The Ancient East
No. II.
THE TELL EL AMARNA PERIOD
The Relations of Egypt and Western
Asia in the Fifteenth Century B.C.
According to
The Tell El Amarna Tablets
by
Carl Niebuhr
Translated by J. Hutchinson
London: David Nutt
57-59 Long Acre
1903
CONTENTS
The Ancient East
I. The Tablets, and How they were Found.
II. The Egyptian Court and Administration.
III. Letters from Asiatic Kings.
IV. Letters from Asiatic Vassals.
V. Political Conditions in the Tell el Amarna Period.
Bibliographical Appendix
THE ANCIENT EAST
Under this title is being issued a series of short, popular, but
thoroughly scientific studies, by the leading scholars of Germany, setting
forth the recent discoveries and investigations in Babylonian, Assyrian
and Egyptian History, Religion, and Archæology, especially as they bear
upon the traditional views of early Eastern History. The German originals
have been appearing during the last eighteen months. The English
translations made by Miss Jane Hutchison have been submitted in each case
to the Authors, and embody their latest views. Short, helpful
bibliographies are added. Each study consists of some 64 to 80 pages,
crown 8vo, and costs *1s.* sewed, or *1s. 6d.* cloth.
The following are issued:
THE REALMS OF THE EGYPTIAN DEAD.
By Professor ALFRED WIEDEMANN.
THE TELL EL AMARNA PERIOD. By Dr. C. NIEBUHR.
THE BABYLONIAN AND THE HEBREW GENESIS.
By Professor H. ZIMMERN.
THE BABYLONIAN CONCEPTION OF HEAVEN AND HELL.
By Dr. ALFRED JEREMIAS.
POPULAR LITERATURE IN ANCIENT EGYPT.
By Professor ALFRED WIEDEMANN.
I. THE TABLETS, AND HOW THEY WERE FOUND.
As early as 1820 it was known in Europe that in Middle Egypt, on the east
bank of the Nile, in the district between Minieh and Siut, there lay the
remains of a great city of Ancient Egypt. The Prussian exploration
expedition of 1842-45 gave special attention to this site, where indeed
were found, about sixty miles south of Minieh, extensive ruins, beginning
at the village of Haggi Kandil and covering the floor of a rock-bound
valley named after the fellahin village, El Amarna. At that time the
ground-plan of the city was still easy to distinguish; the regular lines
of the streets could be traced, and enough could be seen of the great
design of the principal temple to excite the admiration of the
discoverers. This example of the laying out of an ancient Egyptian town
still remains almost unique, for of old, as now, private buildings were
constructed of flimsy material. That the Tell el Amarna remains have
escaped rapid destruction is due entirely to the sudden and violent
downfall of the original splendour of the city and the complete desolation
which succeeded. The importance of the place was revealed on examination
of the surrounding cliffs. Here were found, sculptured and inscribed in a
new and peculiar style, the rock-cut tombs of the most distinguished
inhabitants of Akhet-haten, the royal city built for himself about 1380
B.C. by Amenophis IV., and destroyed soon after his early death.
In the beginning of 1888 some fellahìn digging for marl not far from the
ruins came upon a number of crumbling wooden chests, filled with clay
tablets closely covered on both sides with writing. The dusky fellows must
have been not a little delighted at finding themselves owners of hundreds
of these marketable antiquities, for which a European purchaser would
doubtless give plenty of good gold coins. To multiply their gains they
broke up the largest tablets into three or four separate pieces, often to
the grievous hindrance of the future decipherer. But very soon the matter
was fruited abroad; the Government at once intervened, almost all the find
was in due time secured, and a stop was put to any further dispersal of
separate tablets and of fragments. The political situation in Egypt is
pretty accurately indicated by the fact that about eighty of the best
preserved of the Tell el Amarna tablets at once found their way to the
British Museum. Some sixty were left in the museum at Boulak, and about
one hundred and eighty were secured for the Berlin Museum, many of them
tiny fragments, but mostly containing important records. Few have remained
in private hands.
Some alabaster slabs came to light at Tell el Amarna bearing the
hieroglyphic names of King Amenophis IV. and his father, Amenophis III.
These had evidently served as lids to the chests. Some tablets also were
inscribed with notes in hieratic, written in red ink. But in spite of
these exceptions, it was at once recognised that all the documents were
written in Babylonian cuneiform. The reading of the introductory lines on
various tablets served to show that the find consisted of part of the
Egyptian state archives in the times of the two kings Amenophis III. and
IV. Thus the first of the many startling discoveries that were to follow
in such rapid succession was made in the recognition that about 1400 B.C.
the Semitic speech of Babylon served as the language of diplomacy in the
East.
Apart from a few tablets dealing with mythological subjects and written in
Babylonian, and two which contain inventories, all the tablets were
letters. Most of them were from Egyptian officials in Syria and Canaan,
and usually they were addressed to the king. Among them were found many
long letters from Asiatic kings to the Egyptian monarch, and also a few
communications from the Foreign Office of “Pharaoh” himself. We must note,
however, that this title of Egyptian kings, so commonly used in the Old
Testament, is apparently never once employed in the Tell el Amarna
documents. It is interesting to observe how difficulties of the script and
of a language not entirely familiar to most of the scribes were overcome.
