The Merneptah Stela:

A Glimpse into the Origins and Identity of Early Israel

Peyton Morris
Dr. Killebrew
CAMS 012U
December 12, 2015

2
Discovered in 1896 by Flinders Petrie at Thebes, the Merneptah Stela has become one of
the most important extrabiblical accounts regarding the early identity of Israel. Comprised of
hymns, the inscription lists the campaigns and victories of Pharaoh Merneptah, the fourth
pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, over political entities throughout Africa and the Near East. At the
end of the inscription is the mention of Israel, which is now considered the earliest known
reference to the Israelites. Despite this fact, archaeologists continually challenge this
interpretation and contribute various other arguments that suggest different meanings for the
term. A careful analysis of these theories and the extrabiblical and archaeological evidence,
however, indicates that the Israel of the Merneptah Stela was indeed a specific reference to a
group of people in the hill country of Israel that exhibited a unique, but distinctive Israelite
culture.
In 1896, Flinders Petrie uncovered a large black granite stele at a mortuary temple in the
ancient Egyptian city of Thebes. Standing over seven feet tall, the stela bears an inscription of
Pharaoh Merneptah (reigned c. 1224-1214 B.C.E.), the fourth Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty of
Egypts New Kingdom, and son of Ramesses II. Dated to ca. 1207 B.C.E., the Merneptah Stela,
also commonly known as the Victory Stela, is a hymn praising the military campaigns and
victories of the Pharaoh throughout Africa and the Near East. Of the twenty-eight lines, most
make reference to the political entities, or city-states, that Merneptah conquered during his reign.
In the second line, however, there is a rather unusual reference that differs significantly from that
of the rest of the stela. In line C1 it is written that Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.
Although seemingly brief and nondescript, the stela appears to bear the oldest extra-biblical
mention of the Israelites (Dever 2007; Hanson 1999: 1; Hasel 1994: 47; Isbouts 2007: 137, 141).

Figure 1. The Merneptah Stela

(http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/images/merneptah-stele.jpg)
To this day the Merneptah Stela serves as a crucial element in the study of the origins and
identity of Early Israel. As the only mention of such an entity in Egyptian sources, it is
interesting that such a reference to Israel is made during the thirteenth century, the supposed
time of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. As such, it provides an extra-biblical source that may
indicate that an aspect of the Israelite identity was founded upon a segment of Semitic people
who fled from Egypt into the Transjordanian highlands. Although there is no definite
archaeological proof that connects the Hebrews with the Israel of the stela, scholars such as
Kurt Noll, maintain that the reference is the same ethnic entity as that of the Hebrew Bible.
Archaeologists, however, continue to debate this issue, and question whether or not a true
Israelite identity was emerging during the thirteenth century (Bloch-Smith 2003: 401-402;
Finkelstein: 1996: 208; Isbouts 2007: 137; Noll 2001: 124-127).

4
In addition to the Merneptah Stela, archaeological evidence indicates that there was in
fact an emerging ethnic identity in the hill country of Israel and in the highlands of the
Transjordan. Such theories that examine the origins of the Israelites during the thirteenth and
twelfth centuries include those that contend that Israel was either a product of a military
invasion, a gradual process of infiltration, or that it was the result of the evolution of an
indigenous Canaanite population, or a combination of all these factors. These theories and their
relations to the Merneptah Stela are discussed in greater detail below in order to reach a more
conclusive understanding of the origins of the Israelites in the Transjordanian highlands, and
whether this entity is the same as that mentioned in the biblical account (Isbouts 2007: 137;
Killebrew 2006: 555-558).
The understanding and meaning of the reference to Israel in the stela is not certain.
Although a significant proportion of the archaeological community, including Dever, Thompson,
and Finkelstein, accepts that the term Israel is a reference to a people, some have suggested
that it is entirely unconnected to the Israelites of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, A. Nibbi argues
that Israel actually translates as the wearers of a sidelock, or the Libyans. Furthermore, she
asserts that the places listed in the inscription are in Egypt, and not across Africa and the Near
East as many others claim. Thus, she denies that Egypt broadened its reach into Palestine and
Canaan during the reign of Merneptah, and subsequently, that the locations mentioned are scribal
errors. Instead, she defends that Egypts focus was centered primarily on domestic concerns,
which includes the expulsion of the Libyans, who allied with the Sea Peoples, during the fifth
year of Merenptahs reign. This confrontation resulted in a brutal Egyptian victory in which the
Egyptian forces killed more than 6,000 of the Libyan forces (Hasel 1994: 46; Mark 2009: 1).

