International Diplomacy in the Late Bronze Age

 

            The Late Bronze Age period in the ancient Near East was marked by a level of international diplomacy and trade that had never occurred previously in the region. Between 1500 BCE and 1200 BCE, the entire region from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea joined in a complex system of trade that saw goods flow across the area.[1] Characteristic of this trade network was a system of diplomacy exhibited between the largest kingdoms that dominated the region. These kingdoms included Egypt, Kassite Babylonia, the Hittites, and the Mittani, who would later be replaced by the Assyrians.[2] Luckily for historians, the period is abundant in textual and archaeological records which shed light into the complex world of trade and diplomatic protocol that developed. Sources from the period include royal inscriptions, legal and administrative documents, literary texts, as well as diplomatic correspondence and international treaties.[3] In addition to the textual corpus, additional sources come from the abundance of building activity and artistic creation during the period, a direct result of the relative wealth that the elite procured.[4]

            One of the greatest sources for historical information comes from the site of Amarna in Egypt. This is the site where the Pharaoh Akhenaten moved his capital to during his reign in the fourteenth century BCE. Here, an archive of correspondence between Egypt and the kings of the other great powers, as well as those of the smaller vassal states have been found that shed much light into the relationships between these rulers. These documents are collectively referred to as the “Amarna letters.”[5] Many of these letters demonstrate outwardly a bond of friendship and acknowledgement of the “Great Kings” as equals. A common greeting expressing brotherly affection is found in most, as evidenced in Amarna letter EA17: “Sa[y] to Nibmuareya, the k[ing of Egypt], my brother: Thus Tuiseratta, the king of [M]ittani, your brother.”[6] Other cities, though smaller in number, also contained archives of texts, many of them of international treaties, such as found in Ugarit and Qatna.[7]

            The archaeological record of the period confirms the large trade network and abundance of wealth as well. A flow of goods across the Near East brought exotic and desired materials from one region to another. Many cities served as trade hubs and ports in this system that included regions as far as the Aegean, Italy, and Spain. In Ugarit, archaeologists have uncovered a workshop for bronze production near the harbor as well as areas for working purple textiles.[8] Excavations at Qatna, in central Syria, uncovered a mausoleum beneath the palace that included the burials of 19-23 individuals. Within the chambers, the bodies were laid to rest with large amounts of gold, ivory, and semi-precious stones.[9] According to Van De Mieroop, cylinder seals made in Babylonia have been found in the Greek city of Thebes.[10] Perhaps one of the greatest archaeological finds that corroborates the extent of the trade network was a shipwreck discovered off the coast of southern Anatolia, near the city of Uluburun. The ship dates to the fourteenth century BCE and amongst many other valuable items contained ten tons of copper from Cyprus, one ton of tin of unknown origin, ebony logs from Africa, and cedar logs from Lebanon.[11]

            In addition to archaeological records of trade, Van De Mieroop notes that the period was characterized by the building of substantial monumental architecture. He points out that, except for the “Great Pyramids,” almost all of the most famous of Egypt’s tombs and temples date from the Late Bronze Age. Many of these tombs are filled with large amounts of treasure.[12] Art from the period flourished, and one such example denotes the importance of a new mechanism for war: the chariot. A carved relief discovered in Thebes, Egypt, depicts the Battle of Qadesh between Egypt and the Hittite nation. At the forefront are several war chariots, each pulled by two horses and holding three men, indicated as a driver, a shield bearer, and a warrior.[13] Many luxury goods exchanged hands between the “Great Kings” as part of their formal gift-giving process. Typically, gold was sent from Egypt to the other kingdoms as Egypt was the main region where this precious metal was found. In return, the other nations gave to Egypt horses, precious and semi-precious stones, fine oils, and other crafts.[14] In another letter from the Amarna archive (EA15), Assur-ubalit of Assyria writes to the king of Egypt saying that he has sent to him “a beautiful chariot, 2 horses, and a date-stone of genuine lapis-lazuli.”[15]