Even the learned scribes of the royal “House of the Sun” in Egypt had
obviously their own troubles in the matter, and made use of the Babylonian
mythological texts already mentioned as a means of improving their
fluency. Of this we have evidence in the thin red lines by which, on these
tablets alone, the words have been separated from each other. The
governors and officials must not be classified as educated or uneducated
on the evidence of their letters; all alike employed professional scribes,
of whom one might be skilful and the next a bungler whose communications
must be guessed at rather than read. Occasionally a Babylonian word is
followed by the corresponding Canaanite word, also in cuneiform, but
marked as a translation. Like the Egyptian kings, so the Asiatic
sovereigns had each his staff of scribes. One of the petty chiefs,
Tarkhundarash of Arsapi, was evidently so unhappy as to have none in his
Court who could read or write a letter in Babylonian, for letters to him
were written in his own tongue. The scribe of the Hittite king produced
only a species of dog Latin, while the scribe of the king of Alashia trots
out his whole vocabulary unhampered by grammar. On the other hand, the
letters of the king of Mitani are drawn up in the characters known as
Assyrian; and it is probable that the Assyrian system of cuneiform may
have originated in Mitani. If so, for the Mitani scribe there could be no
question of any special difficulty in using the acknowledged language of
diplomacy in the Ancient East.
It is evident that the Babylonian royal scribes at length showed some
consideration for their unfortunate Egyptian correspondents by writing as
a rule in phonograms which could be easily spelt out, since strange
ideograms might have brought the reader to a standstill. The sources of
the letters may be distinguished also by the colour and consistency of the
material of the tablets, which are of all shades of clay, from pale yellow
to red or dark brown. Side by side, too, with hard and legible pieces, lie
broken and crumbling fragments which have suffered sadly during the few
years that have elapsed since they were again exposed to the air.
II. THE EGYPTIAN COURT AND ADMINISTRATION.
The two Pharaohs of the Tell el Amarna Period belong to the XVIIIth
Dynasty, which about 1560 B.C. had freed the land from the yoke of certain
Asiatic invaders known as the Shasu. The new dynasty soon began to
encroach upon Asia. King Thutmosis III. (1503 to 1449 B.C.) after many
chequered campaigns conquered Syria as far as the Gulf of Iskanderun. On
the African side he extended the bounds of his kingdom to the confluence
of the Nile and the Atbara, so that the greater part of Nubia owned his
sway. The terror of his name did not die with him, but for long did good
service to his successors, the first of whom, Amenophis II., seems
moreover himself to have maintained energetically the fame of Egyptian
arms. To this influence our clay tablets bear witness by twice making
emphatic reference to the days of the powerful “Manakhbiria”—the prenomen
of King Thutmosis III. With the accession of Amenophis III. the warlike
spirit ceased to prevail at the Court of Thebes. Nothing more was to be
gained by Egypt in Western Asia, and the tastes of the new king lay in
other directions than war. The two celebrated Colossi of Memnon (statues
of himself), many great buildings, the important part played by his
favourite wife Teye, the well-filled harem, the cultivation of “wisdom”
(which practically, no doubt, was tantamount to what we should call
“preciosity”); last, but not least, the solemn adoration of his own divine
image—all these facts combine to indicate the altered condition of things
which came about under Amenophis III. He reigned thirty-six years, long
enough to allow the movement introduced by him to run its course. His son,
Amenophis IV., was, however, just as little inclined as his father to walk
in the steps of his warlike ancestors. Hampered apparently by bodily
defects, this Son of the Sun tried his strength in a field often far more
dangerous than the battlefield. He began a reform of the Egyptian
religion, apparently in the direction of a kind of monotheism in which the
chief worship was reserved for the disk of the sun, the symbol under which
the god Ra was adored at Heliopolis in the Delta.
Nothing being known of the life of this king as heir-apparent, probably we
shall never understand what led him to take this new departure. From his
conduct during the early years of his reign it may be concluded that he
intended to proceed gradually, but was roused to more aggressive measures
by the resistance of the powerful priests of Amon in Thebes. These men
acted, of course, for their own interests in promptly resisting even mild
attempts at reform. Perhaps also the king’s aim had been from the outset
to weaken the influence of the Theban hierarchy by new doctrines and to
strengthen the royal power by steady secularisation. Open strife between
the adherents of Amon and those of the Sun’s Disk, the “Aten,” broke out
in the second or third year of Amenophis IV., that is, about 1380 B.C. The
immediate removal of the Court from Thebes to Tell el Amarna points to a
failure of the royal efforts, for the command to build the new city had
not long been issued, and the place was still altogether unfinished. The
official world promptly broke with the old religion. The king altered his
throne-name, “Amen-hetep,” to “Akhen-Aten,” “The glory of the Sun’s Disk”;
his young daughters received names compounded with “Aten,” whilst the
courtiers found it advisable to strike out “Amen,” if this chanced to form
part of their own names, and to substitute for it “Ra,” as having more or
less the same significance as “Aten.” “The doctrine,” as the new dogmas
were called in inscriptions at Tell el Amarna, was regarded as so entirely
a matter of home politics in Egypt, that the officials of Syria and
Palestine—all foreigners—do not seem to have received any formal
information regarding it. Most of them continue to refer to Amon in
perfect innocence, and only a few who were better informed began rather
later to take the change into account. Thus Yitia of Ashkelon, Pu-Adda of
Wurza, and a certain Addudaian correct the name of the Egyptian
commissioner “Amanappa” into “Rianappa.” Abimilki of Tyre apparently even
tried to give himself out as one initiated into “the doctrine,” and to
represent his city as a servant of Aten. If this were the case he must
have received a severe rebuff, for after his one attempt he falls back
into the old style. Neither the royal nor the national pride of Egypt
would suffer any such familiarities.