5
O. Margalith (1990) presents an alternative theory that states that the Egyptian s in the
term Israel may instead be the Hebrew z. According to this theory, the term Israel would
translate as Iezreel, or the Yezreel valley. By this interpretation, the Yezreel valley would then
align with the other locations mentioned in the inscription, and would follow the pattern and
structure of the rest of the hymn. Additionally, Margalith defends that the correct pronunciation
of the term is Iarel, meaning the the people of the God who acts straight. Although this
argument is based upon the Ugaritic pronunciation of Irael, it is not widely supported by the
archaeological community, as Margaliths theory is not founded upon sound archaeological or
textual evidence (Hasel 1994: 46).
As these theories lack convincing support and evidence from the archaeological record,
or from additional extra-biblical accounts, most of the archaeological community continues to
defend that the term Israel on the Merneptah Stela is connected with the Israelites of the
Hebrew Bible. Although there is no concrete connection between the biblical account and the
stela, the archaeological evidence of Merneptahs campaign at Gezer, and the reference to
Merneptah as the subduer of Gezer, indicates that Egypt did in fact have a level of interaction
with ethnic groups in Syria-Palestine. Furthermore, as the Exodus is believed to have occurred
sometime within the mid-thirteenth century, the movement of Semitic slaves into the hill country
of Israel and the Transjordanian highlands would have drawn Egypts continued attention. Thus,
for those who have accepted that the term refers to Israel, the debate has continued into
another series of arguments that concern the meaning of Israel as either a geographic or ethnic
designation (Hasel 1994: 47-48; Isbouts 2007: 137).
Ahlstrom and Edelman were the first to revolutionize the study of the stelas literary
elements when they identified what they perceived as a ring structure within the hymn.

6
According to their analysis, Hatti serves as the identification of Asia Minor and Syria, while
Kharu represents the Syria-Palestinian territories. In order to explain these foreign regions and
political entities, Egyptian scribes utilized these terms as a means of combining individualized
regions under one geographic designation. Following the same principles, the terms Canaan and
Israel may represent two separate entities, with Israel designating the hill country and
highlands of the Transjordan. Ahlstrom and Edelman assert that this structure enabled the
Egyptian scribes to designate both a geographic location and a regional population that were
unfamiliar to them (Ahlstrom and Edelman 1985: 59-61; Hasel 1994: 47-50).
In the same year as Ahlstrom and Edelmans hypothesis, L.E. Stager presented another
theory in which he claimed that Israel is the designation of an ethnic group. Soon after,
however, Stager withdrew his own hypothesis and adopted the opinion of F.J. Yurco. Yurco
maintains that Israel is the name of another city-state within Canaan, but that it is also
potentially an ethnic identification. In contrast, Bimson strongly opposed Yurcos analysis by
claiming that Israel is structurally connected with the other locations listed in the hymn, and
therefore is not included amongst the other city-states (Hasel 1994: 50).
Ten years later, M. Hasel conducted a highly detailed study and analysis of the stela, and
presented a new theory and interpretation. Hasel emphasizes that the political and geographic
entities are parallel to one another within the structure of the hymn. As such, these descriptions
are connected under an overarching theme, which is Merneptahs campaign in those regions. His
purpose there, Hasel points out, is to bind his enemies, or to subdue them. According to the
hymn, the city-states and geographic entities listed are the sites of his successful campaigns.
Furthermore, the structure provides a literary illustration of the progression and direction of
Merneptahs campaigns as the locations are listed from those farthest to nearest to Egypts

7
borders. Consequently, Hasel argues that the structure emphasizes and parallels the severity of
the threat that each of these entities posed to Egypt; as Merneptah first conquered those that were
most threatening to those that were the least. As such, Hasel remarks that it is of special
importance that Israel is mentioned in the center of this description, alongside other major
entities such as Ashkelon and Gezer (Hasel 1994: 50-51).
Additionally, Hasel emphasizes the importance of the phrase, its seed is not in line
C1 of the Merneptah Stela. He remarks that the characters chosen by the scribes set Israel
apart from the other entities described, as they represent an ethnic identity, or people. In the
inscription, Israel is followed a series of determinatives: a seated man and woman, a throwing
stick, and three strokes. The seated man and woman mean what they appear as, while the
throwing stick indicates a foreigner, and the three strokes mark the plural. Some argue that these
were simply scribal mistakes, but Hasel defends that they signify Israel as a population. Hasel
also notes that the hymn describes a relationship between Syria and Palestine, as the terms
Hurru and Canaan share a parallel structure. Therefore, Hasel argues that as an entity within
Canaan, Israel is not an independent city-state. This peoples influence and power, however,
was of enough significance that the Egyptian scribes explicitly reference it (Hasel 1994: 46, 5152).

