There are also references in the Old Testament tradition itself which point to peaceful relations between the Canaanite cities and the Israelite' groups which came into the country. Thus Josh. 9 mentions a treaty which the Israelites', probably the tribe of Ben- jamin, made with the Gibeonite tetrapolis. Although we know nothing further about its original content, it probably dealt with delimiting the rights of use with regard to pastureland and water, analogous, fot example, with Gen. 26, and perhaps also with agree- ments in tespect of trade, the rights of intermarriage and mutual military support. The special position of Gibeon as a result of this treaty can be seen to remain effective right into the monarchical period, A similar kind of assessment must be made of the attempt, reported in Gen. 34, on the part of the city of Shechem to enter into closer relationships with the tribes of Simeon and Levi. This narrative is stylized in the usual fashion and reads like a novelle with individuals as the protagonists. It presupposes, as Alt shows, that the two tribes, who seem to have had their original home in the heart of the Negeb,44 have, in the course of changing their pastures, penetrated the district of Shechem. Astonishingly enough, an offer of alliance is made by the Canaanites, but the plan is unsuccessful; Simeon and Levi, rather, take the city in a sudden attack, kill the inhabitants and burn it to the ground, whereupon, certainly under pressure from the indigenous population (cf. Gen. 34.30), they withdraw southwards, perhaps back to their former territories, and never appear again in central Pales- tine; at a later date, Shechem belongs to Manasseh. The reason for this violent end to friendly relations is said, in the narrative as we have it, to be the rape of Dinah, the 'sister' of Simeon and Levi, by the son of the city prince, an incident whose background in tribal history is extremely obscure. Finally, in the case of the tribe) of Manasseh, one must even accept the fact that Canaanite cities, 45 as is clear from the genealogies (Num. 26.29-34), were accepted into the alliance itself as clans' (»išpābõt). From the point of view of the conquest tradition this occurrence is astonishing. Alt explains it in terms of settlement history by suggesting that the tribe of Manasseh, which originated from the split in the house of Joseph', was crowded into living closely with Canaanite cities by the upsurge of his 'brother Ephraim and, on grounds of self-preservation, was forced into forming an alliance with these cities.
In this case, too, there is never any mention of hostile encounters; unless one accepts that the traditions referring to such encounters have been lost, then the conclusion is unavoidable that here too, as in the case of Benjamin and the Gibeonites, treaties of union were made.
------------
The Conquest of Palestine' reflected in the biblical settlement traditions of Josh. 1-I2 and Judg. 1 and obvious from the archaeological evidence of the destruction of cities in the thirteenth century is also, in Albright's view, the final and decisive phase of a process which took place over a considerable period. Like Alt, Albright would regard the accounts of the battles of Jacob and his sons in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Gen. 34; 48.22; I Chron. 7.20ff.; Jub. 34) as traditions about an eatlier stage of the same
process. The settlement of later Israel had already begun therefore in the patriarchal period'. The traditions about the wanderings and activities of the 'patriarchs' in Palestine are then linked by Albright with the numerous reports concerning the activity of the apiru în the fifteenth/fourteenth century in the same area, and he regards the patriarchs' (explicitly Abraham, at least, on the basis of Gen. I4.13) as belonging to this particular stratum of the population whom he considers to have been semi-nomads who trans- ported merchandise on their donkey caravans.38 They had, since the Middle Bronze Age (MB I), occupied the scarcely accessible mountainous regions to the west of the Jordan, so that the silence of the Amarna letters and of the Israelite settlement traditions about that region can be explained without any difficulty. They had, furthet, allied themsclves with the Israclites' proper, members of the same profession and of the same race, when these latter returned from Egypt and burst into Palestine west of the Jordan.
Albright also explains in this way how the later tradition could no longer differentiate the various groups. The 'apiru|Israelites, united also by the religion of Moses, then gained the upper hand in the struggle for power within Palestine and either annexed the cities to their alliance by (treaty, subjection or absorption or else annihilated them.