The new capital received the significant name of “Akhet-Aten” (“Horizon of
the Sun”) and was solemnly consecrated long before it was half finished.
The widow of Amenophis III., the queen-mother Teye, came occasionally to
visit the new capital, and was received with all honour; evidently she had
paid timely respect to her son’s opinions. How far the Aten dogma
represented real progress in religious thought can be gathered only from
the contents of a few hymns remaining on the walls of some of the tombs.
In these the expression of devout feeling seems to have become richer and
more spontaneous, and the monotheistic tendency is evident. This
characteristic, however, may often be observed by a sympathetic reader in
the hymns to Amon, and even to less important deities: the deity adopted
as a special object of worship by any individual is always favourably
represented by him. The Aten dogma, being based on natural phenomena and
not on mythology, was, of course, heretical.
Those of his officials who had accepted “the doctrine” were regarded by
Akhenaten as deserving men, and on this ground alone, Ai, called Haya in
the Amarna letters, received golden honours to the full. This Haya, who
was entitled “beloved royal scribe,” was probably a secretary of state,
and was once sent as a special ambassador to Babylonia. Dudu occupied
another important post; Amanappa, who has already been mentioned, seems
from a letter written by him to Rib-Addi of Gebal, to have been a
commander-in-chief. Hani, Salma, Paura, Pahamnata, Hatib Maya, Shuta,
Hamashni, and Zitana all appear as the bearers of royal commissions in
Syrian territory. An official named Shakhshi receives instruction as to
the conducting of a royal caravan. But to the Asiatic vassals the most
important office of all was the governorship of Lower Egypt, the country
called “Yarimuta,” an office filled at this time by Yanhamu. The letters
afford abundant evidence that any vassal who had incurred Yanhamu’s enmity
must walk warily. The minister of the king of Alashia, though his equal in
rank, sent gifts to this dangerous man, who had harassed merchants of
Alashia by demanding from them illegal dues. Rib-Addi of Gebal lost land
and throne, in spite of the countenance of Amanappa, because such was
Yanhamu’s pleasure; and of Milki-El of Gath he made a severe example, to
which we shall refer later.
On the whole, the Asiatic provinces enjoyed self-government under the
supremacy of Egypt, and the disadvantages of this condition of things are
revealed in numerous letters. These end almost invariably with a request
to the king to come in person to the aid of his distressed vassals, or at
least to send troops. Sometimes this was done, but usually such
expeditions seem to have been undertaken with inadequate forces and seldom
resulted in permanent peace. The native princes, chiefs, and village
headmen were perpetually struggling with each other. They made alliances
among themselves, or they entered into secret treaties with neighbouring
states and afterwards brazenly denied them. This wretched state of affairs
may be traced to two principal causes—the tribute question and the
immigration of Bedawìn tribes.
The king was not to be trifled with when tribute was overdue. The most
valid excuses—loss of territory, war, failure of the harvest—were received
with a suspicion doubtless justified in general but which must have caused
much hardship in individual cases. The ordinary tribute was fixed, as well
as the regular subsidy for royal troops and the force which had to be
raised in emergencies. But the gifts—such as female slaves—which must
needs be sent not only to the courtiers but even to the king himself,
added enormously to the burden, so much so that to the poorer chiefs a
summons from Egypt to appear in person meant little less than ruin.
Resistance to it was so surely to be counted on that such a summons was
often kept in the background more as a threat than anything else. Now and
then petty chiefs in Palestine and Syria withheld their bushels of corn,
their three oxen or their twenty sheep; or perhaps they were so sparing of
bakshìsh that the tribute itself was swallowed up and vanished entirely
from the accounts. It was scarcely possible to take costly measures to
punish such delinquents, so the business was turned over to some kind
neighbour of the recalcitrant chief, and a little war was soon fairly
ablaze. But when direct commands of royal ambassadors were treated as of
doubtful authenticity, it was hardly likely that the authority placed in
the hands of an equal would meet with much respect. Both leaders received
reinforcements; a third intervened at a moment favourable to himself; many
and often very remote quarrels broke out, and when at length the royal
commissioners hurried upon the scene it was hard for them to say whether
or not the original sentence had been executed. Certainly most of the
property of the original offenders had been largely lost or destroyed, but
the plunder had crumbled away in passing through countless hands, and the
royal official might seek it from Dan to Beersheba, or farther, but in
vain. Out of the first difficulty a dozen others had arisen, till the
suzerain seized upon his dues by force, yet without leaving peace behind
him. The tablets are full of references to these complicated struggles,
which it is not always possible to follow in detail.
