International Cooperation During the Amarna Period

 This paper originally written as a discussion paper with informal citation.

ASH-3200:  Ancient Near Eastern Societies

Dr. Tiffany Early-Spadoni

University of Central Florida

Near East During the Amarna Period

International Cooperation During the Amarna Period

                The Late Bronze Age in the Near East was marked by a period of international cooperation between the great superpowers of the region that had not been seen before.  The era is often referred to as the Amarna Period because much of what we know regarding diplomacy between these kingdoms come from the archive at El-Amarna that included the correspondence of Pharaohs Amenhotep III and his son Akhenaten.  These letters reveal exchanges between the Egyptian rulers and their counterparts in the other great kingdoms of the Near East, Babylonians, Hittites, Assyrians, as well as the smaller vassal kingdoms of Palestine and Syria.  The other great archive of the period is from the city of Mari (modern Tell Hariri in Syria).  Both archives reveal the development of a complex system of diplomatic protocols (Sasson, Mari).  This system gradually developed out of the Middle Bronze Age and took over a thousand years to develop to the form we see in the Late Bronze Age (Podany, pg. 11).  Sasson and Podany both relate the formation of treaties and treaty ratification procedures that included a significant volume of correspondence between kingdoms as well as vast numbers of messengers, couriers, and diplomats to make the whole system work (Sasson, Mari and Podany, pg. 14).  What this correspondence informs the modern scholar is of the development of cooperation and peace during Late Bronze Age that was not possible beforehand. 

            If we examine some of the Amarna letters, we can see that there was a stylized form of greeting almost universal to all of them that can seem puzzling.  One king would great another as “my brother” and speak warmly of their friendship and their love (see esp. Amarna Letter EA1).  It can seem overflowing with a real depth of emotion to the modern reader.  The greetings continue into customary inquiries about the health and well-being of the receiving ruler’s family, people, and land.  It quickly becomes apparent, as all the kings across most of the correspondence use this same format, that this was less likely a deep personal connection so much as a format that had developed as considered proper.  The letters themselves reveal a period that was seemingly free from war between the parties, and archaeological evidence seems to corroborate this picture.  What would cause this level of non-conflict and agreement?  The evidence mostly indicates that the Middle Bronze Age did not enjoy these same conditions, but as stated before, there was likely a move towards them.  Podany indicates that certain events in the 16^th and 15^th centuries BCE allowed for this significant shift in international affairs.  She points to the rise of the Hittites and their subsequent attacks into Syria during the early 16^th century and the attacks by Egypt into Syria in the 15^th century (Podany, pg. 15).  Certainly, both events would be crucial to understanding later actions by subsequent rulers, of which I will return to later. 

            Do the letters we possess indicate that there was a true spirit of fraternity across the Near East, characterized by feelings of concern for one another or does the evidence reveal an undercurrent of ulterior motives?  The latter probably the case.  It is more likely that the treaties formed were not to achieve an end result of peace and tranquility for their intrinsic sake, but rather out of “self-interest and expediency” (Bryce, pg. 1).  These rulers likely distrusted each other to a great degree and their correspondence reveals a constant bickering and sometime outright anger between them.  Bryce suggests that the correspondence and courtiers were all attempts at skillful political maneuvering.  Indeed, even today that is what diplomacy often is.  Diplomacy is seldom out of good intentions for the well-being of the other, but to gain the best position for one nation short of going to war with another.  In reading several of the Amarna letters, it becomes apparent that rulers on both sides were often angry with the other for both real and imagined slights.  In Amarna Letter EA4, Kadashman-Enlil I of Babylonia is upset that Amenhotep III has denied him one of the Pharaoh’s daughters for marriage.  He also desires gold from Egypt and promises one of his daughters in return.  In Amarna Letter EA16, Ashur-uballit I of Assyria also requests gold from the Pharaoh Akhenaten.  The Assyrian king is upset because previous Pharaohs had sent 20 talents of gold each, but Akhenaten has only sent one.  He also demands that his messengers be kept out of the sun because they are dying of sunburn.  In some of the letters, it is apparent that the composing ruler is quite testy! 

            In the final analysis, can we say that the level of cooperation achieved during the Amarna period was a result only of self-interest?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  It is likely the true answer may be somewhere in between.  There are a few points to consider when analyzing this situation.  Bryce sees the international cooperation as out of necessity for each kingdom’s best interest.  He points out that King Hattusili III, in requesting a peace treaty be drawn up with Ramses II, 15 years after the Battle of Qadesh is likely due to 2 things:  Hattusili, who had stolen the throne from his nephew, desperately needed someone, anyone, to give legitimacy to his reign.  Drawing up a peace treaty with Ramses would certainly do the trick (Bryce, pg. 6).  And secondly, Hattusili desperately needed to maintain a status quo in the region as much of his resources were busy dealing with attacks from Myceneans in the west, attacks from Kaskans in the north, and the rising Assyrian empire in the east (Bryce, pg. 3).    Certainly, he along with the other empires, realized that the best interest in international trade lie in avoiding costly war and keeping the trade routes open and safe.  And, perhaps, there may have likely been a true feeling of “kinship” amongst some of the rulers.  An interesting read is Amarna Letter EA7, from Babylonian king Burra-buriash to Amenhotep III where he relays that he has been in ill health and seems genuinely offended that the Egyptian pharaoh has not inquired more often into his well-being.  Upon confirming with Egyptian and Babylonian envoys, he realizes that distance between the two nations is quite far and the journey quite long, and so he dismisses his anger with Amenhotep (Amarna Letter EA7).  And perhaps culture and religion, with their corresponding views of right and wrong could likely have played a role to some degree.  In her article “Peace in Ancient Egypt,” Vanessa Davies takes the reader on a complex journey to understand the notion of “peace” in ancient Egypt.  The concept of hetep (h-t-p) is often used to describe a condition of “rest,” “offering,” or “contentment.”  The idea of contentment would be as one where an agreement has been reached and offerings given.  However, this contentment is to be understood in the cycle of the Egyptian view of the proper ordering of the universe (maat).  Hetep is the result of action in accord with maat (Davies, Peace).  Perhaps some goodwill towards others may have legitimately been doing the “right thing.”