Figure 2. Translation and Context of Line C1 of the Merneptah Stela

8
(http://www.biblediscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hieroglyphics-translation.jpg)
Also hotly debated is the contextual understanding of prt in the stela. The characters
common definition is grain, but its meaning can be extended to include lineage, as well.
Within the context of this particular inscription, however, Hasel argues that prt is referring to
grain. As this entity was not yet a city-state, Hasel asserts that prt is used jointly with the other
determinatives to represent an agriculture-based society. Evidence for such a society is seen in
the archaeological record from the identification of more than three hundred rural villages, and
evidence of the four-room house in the central highlands. Thus, Hasel concludes that Israel
designates a sedentary people in the rural hill country of Canaan that was agriculture-based
(Hasel 1994: 52).
The contextual meaning of Israel, however, has given rise to another series of
arguments that question whether or not such a distinct culture existed in the hill country. E.
Bloch-Smith argues that it did not. Citing both archaeological and extra-biblical evidence, she
maintains that there is no proof of a distinct culture in the region during the twelfth and
thirteenth-centuries B.C.E. She also questions why so many have defended Merneptahs Israel as
that of the biblical Israel, when the Iron I material culture of settlements throughout the region
continued distinctively Late Bronze Age traditions. For these reasons, Bloch-Smith argues that
there are no features of these settlements that are exclusively identifiable as Israelite, or that
connect these elements to the Israel of Merneptahs Stela (Bloch-Smith 2003: 401-402).
I. Finkelstein also opposes the notion that an Israelite identity existed in the hill country
of Israel or in the Transjordan during the thirteenth century. Instead, he proposes that a true
Israel did not appear until the ninth-eighth centuries, and he strongly opposes theories that rely
mostly upon the biblical narrative, such as that proposed by W.G. Dever. Dever argued that the

9
rise of Israel was the result of a movement from the lowlands to the highlands by a sedentary
population, which then evolved into the Israelite identity seen in the archaeological evidence.
Finkelstein challenges this theory by claiming that Dever is too dependent upon the historicity
of the Bible, is too conservative in his interpretation of archaeological evidence, and that Devers
views are influenced by the modern views of America as a melting pot, which he claims Dever
applies to Israels origins (Finkelstein 1996: 208).
Five schools of thought, however, have developed that support the identification of an
Israelite people in the region during the thirteenth century. At the center of these discussions is
the Merneptah Stela, which serves as an important element in the discussion of the origins of
Early Israel, and in the identification of the ethnic population in the hill country. Although three
of the theories are not viable when considering the archaeological evidence, two are of specific
merit. Firstly, I. Finkelstein continues his evaluation of the material cultures of the region by
proposing the pastoral Canaanite theory. Emphasizing the fall of the Bronze Age as a catalyst,
Finkelstein maintains that social and economic upheaval forced many urban residents to move
into the hill country. Those who settled there and in the Transjordan, he argues, were the
descendants of the Canaanites, who had evolved a pastoralist way of life toward the conclusion
of the Late Bronze Age. In this way, the pastoral Canaanite theory provides a suitable argument
for the appearance of Iron I period settlements and accounts for the continuation of Bronze Age
practices seen in the archaeological record (Killebrew 2006: 555-557, 564-566).

10

Figure 3. Map Outlining the Transjordanian Highlands

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/202/flashcards/2831202/png/screen_shot_2013-0928_at_35418_pm-1416626F9E23BE19CF6.png)
Secondly, the mixed multitude theory, proposed by A. Killebrew, cites extra-biblical,
biblical, and archaeological evidence to support that material cultures of the hill country during
the 12th and 11th centuries were characterized by distinctive settlement patterns and material
cultures. She highlights the significant increase in the number of villages in the region during the
Iron I Age period, and the evidence of the four-room house. Domestic in structure, but
agricultural in its purpose, the four-room house is characteristic of the Iron I Age hillside and has
contributed to a distinctive material culture that separates the hill country from that of the

11
lowlands. The four-room houses of this period also resemble the Canaanite structures of the Late
Bronze Age, which indicate that Canaanite traditions continued to influence the building
traditions of Israelite settlements during the Iron I period (Killebrew 2006: 566-571; Mazar
1991: 473).

Figure 4. Example of the Israelite Four-Room House from Izbet Sartah

(http://cdn.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/egalitarian-society.jpg)
The continuation of Canaanite practices is also reinforced in the identification of pithoi
jars, which demonstrate a blend of customs from Canaanite practices and those of other
nonindigenous ethnic groups. Furthermore, Killebrew mentions the close proximity of the two
regions, yet the very clear cultural boundary between them. During the Iron I period, the material
cultures of the lowlands exhibit a continuation of Late Bronze Age practices that does not appear
to have been influenced by other nonindigenous practices. By this reasoning, she argues that
these regions experienced very different social, economic, and ideological influences that

12
resulted in an ethnic identity in the hill-country that was distinctively Israelite, as identified in
the Merneptah Stela (Killebrew 2006: 566-571).