Additional confusion was caused by the immigration of Bedawìn tribes. In
the north the nomadic Sutu, in the south the Habiri pressed forward and
encroached upon Egyptian territory. It is evident that this further
pressure was calculated to bring matters to a crisis, for, like the
tribute, it affected pre-eminently the vassal chiefs and tribes. We find
the Habiri especially in the very act of ruining some of these petty
princes, others of whom preferred to make treaties with their unwelcome
guests, though this indeed was apparently in secret only. But the Sutu
reached the domains of more powerful vassals, and by two of these, Aziru
and Namjauza, were openly taken into pay. Obviously such alliances with
land-seeking plunderers could only prolong and embitter the strife. In
Palestine, no doubt, peace as regards Egypt would soon have been restored
had not the Habiri proceeded to seize certain strongholds, which they used
as centres for further expeditions, thus involving the settled inhabitants
in wider quarrels. What with the help of the Bedawîn, and the universal
unrest any ambitious vassal of Egypt must at length have seen a tempting
prospect of establishing an independent kingdom, if only he could deceive
the Egyptian Government long enough as to his intentions, and delay or
thwart any measures that might be taken against him.
Certainly the government of Pharaoh did not lack for watchfulness and was
well, if not too well, served in the matter of information. But in the
face of perpetual complaints and counter-complaints, entreaties for help
and what were for the most part incredible assurances of everlasting
fidelity, there was no course for the king and his councillors to take but
either to order a military expedition on a large scale, or to turn a
sceptical ear to all alike and confine their attention simply to the
tribute. Pride and weakness combined led them to take the dangerous middle
course and send inadequate bodies of men singly into the disturbed
districts. A certain amount of success attended the policy; the king’s
Nubian “Pidati” were dreaded from of old, and his mercenaries, the
Shirtani, were looked upon as invincible. When it was a mere question of
hundreds in the field against hundreds, the appearance of a company, or of
a few troops, restored peace for a time, but serious and aggravated
hostilities between masses of rebels could not always be checked by such
small numbers, and it was a severe blow to the prestige of the Shirtani
when they were defeated at Gebal by the Sutu.
The knowledge that Egypt was far away, and that the Son of the Sun was
highly exalted, led the chiefs and officials in Syria and Canaan to deeds
of open defiance of their suzerain. Ambassadors from foreign states were
robbed in passing on their journey to Egypt, caravans were plundered, and
gifts sent to Pharaoh were intercepted. All this notwithstanding, still
the stream of rhetorical devotion flowed on in the letters.
III. LETTERS FROM ASIATIC KINGS.
Akhenaten had taken with him to the new capital part of the archives of
his father. With few exceptions, it is not from the letters of vassals
that we learn this, for these, as a rule, are addressed simply “To the
King.” The foreign sovereigns, however, almost always addressed the
Pharaoh by his prenomen. Thus neither “Amenhetep” nor “Akhenaten” appears
in the Tell el Amarna letters, but always “Nimmuria” (_i.e._, Neb-maat-Ra)
for Amenophis III. and “Napkhuria” (_i.e._, Nefer-khepru-Ra) for
Akhenaten. Dating there was none in correspondence of that time and hence
these addresses are of great chronological importance.
Four communications to “Nimmuria” from the Babylonian ruler Kadashman-Bel
(at first incorrectly read Kallima-Sin) are among the most important in
this respect. The writer calls his land Karduniash, a name for Babylonia
used by the Assyrians after the native employment of it had long ceased.
Kadashman-Bel himself belonged to the house of the Kassite chiefs, who,
about two hundred and fifty years previously, had invaded and conquered
Babylonia, but who afterwards fully adopted Babylonian manners and
customs. It is at once apparent that Nimmuria and Kadashman-Bel approach
each other as equals. The Egyptian, however, was supposed to possess one
very precious thing in superfluity, namely, gold; for at that time the
gold mines of Nubia were in good working. The Babylonian letters,
therefore, seldom failed to contain a hint that the king desired some of
the precious metal, sometimes as a return gift for rich presents he had
given the Egyptian, sometimes as temple-offerings, or as a dowry.
Matrimonial alliances were the principal means by which a ruler kept on
good terms with neighbouring princes, and Oriental polygamy allowed a
great deal to be done in that line. It is noticeable that the claim made
by the Egyptian king to divine honours soon began to cause little
difficulties in diplomatic intercourse. Not that “the Son of the Sun”
claimed adoration from his royal compeers: that was expected from his
subjects only. But he showed the greatest reluctance to give away a
daughter to any foreign king. Moreover, the fact must not be overlooked
that it was precisely in the XVIIIth Dynasty that brothers and sisters of
the royal house so frequently intermarried, a custom afterwards affected
by the Ptolemies and implying simply that the royal race of the Pharaohs
being emphatically divine was therefore essentially exalted above the
world in general. According to this flattering fiction there could be no
equal union for a king of Egypt except with his own sister. No such
marriage seems to have been made by Nimmuria, but, as if in amends for
that, he worshipped, as above stated, his own divine image. We need not
wonder, then, that he regarded his children as divine manifestations and
hesitated to bestow them in marriage.
Kadashman-Bel seems to have thoroughly appreciated this little weakness,
and no doubt the mortal gods on the Nile were a subject for mockery at the
Courts of Western Asia, even in those days. Thus, a remark of Nimmuria’s
to the effect that no princess had ever been given away from Egypt is
answered with delightful dryness:
“Why so? A king art thou, and canst do according to thy will. If
thou give her, who shall say anything against it? I wrote before,
‘Send, at least, a beautiful woman.’ Who is there to say that she
is not a king’s daughter? If thou wilt not do this, thou hast no
regard for our brotherhood and friendship.”