            While the textual and archaeological record of the period open up a large window to study the social contexts and relationships of the region, care must also be taken to recognize the limitations of the data. According to Van De Mieroop, the largest issue in reconstructing a historical narrative for the period is chronology. While there is often a good record of a sequence of rulers, it is not always possible or easy to determine actual dates for their rule.[16] Often, it is necessary to compare records with data from other regions to approximate a relational date. Another issue related to how we treat the textual data is in the bias of the writers themselves. As stated previously, the kings often addressed each other with warm words of affection, as it seems was standard at the time. However, this should not diverge our attention from the fact that these rulers were often rivals and had ulterior motives. As can be seen in Amarna letter EA9, the writer complains to the Egyptian king that the latter has only sent him “two minas of gold.” Later he states quite matter-of-factly: “Send me more gold.”[17] Finally, it is important to remember that political maneuvering was always at the heart of every ruler, not always for ill intentions, but still at the core. This was true also amongst the vassal states as their rulers would often try to get out of paying taxes or, at the very least, delay when they must be paid. They often would also attempt to obfuscate the subject of taxes by pointing out the flaws of other vassal kings.

---

[1] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 137.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, 138.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 143.

[6] The Amarna Letters. Ed. And Trans. By William L. Moran. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 41.

[7] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 144.

[8] Ibid, 150.

[9] Ibid, 153.

[10] Ibid, 148.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 153.

[13] Ibid, 152.

[14] Ibid, 148.

[15] The Amarna Letters. Ed. And Trans. By William L. Moran. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 38.

[16] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 138.

[17] The Amarna Letters. Ed. And Trans. By William L. Moran. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 18.

My paper was published in the Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History

 This is coming well after the fact, but I am pleased to announce that one of my papers was selected for publication in the May 2022 issue of the Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History, maintained through Georgia Southern University. The title of the paper is "Jesuits in the New World: A Contrast in Conversion of North and South America" and can also be found on this website.

The abstract of the paper is as follows:

"This paper contrasts the methodologies of French Jesuits in New France of North America against the Spanish Jesuits in the Rio de la Plata region of South America to explain differences of conversion rates of the indigenous peoples to Christianity. Several significant differences allow for diverging experiences between the two. Ultimately, this research proposes that it is the Brazilian slave trade that is the largest driving factor in the comparative success that the Spanish Jesuits achieved in the reductions amongst the Guarani people."

The paper can be found at the following link:

Jesuits in the New World: A Contrast in Conversion of North and South America

The Amorites

 

The Amorites

            Who the Amorites were and in what ways they contributed to ancient Near Eastern society is not exactly clear for historians. While they did have a separate language, they left no texts behind nor any record of it.[1] References to the Amorites are found in the writings from other groups and identification of those with Amorite descent discovered through the grammatical analysis of names from the period.[2]  The name Amorite comes to us from the Akkadian amurru, and the Sumerian symbols for MAR.TU.[3] The term can also refer to “the west” and may be a reference to groups from “the west.” Van De Mieroop states that the Amorites were not an ethnic group and the term amurru may refer to any semi-nomadic people from the west.[4] Further clouding the issue are differences in how Amorite culture impacted Mesopotamian society and how they were received and understood by both the people of the time period and future generations. However, it is possible to piece together a picture of the Amorites through texts, primarily those from Mari and the Third Dynasty of Ur.

            The Amorites originated in Syria and began to spread out beginning in the third millennium BCE.[5] By the end of that millennium, they could be found living as far as southern Mesopotamia.[6] From the late third millennium and into the early second, there was a rise in the number of Amorites found in cities across the Near East, especially in Syria and Mesopotamia.[7] Originally, these groups were semi-nomadic pastoralists who spent part of the year settling near urban agricultural zones. It was in these periods that they came most closely into contact with city-state society. Some texts from the period, especially those from the kings of the Ur III period show a dislike for the Amorites, as they were considered “uncivilized barbarians.”[8] In fact, one king built a wall, though it was unsuccessful, to keep out the Amorites. Referred to as the “Amorite Wall,” it bore the name Muriq-tidnim or “It keeps Tidmun at a distance.”[9] According to Schwartz, the Amorites were centered around kinship with groups broken down into “Tribes,” “Subtribes,” and “Tribal Confederacies.”[10]