Figure 5. Collared-rim Jars Characteristic of Canaanite Settlements during the Late Bronze Age
(http://members.bib-arch.org/bswb_graphics/BSBA/17/05/BSBA170503600L.jpg)

In addition to the archaeological and extra-biblical evidence, the mixed multitude

theory also aligns with that of the biblical account. Although no reference is ever made in the
Bible to Merneptah, or to a confrontation with the Pharaoh, the narrative does describe the
people who fled from Egypt during the Exodus as a mixed multitude. As such, the blend of
cultural traditions in the central highlands during the 13th century is supported by both biblical
and archaeological evidence. The Merneptah Stelas emphasis on Israel as a people may also
support the relative young age of this entity and its recent appearance in the region (Exod. 12:
38; Isbouts 2007: 137).
Although the contextual meaning of Israel in the Merneptah Stela remains uncertain,
analysis of the literary elements indicates that the term serves as a designation for a sedentary

13
population in the rural hill country of Canaan. Interpreting prt as grain, and considering the
determinatives following Israel, it certainly appears that Israel refers to a distinctive ethnic
group. As the other locations listed in the inscription are city-states, it is noteworthy that the
Egyptian scribes uniquely recorded this entity. Perhaps Israel was an emerging population of
people within Canaan captured Egypts attention as a rising threat to the empires interests during
the reign of Merneptah. If this were the case, Merneptahs campaigns into Syria and Palestine
may have served as preemptive strikes to subdue this new entity (Hasel 1994: 50-52).
The appearance of such a population in the rural hill country is attested to in the
archaeological record. From the strata layers of the Iron I period in the hill country and
Transjordanian highlands, archaeologists have found evidence of over three hundred rural
villages. This number significantly increased following the collapse of the Late Bronze Age,
which leads many archaeologists to consider that economic, political, and social causes forced
peoples of various ethnic backgrounds into the hillside. This significant demographic and
cultural change is accounted for by various ethnic identities that include pastoralist Canaanites
and other marginal groups, such as fugitive or runaway Semitic slaves from the TwentiethDynasty New Kingdom Egypt (Killebrew 2006: 571). Other cultural backgrounds of interest
include the Midianites, Kenites, and Amalekites who were connected to the region by caravan
routes (Hasel 1994: 47-49; Killebrew 2006: 571-572).
Egypts declining influence throughout the Near East may have served as a catalyst for
the resurgence of these kinship-based societies in the hill country of Israel and in the
Transjordanian highlands. These circumstances, and the pressures placed upon these ethnic
groups following the end of the Late Bronze Age, fostered an environment in which these
various peoples shared an identity based upon ideological similarities. The combination of both

14
indigenous and nonindigenous entities resulted in a distinctive ethnic identity during the
thirteenth and twelfth centuries (Killebrew 2006: 571-572).
Thus, social, economic, and political pressures following the collapse of regional powers
during the Bronze Age, allowed for the growth of a kinship-based and agricultural-based society
in the hill country that was later identified as distinctively Israelite by Egyptian scribes in the
Merneptah Stela. For these reasons, the Merneptah Stela serves a valuable role in identifying the
origins of Early Israel and in the study of the cultural development of the Israelites (Killebrew
2006: 571-572).

15
Bibliography
Ahlstrom, G. W., and Edelman, D. 1985. Merneptahs Israel. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44
(1): 59-61.
Bloch-Smith, E. 2003. Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What is
Remembered and What is Forgotten in Israels History. Journal of Biblical Literature:
401-425.
Dever, W. 2007. Interview by Gary Glassman. Archaeology of the Hebrew Bible. The Bibles
Buried Secrets. PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrewbible.html (accessed 8 November 2015).
Finkelstein, I. 1988. Review of The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, by Amihai Mazar.
The Jewish Quarterly Review 81: 471-474.
Finkelstein, I. 1996. Ethnicity and Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can
the Real Israel Stand Up? The Biblical Archaeologist 59 (4): 198-212.
Hasel, M. G. 1994. Israel in the Merneptah Stela. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 296: 45-61.
The Holy Bible, New American Standard. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Isbouts, J. P. 2007. The Biblical World: An Illustrated Atlas. Washington D.C.: National
Geographic.
Killebrew, A. E. 2006. The Emergence of Ancient Israel: The Social Boundaries of a Mixed
Multitude in Canaan. In I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological
and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Vol. 2, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de
Miroschedji, 555-572. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mark, J. J. 2009. Sea Peoples. http://www.ancient.eu/Sea_Peoples/ (accessed 13 December
2015).