Kadashman-Bel threatened that he in his turn would hesitate to give his
daughter in marriage, and would make similar evasive excuses. At last,
however, the negotiations came to the desired conclusion, and for a time
gifts flowed more freely on both sides.
Valuable, though in many respects puzzling, is a large tablet containing a
letter of Nimmuria to Kadashman-Bel. Possibly it may have been kept as a
copy, and in that case it must belong to the early part of the
correspondence. More probably however, the letter is an original which
came back “undelivered” to Egypt, the addressee having died in the
meantime. Kadashman-Bel had complained that his sister, who had been given
by his father in marriage to the Egyptian, had subsequently never once
been seen by any Babylonian ambassadors. Certainly a woman in royal garb
had been pointed out, but not one of them had recognised her as their own
princess. “Who knows that it was not some beggar’s daughter, a Gagaian, or
a maiden of Hanirabbat or Ugarit whom my messengers saw?” Then Nimmuria
took up the tale, and complained that Kadashman-Bel sent only ambassadors
who had never frequented his father’s Court, and were moreover of adverse
bias. “Send a _kamiru_” (evidently a eunuch is meant) “who knows thy
sister.” Further misunderstandings come under discussion, from which it is
evident that the general situation between the two princes was very much
strained.
King Tushratta of Mitani was a phenomenon in his way. In Egyptian
inscriptions his kingdom is called Naharina—_i.e._, “Mesopotamia.” One of
his tablets bears the following official memorandum, written in red ink
and in hieratic:
“[Received] in the two-[and-thirtieth year of the reign of
Nimmuria], in the first winter month, on the tenth day, the Court
being at the southern residence (Thebes), in the Residence
Ka-em-Ekhut. Duplicate of the Naharina letter brought by the
messenger Pirizzi and (another).”
Tushratta’s dominion was wide, extending from south-eastern Cappadocia to
beyond the later Assyrian capital, Nineveh. But the kingdom of Mitani,
occasionally called after the northern fatherland of its people,
Hanirabbat, was nearing its fall. In the south it had a dangerous enemy
in Babylonia; in the north and west the Hittites were hostile and all the
more to be dreaded since Mitani-Hanirabbat was inhabited by a people
related to the Hittite stock. The kings of Mitani soon realised that their
existence was best secured by a steady alliance with Egypt. To this end
Artatama and Shutarna, the two predecessors of Tushratta, had sent their
daughters to the harem of the Pharaohs. The so-called “marriage scarab” of
Nimmuria bears witness to this, and reference to the bond is often made by
Tushratta. Before he could ascend the throne he had various difficulties
to contend against, of which a faithful account is sent to Egypt:
“When I ascended my father’s throne I was still young, for Pirhi
did evil to my land and had slain its lord. Therefore he did evil
to me also and to all my friends. But I quailed not before the
crimes that were committed in my land, but slew the murderers of
Artashumara my brother, with all their adherents. Know also, oh,
my royal brother! that the whole army of the Hittites marched
against my land. But the God Teshup, the lord, delivered them into
my hand and I destroyed them. Not one man from their midst
returned to his own land. And now I have sent to thee a chariot
and two horses, a youth and a maiden, the booty of the land of the
Hittites.”
This letter betrays itself as one of the earliest written for Tushratta by
the fact that it makes no request for gold. All his later letters are
filled with greedy entreaties, completely giving the lie to the immediate
pretext under which they were professedly written. One of them, more than
a yard long and proportionately broad, still keeps its charms to itself,
since for some unknown reason, though written in cuneiform character like
the rest, the language is that of Hanirabbat and this we are still unable
to read. Nimmuria indeed, seems to have had a weakness for this worthy
brother-in-law and his ingenuous manner of approaching him, and spared
neither presents nor promises; at his death, however, some of the latter
remained unfulfilled. Evidently neighbouring kings heard at length of
Tushratta’s financial success and were naturally envious. An extract will
give the reader a more definite notion of this royal correspondence with
its stylisms and turns of thought. The following is taken from Letter
VIII. in the British Museum edition. The long-winded introduction was
already a fixed convention, and occurs in all the letters from whatever
country, but the declaration of affection is peculiar to Tushratta:
“To Nimmuria, the great king, the king of Egypt, my brother, my
brother-in-law; who loves me and whom I love: Tushratta, the great
king, thy (future) father-in-law, king of Mitani; who loves thee
and is thy brother. It is well with me; may it be well with thee,
with thy house, with my sister and thy other wives, with thy sons,
thy chariots, thy horses, thy nobles, thy land, and all that is
thine, may it be well with them indeed! Whereas thy fathers in
their time kept fast friendship with my fathers, thou hast
increased the friendship. Now, therefore, that thou and I are
friends thou hast made it ten times closer than with my father.
May the gods cause our friendship to prosper! May Teshup, the
lord, and Amon ordain it eternally as it now is! I write this to
my brother that he may show me even more love than he showed my
father. Now I ask gold from my brother, and it behoves me to ask
this gold for two causes: in the first place for war equipment (to
be provided later), and secondly, for the dowry (likewise to be
provided). So, then, let my brother send me much gold, without
measure, more than to my father. For in my brother’s land gold is
as the dust of the earth. May the gods grant that in the land of
my brother, where already so much gold is, there may be ten times
more in times to come! Certainly the gold that I require will not
trouble my brother’s heart, but let him also not grieve my heart.