            By the early second millennium, Amorites were to be found in many cities as some of them left the semi-nomadic lifestyle and began to settle down. By analyzing names, it can be determined that many officials and rulers of city-states were of Amorite descent.[11] One Amorite ruler of Mari was named Yahdun-Lim, translated as “He Pleases Lim.” Lim is an Amorite god and analysis has shown this to be an Amorite name.[12] By the Ur III period, Amorites had become well established in Babylonian society.[13] After the collapse of Ur III, Amorite descendants continued to rue over several city-states, many of them adopting traditional Mesopotamian titles, but also maintaining titles such as rabian amurrim, “Prince of the Amorites.” Aside from this, however, the Amorites left little impact on Babylonian life, political system, or language.[14] Van De Mieroop notes that they did not establish a new culture, instead blending into the existing Mesopotamian culture and utilizing Sumerian and Akkadian for their literature.[15]

            The Amorite legacy, however, presents a dilemma. While many new dynasties, particularly after the mid-twentieth century BCE, claimed Amorite descent[16], later texts throughout Mesopotamia seems to blame them for the collapse of Ur III society. In a contemporary poem titled the Marriage of Martu, the author describes the Amorite as a brutish individual who lives in tents during the wind and rain, does not know how to properly pray to gods, eats raw meat, and lives life without a home.[17] It is difficult to reconcile the texts that view the Amorites negatively with both the high offices some of them held and the pride some Amorite rulers held in their heritage. Hammurabi, perhaps the best-known Babylonian ruler of Amorite descent claimed the title of “King of the Amorites.”[18]

            Sources for discovery of Amorite history are limited in nature and have already been mentioned previously. All texts were from outside Amorite circles that reference the Amorite groups. The other primary source available is the grammatical analysis of names. Due to this, the material is highly limited, and it is not possible to reconstruct a full understanding of Amorite culture. The texts that refer to Amorites are possibly plagued by some form of bias as many of them view the Amorites with contempt and yet we know that Amorites were fully integrated into Near Eastern society, some reaching high offices and as rulers of city-states. One possibility is that many of the early references to Amorites reflected a distrust of nomadic peoples by urban society and initial waves of Amorites were looked at as “uncivilized barbarians.” Later texts that cast negative views on Amorites could be anachronistic in nature and reflected this earlier dislike of the pastoralist lifestyle.

---

[1] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.

[2] Ibid, pg. 94.

[3] Ibid, pg. 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 94.

[8]   Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[9]   Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 93.

[12] Ibid, pg. 111.

[13] Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[14] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 111.

[15] Ibid, pg. 95.

[16] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.

[17] Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998- . “Marriage of Martu,” Lines 127-141.

[18] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.

The Uruk Expansion

 

The Uruk Expansion

                      The first “true” city in the Ancient Near East developed in southern Mesopotamia and is know to us as Uruk. In the fourth millennium BCE, an increase in labor specialization and economic centralization[1] created an urban population that continued to grow. This Uruk Period is characterized by an increase in specialized religion, certain administrative strategies, such as writing, and the development of monumental art and architecture.[2] After about 3,500 BCE[3], the Uruk culture saw the rise of an elite class due to economic specialization that can be seen in the material remains of house size and construction as well as grave goods.[4]

            Sometime around the mid-fourth millennium BCE, there is extensive evidence of an expansion of Uruk culture to other areas of the Near East. The Urukian material culture can be seen to spread out of southern Mesopotamia to the area of modern day Iran in the east, as well as to northern Mesopotamia, and the areas of modern-day Syria and southern Turkey.[5] There was not, however, a single result of influence, by instead was characterized by a number of different types of interactions.[6] To the east of Uruk, in Susa, there is substantial evidence of Uruk influence. The area controlled by Susa, known as Susiana, lies in the alluvial plain south of the Zagros Mountains. Susiana itself was a relatively large area and the examples of Uruk culture that was spread by Susa reaches to the Zagros Mountains and across Iran, even as far as Pakistan (for examples the site of Miri Qalat.)[7]

            Soon after Uruk material culture appeared in Susa, it also began to appear in northern Iraq, Syria, and southern Turkey.[8] Material evidence of Uruk influence has even been found as far as the Syrian coast and may have also influenced Egypt.[9] There is evidence of structural and pottery design that is similar to the Uruk culture in central Egypt, however not in northern Egypt. This suggests the possibility that Uruk culture may have come to Egypt by way of the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.[10] The spread of material culture to Iraq, Syria, and Turkey however showed dissimilarities from that of Susa. There appears not to be a single influencing development but was instead introduced in a variety of interactions. At one extreme was the introduction of entirely new urban centers, such as Habuba Kabira, along the middle Euphrates River, which seems to be an implanted Urukian colony.[11] At other levels were small pockets of Uruk immigrants who influenced the local population to varying degrees.

