
Although none of these documents record a town or region census, as a composite they appear to indicate that many towns in Canaan had several thousand or more inhabitants, there was a substantial slave population, at least some cities had large armies, and that the total population of the region exceeded 100,000 people.
many chariots, they may have been stored off site at nearby walled outposts or storage areas. It is probable that these storage areas were then settled in later periods or had the stones robbed for later settlement, leaving little
archaeological evidence behind of their existence.
75 See Chapter 3 Family Size and Household Size in Late Bronze Age Canaan for an analysis of nuclear family size from Late Bronze Age texts.
From texts recovered at Alalakh, demographic data for the northern Levant in the Late Bronze Age provides some additional information about population in the region of the Levant during the period. One list, ATT/8/240, gives the number of houses in 22 different villages near Alalakh; the number of houses mentioned in a village varies from 3 to 74 (Wiseman 1953: 11). On some tablets, details are given which specify the amount of warriors under the control of a leader in the countryside. One of the tablets (183) records that a particular leader had 1,436 warriors under his control (Wiseman 1953: 11). This is suggestive that even in the countryside there was a relatively substantial population. 53 census tablets give names of some of the inhabitants of 14 villages under the control of Alalakh at the end of Late Bronze I (Wiseman 1953: 10).
Many tablets name the leaders of the households in several settlements including, among others, the as yet unidentified towns of Suharuwa and Alime—which according to the records contained 85 and 165 names, respectively (Wiseman 1953: 64-65).
Several of the recorded towns or villages were much smaller, while others varied from slightly smaller to comparatively sized. Neither Suharuwa or Alime have been archaeologically identified, and they are not likely to be large in surface area or significance. Yet, if they contained 165 and 85 households, with an average household size of 12, the towns would have had an approximate population of 1,000 and 2,000 people. This sizeable town or village population for satellite settlements in the area of Alalakh indicates that satellite towns and villages in the Late Bronze Age Levant sometimes contained significant populations of 1,000 or more; the major urban centers were not the only place that large percentages of the population resided. In other census tablets, numbers of the actual houses in a particular town or village are listed;
the total number of houses throughout the various villages is suggestive of a significant population living in settlements outside of the major urban centers (Wiseman 1953: 72-75). Although these settlements are outside the region of Canaan and cannot be factored into the total population of that region, the data is relevant because it further suggests significant populations outside of the major urban centers and indicates a large overall population for the Levant.