Therefore let my brother send gold without measure, in great
quantity. And I also will grant all the gifts that my brother
asks. For this land is my brother’s land, and this my house is his
house.”
All Tushratta’s letters are written in this tone with the exception of the
last. Nimmuria felt his end approaching, and entreated the aid of “Our
Lady of Nineveh.” Such an expedient was not foreign to Egyptian thought. A
late inscription professes to tell how a certain divine image was sent
from Thebes to a distant land for the healing of a foreign princess. From
Tushratta’s answer also it appears that the statue of the goddess Ishtar
had once before been taken from Nineveh to Thebes.
This letter begins solemnly:
“The words of Ishtar of Nineveh, mistress of all lands. ‘To Egypt,
to the land that I love will I go, and there will I sojourn.’ Now
I send her and she goes. Let my brother worship her and then let
her go in gladness that she may return. May Ishtar protect my
brother and me for a hundred thousand years. May she grant unto us
both great gladness; may we know nothing but happiness.”
All this notwithstanding, Nimmuria must die, and later Tushratta describes
his own grief on the occasion:
“And on that day I wept, I sat in sorrow. Food and drink I touched
not on that day; grieved was my heart. I said, ‘Oh, that it had
been I who died !’ ”
When he wrote thus the feelings expressed were probably genuine, for times
had changed sadly for him and men of his type.
We have now come to the accession of the reforming king Napkhuria—_i.e._,
Akhenaten. This zealot succeeded in bringing into the foreign relations of
Egypt some of the unrest caused by his measures in home politics. To begin
with, he sought for new political alliances and sacrificed those already
existing, not by breaking off the connections, but by turning a deaf ear
to requests, or by adopting an insolent tone in his answers. On one
occasion he showered on the old beggar Tushratta derision which was no
doubt well deserved, but which it was most impolitic to express so
plainly. He gives one the impression of an inexperienced prince, brought
up in Oriental seclusion, who persists at all hazards in playing the part
of a shrewd and worldly-wise ruler. He strained after novelty at the
expense of his own security, and attempted to demonstrate the strength of
the supports of his throne by sawing them through.
About the time of Nimmuria’s death Kadashman-Bel of Babylonia also died,
and Burnaburiash, probably his brother or cousin, was prepared on his
accession to maintain the traditional friendship with Egypt. But at the
very beginning Napkhuria was guilty of a breach of etiquette in neglecting
to send any expression of sympathy during a long illness of Burnaburiash.
In spite of many fine words, the usual matrimonial negotiations did not
run smoothly; moreover, attacks were made on travelling messengers, and at
length Napkhuria’s avarice forced the Babylonian to measures of
retaliation, and he writes:
“Since ambassadors from thy fathers came to my fathers, they also
have lived on friendly terms. We should continue in the same.
Messengers have now come from thee thrice, but thou hast sent with
them no gift worthy the name. I also shall desist in the same way.
If nothing is denied me I shall deny thee nothing.”
Meanwhile, the dear brother in Egypt was continually finding opportunities
to annoy the Babylonian. Assyria was then a small state on the middle
Tigris, in exactly the same relation to the suzerainty of Babylonia as
Canaan was to that of Egypt. Disregarding this fact, Napkhuria sent a very
large quantity of gold to the prince Assurnadinakhi and ostentatiously
received an Assyrian embassy. Burnaburiash, in remonstrating, referred to
the loyal conduct of his father, Kurigalzu, who had answered the
Canaanites with threats when, in an attempted rising against Nimmuria,
they offered to do homage to Kurigalzu.
“Now there are the Assyrians, my vassals. Have not I already
written to thee in regard to them? If thou lovest me they will
gain nothing from thee. Let them depart unsuccessful.”
This exhortation seems to have been vain, for a letter of the next
Assyrian king, Assuruballit, speaks of a regular exchange of messengers,
and indicates that the Sutu of the desert—doubtless at the instigation of
the Babylonians—were about to kill every Egyptian who showed himself in
their territory.
A prince of Alashia, who never mentions either his own name or that of the
Egyptian king, wrote short letters, for the most part of a business
character. Alashia probably lay on the Cilician coast. Gold did not tempt
him; he asked modestly for silver in return for copper, for oil, textiles
and manufactured articles in return for wood for building. Thus the
tablets from Alashia are rich in information regarding commercial matters
and questions of public rights. They are of special interest for us, owing
to the fact that one of them contains the first historic mention of the
plague.
“Behold! my brother, I have sent thee five hundred talents of
copper as a gift. Let it not grieve my brother’s heart that it is
too little. For in my land the hand of Nergal (the god of
pestilence) has slain all the workers, and copper cannot be
produced. And, my brother, take it not to heart that thy messenger
stayed three years in my land. For the hand of Nergal is in it,
and in my house my young wife died.”
Yet this ruler also had to guard himself against embassies unworthy of a
king sent by Napkhuria. Another prince, in a letter unfortunately much
damaged, made the complaint that Napkhuria had once caused his own name to
be written first in a letter. This was, indeed, unparalleled; the title of
the recipient stands first even in a severe reprimand sent to the Egyptian
vassal Aziru. As if to equalise matters, in royal letters the greetings
that follow the address begin with a mention of the welfare of the writer.