            Evidence for this Uruk Expansion comes from various archaeological remains. The single largest identifier was the spread of Bevel-Rimmed Bowls (BRB’s). BRB’s are a crude mold-made bowl that was created through mass-production beginning in Uruk.[12] BRB’s, following the Uruk Expansion, have been found across the Near East in the hundreds of thousands [13]as far as the coast of modern-day Syria.[14] Also found in the archaeological remains is evidence of the system of writing developed in Uruk. The earliest cuneiform tablets, found in the Uruk IV level,  were numeric in nature, not pictographic (which developed later)[15] and were used for accounting purposes.[16] Van De Mieroop refers to this writing as proto-cuneiform.[17] Also found amongst the various sites outside of southern Mesopotamia are bullae with tokens, a precursor to proto-cuneiform.[18] Other material evidence for Uruk influence include basic residential structure design[19] as well as elements of monumental architecture such as the use of cone mosaics.[20]

            In analyzing data, researchers have also show that social elements from Uruk also were transplanted to new areas in the expansion, such as the use of the Urukian accounting and number systems, which were based on a Sexagesimal and Bisexagesimal system[21] Basic social design that developed in initially in Uruk can also be found, primarily in the growth of centralized services[22] as well as the accompanying social stratification that came with it.[23] The evidence of sites like Habuba Kabira, as well as the social and material influence on other cities suggest that possibility of purposeful implantation of colonies from Uruk.

            It is not clear what caused the Uruk Expansion or if it was in fact groups of colonies who intentionally left southern Mesopotamia in order to start a new life, bringing with them their old way of life. Possibilities include a rising elite class in Uruk who were becoming more desirous of luxury goods that could only be found in other regions or perhaps the deliberate planting of colonies seeking new resources.[24] What is clear, however, is that by the end of the fourth millennium BCE, Uruk Expansion had ended and there is clear evidence of the demolishing of the existing Uruk site.[25] There is no evidence of a violent destruction, but as in the Eanna Temple complex, the entire Uruk IV site was razed and new construction began on top of it with the Uruk III level. No material remains have been found outside of Uruk after the Uruk IV period.[26] After the end of this expansion and influence, many areas outside of Uruk showed a reversion from the introduced centralization and urbanization and a return to a previously known “village life.”[27]

            While it is not known precisely why and through what mechanisms the culture of Uruk spread to other areas of the Near East, it is clear from the archaeological data that material remains coming from Uruk spread both east and west of their original home in southern Mesopotamia. These remains include pottery, architecture, writing and accounting systems, as well as economic and social constructs. At the end of the fourth millennium BCE, it all came to an end, equally as mysterious as its beginning.

---

[1] Earley-Spadoni, Tiffany. Online lecture for “Uruk Period.” Ancient Mesopotamia.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 21.

[4] Ibid, 25.

[5] Earley-Spadoni, Tiffany. Online lecture for “Uruk Period.” Ancient Mesopotamia.

[6] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 39.

[7] Ibid, 39.

[8] Earley-Spadoni, Tiffany. Online lecture for “Uruk Period.” Ancient Mesopotamia.

[9] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 40.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 21.

[13] Ibid, 27.

[14] Ibid, 40.

[15] Earley-Spadoni, Tiffany. Online lecture for “Uruk Period.” Ancient Mesopotamia.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 31.

[18] Ibid, 32.

[19] Ibid, 40.

[20] Earley-Spadoni, Tiffany. Online lecture for “Uruk Period.” Ancient Mesopotamia.

[21] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 33.

[22] Ibid, 23.

[23] Ibid, 40.

[24] Ibid, 41.

[25] Ibid, 41.

[26] Ibid, 41.

[27] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, 41.