“It is well with me. May it be well with thee,” &c. There is, however, one
tablet addressed to Napkhuria that committed the offence complained of,
and it was perhaps for this reason that the introductory address was
scratched through anciently. It is fairly certain that this letter, as
well as the one complaining of Napkhuria’s breach of etiquette, came from
the Hittite king. The tone throughout is very decided, and complaints of
neglect of proper consideration are not wanting.
A short time before his death Nimmuria had married another daughter of
Tushratta, Tadukhipa, the long inventory of whose dowry was found at Tell
el Amarna. On receiving the news—for which he was already prepared—of the
death of his hoary-headed son-in-law, Tushratta at once sent Pirizzi and
Bubri “with lamentations” to Napkhuria. He managed to suppress his
personal wishes up to the third message, but prepared the way for them by
calling Teye, the chief wife of Nimmuria, as a witness. “And all the
matters that I negotiated with thy father, Teye, thy mother, knoweth them;
none other besides knoweth of them.” Immediately after this came the
request that Napkhuria should send him the “golden images” (statuettes)
that Nimmuria had promised him. And Napkhuria wasted no words, but sent by
the messenger Hamashi—the wooden models! He seems to have thought he was
acting as a good son and a shrewd man of business in fulfilling his
father’s promises at so cheap a rate.
But Tushratta was not easily shaken off. His next move was to send Teye
and her son each a letter at the same time. He gave polite greetings from
his wife Yuni to the widow, whose influence was evidently still strong,
sent her presents, and entreated her intercession. This remarkable letter
runs as follows:
“To Teye, Queen of Egypt, Tushratta, King of Mitani. May it be
well with thee, may it be well with thy son, may it be well with
Tadukhipa, my daughter, thy young companion in widowhood. Thou
knowest that I was in friendship with Nimmuria, thy husband, and
that Nimmuria was in friendship with me. What I wrote to him and
negotiated with him, and likewise what Nimmuria thy husband wrote
to me and negotiated with me, thou and Gilia and Mani (Tushratta’s
messengers), ye know it. But thou knowest it better than all
others. And none other knows it. Now thou hast said to Gilia: ‘Say
to thy lord, Nimmuria my husband was in friendship with thy father
and sent him the military standards, which he kept. The embassies
between them were never interrupted. But now, forget not thou
thine old friendship with thy brother Nimmuria and extend it to
his son Napkhuria. Send joyful embassies; let them not be
omitted.’ Lo, I will not forget the friendship with Nimmuria!
More, tenfold more, words of friendship will I exchange with
Napkhuria thy son and keep up right good friendship. But the
promise of Nimmuria, the gift that thy husband ordered to be
brought to me, thou hast not sent. I asked for golden statuettes.
But now Napkhuria thy son has had them made of wood, though gold
is as dust in thy land. Why does this happen just now? Should not
Napkhuria deliver that to me which his father gave me? And he
wishes to increase our friendship tenfold! Wherefore then dost
thou not bring this matter before thy son Napkhuria? Even though
thou do it not he ought nevertheless to deliver unto me statuettes
of gold and in no way to slight me. Thus friendship will reign
between us tenfold. Let thy messengers to Yuni my wife depart with
Napkhuria’s ambassador, and Yuni’s messenger shall come to thee.
Lo, I send gifts for thee; boxes filled with good oil (perfume),”
&c. &c.
To Napkhuria also Tushratta insists on his rights in detail. The
messengers from Mitani were said to have been present at the casting of
the images, and even to have started on their journey home when Nimmuria
died. It may thus be assumed that Napkhuria at once ordered the transport
to be brought back. Queen Teye evidently showed no desire to be mixed up
in so unpleasant a business, but Napkhuria demanded that the messenger
Gilia should be sent to him.
Most probably this often-mentioned Gilia was the witness present at the
casting and despatching of the images. Tushratta gave evasive answers, and
his last letter (more than two hundred lines in length) is something in
the nature of an ultimatum. On both sides fresh complaints are brought
forward, and the settlement of each one of them was made dependent on the
settlement of the principal question. Napkhuria threatened to close his
land against all subjects of Mitani, and, as no later document has been
found, it is probable that at this point all intercourse ceased. A much
mutilated letter from Gebal to Egypt announces the departure of the king
of Mitani with an armed force; but it is doubtful whether this can be
quoted in the present connection.
The characters of the two irreconcilable monarchs, who show each other up
so admirably for our edification, make any question as to which had right
on his side seem comparatively trifling. Tushratta was evidently much
distressed that he dared not venture to send his Gilia back again and that
none of the later letters which he had from Nimmuria contained any word of
the golden images. It is evident also that Napkhuria, supported by Teye,
had actually recalled embassies that his father had already sent out. The
old king, who had called Ishtar of Nineveh to his help, may have been
brought by the approach of death into a generous state of mind not
uncommon in such cases. Even now we say, “He must be near his end,” when a
man shows unexpected and unusual gentleness. It is quite possible that
Nimmuria had ordered the images in question to be made for his worthy
friend without giving any formal promise to send them, and that as soon as
Tushratta learned what had happened, he promptly interposed with a lie, in
hope of appealing to Napkhuria’s sense of the fitness of things. That,
however, was expecting too much.
IV. LETTERS FROM ASIATIC VASSALS.
Four-fifths of the number of letters consist of reports and communications
from Egyptian governors, military commanders, magistrates, and other
officials in Western Asia. The form of address from these subordinates to
the Pharaoh is naturally very different from “Royal Brother,” and in
hurried announcements it is often contracted. Written in full the long
formula runs:
“To the king, my lord, my gods, my sun, the sun of heaven; Yitia,
prefect of Askelon is thy servant, the dust at thy feet, the
servant of thy horses. At the feet of the king my lord seven times
and again seven times I prostrate myself upon my back and upon my
breast.”
The importance of these letters, however, consists in the substance of
what they report and in what they tell us as to the doings of the writers.
They are the data by reason of which the Tell el Amarna archives
constitute a unique store of historical material for the study of the
history of civilisation.
Warlike expeditions among the vassal chiefs were the order of the day.
Most dangerous of all the chiefs was Aziru, prefect of the land of the
Amorites, whose territory included the district north of Damascus and part
of the valley of the Orontes. In the hope of founding an independent
kingdom, Aziru had swiftly seized on the dominions of all the chiefs on
his northern boundary, and in this action his admirable understanding with
the Egyptian officials afforded him invaluable help. The town of Tunip
sent a truly pathetic letter to Pharaoh from which we learn that Aziru had
already taken Nii, was besieging Simyra in Phœnicia, and at the same time,
by the aid of his creatures at Court, had succeeded in preventing the king
from reinstating a prince of Tunip who had been sent into Egypt as a
hostage. This prince, a certain Yadi Addu, had already been released and
was on his way home when the allies of Aziru caused him to be recalled.
“If, however, we have to mourn,” so the complaint proceeds, “the
king himself will soon have to mourn over those things which Aziru
has committed against us, for next he will turn his hand against
his lord. But Tunip, thy city, weeps; her tears flow; nowhere is
there help for us.”
The most bitter complaints against Aziru and his father Abd-Ashera come
from Rib-Addi of Gebal. His utterances rival the Lamentations of Jeremiah
both in volume and in monotonous pathos. One of these many letters, the
contents of which are often stereotyped enough, is also noticeable for its
revelation of the connection of Rib-Addi, who must already have been an
elderly man, with Amanappa:
“To Amanappa, my father; Rib-Addi, thy son! At my father’s feet I
fall. Again and again I asked thee, ‘Canst thou not rescue me from
the hand of Abd-Ashera? All the Habiri are on his side; the
princes will hear no remonstrances, but are in alliance with him;
thereby is he become mighty.’ But thou hast answered me, ‘Send thy
messenger with me to Court, and then will I, if nothing be said
against it (_i.e._, by the king), send him again and again with
royal troops to thee till the Pidati march forth to secure thy
life.’ Then I answered thee, ‘I will not delay to send the man,
but nothing of this must come to the ears of Abd-Ashera, for
[Yanhamu has] taken [silver] from his hand.’ (As much as to say
that if Abd-Ashera gives Yanhamu a hint, the messenger will never
get beyond Lower Egypt.) But thou hast said, ‘Fear not, but send a
ship to the Yarimuta, and money and garments will come to thee
thence.’ Now, behold, the troops which thou hast given me have
fled, because thou hast neglected me, while I have obeyed thee. He
hath spoken with the official (Yanhamu?) nine times [in vain].
Behold, thou art delaying with regard to this offence as with the
others. What then can save me? If I receive no troops I shall
forsake my city, and flee, doing that which seems good to me to
preserve my life.”
Yanhamu’s bias against Rib-Addi is made evident in many other letters
which the poor wretch addressed to the Court:
“If I should make a treaty with Abd-Ashera as did Yap-Addi and
Zimrida, then I should be safe. Furthermore, since Simyra is
indeed lost to me, and Yanhamu hath received Bit-Arti, he ought to
send me provision of grain that I may defend the king’s city for
him. Thou, oh king, speak to Yanhamu; ‘Behold, Rib-Addi is in thy
hand, and all injury done to him falls on thee.’ ”
This desire was not complied with, for the Phœnician vassal was at length
robbed of all his cities and possessions, so that even the callous
Egyptian Government felt obliged at last to send a threatening embassy to
Aziru, the son of Abd-Ashera, and the real author of the difficulties in
Gebal. At the same time the surrender was demanded of certain “enemies of
the king,” who were in all probability principal adherents of Aziru. When
the messenger Hani arrived with this note, Aziru, evidently warned in good
time, had promptly vanished over the hills, and none of the royal commands
could be carried out. He pretends to have settled down in Tunip, which he
must previously have seized, but at once returned home on hearing of
Hani’s arrival. Unfortunately it was too late. The cunning Amorite brought
forward one excuse after another. “Even if thy actions be just, yet if
thou dissemble in thy letters at thy pleasure, the king must at length
come to think that thou liest in every case,” is a passage in the letter
brought by Hani. Aziru replies in a tone of injured innocence:
“To the great king, my lord, my god, my sun; Aziru, thy servant.
Seven times and again seven times, &c. Oh, lord, I am indeed thy
servant; and only when prostrate on the ground before the king, my
lord, can I speak what I have to say. But hearken not, O lord, to
the foes who slander me before thee. I remain thy servant for
ever.”