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.”


This trusty vassal added to his other known faults the peculiarity of
conspiring readily with the Hittite foes of the Court. His insolence
helped him successfully out of these awkward difficulties also whenever
the matter came under discussion. When preparing fresh raids he did not
hesitate to invent news of Hittite invasions which he was bound to resist,
and all territory which he then took from his co-vassals would, according
to his own account, otherwise certainly have fallen into the hands of the
enemy. But as the result was always the same—_i.e._, to the advantage of
Aziru alone—the opinion began to prevail in Egyptian councils that this
restless vassal should be summoned to Court and tried. For many years
Aziru succeeded in evading these fatal and dangerous, or at best very
costly orders. But finally he was forced to obey, and with heavy heart and
well-filled treasure chests set off for Egypt. Apparently he relied on his
principal ally Dudu, whom in his letters he always addresses as “father”;
but this pleasant alliance did not avail to protect the disturber of the
peace from provisional arrest. The last letter in the Aziru series, which
had obviously been confiscated and subsequently found its way back into
the archives, is a letter of condolence from the adherents or sons of
Aziru to their imprisoned chief. Nevertheless, the political activity of
the Amorite chief seemed to many Syrian, and especially to Phœnician
princes as on the whole for the good of the land, and, therefore, to be
supported. His appearance put the longed-for end to a far less endurable
condition of things. Two communications from Akizzi, the headman of the
city of Katna, near Damascus, exhibit the difference clearly. When Akizzi
sent his first communication to Nimmuria every petty chief went raiding on
his own account: Teuwatta of Lapana, Dasha, Arzawia and all the rest of
them. These vanished with the entrance of Aziru upon the scene, though the
change was by no means welcome to Akizzi. In the Lebanon things were no
better. Here Namyauza was struggling with the headmen of Puzruna and
Khalunni. “They began hostilities together with Biridashwi against me and
said: ‘Come, let us kill Namyauza.’ But I escaped.” This promiscuous
warfare raged most fiercely in the south. Here a certain Labaya tried to
play the part taken by Aziru in the north. But fortune was less favourable
to Labaya. Probably he failed to induce his undisciplined officers to act
in unison, and the unhappy man’s sole achievement seems to have been the
welding of his foes into a compact body against himself. He lost his
territory, kept up the struggle a little longer as a freebooter, was taken
captive at Megiddo, escaped again on the eve of being shipped to Egypt,
and fell in battle or died a natural death after at length meeting
apparently with some success in Judæa.

Jerusalem was under a royal “Uweu,” a term perhaps best rendered
“captain,” named Abdikheba. A neighbouring prefect, Shuwardata, asserted
occasionally that he had entered into conspiracies with Labaya, and
Abdikheba in fact complained of hostilities on all sides. Milki-El and his
father-in-law Tagi, chiefs in the Philistian plain near Gath, were his
principal opponents. They recruited troops from among the Habiri in the
hope that Abdikheba, finding himself practically blockaded, would weary of
the struggle and abandon the field. He was evidently very nearly driven to
this when he wrote:


    “Infamous things have been wrought against me. To see it would
    draw tears from the eyes of the king, so do my foes press me.
    Shall the royal cities fall a prey to the Habiri? If the Pidati do
    not come in the course of this year, let the king send messengers
    to fetch me and all my brethren that we may die in the presence of
    the king, our lord.”


By the Habiri we must here understand no other than the Hebrews, who were
therefore already to be found in the “Promised Land,” but had not yet
firmly established themselves there. They swarmed in the Lebanon, where
Namyauza had formally enlisted one of their hordes; and yet it seems as if
they already held Shechem and Mount Ephraim as free tribal property. At
any rate, no letter thence to the king has been discovered, although there
is one mention of the city Shakmi (Shechem). The genuinely ancient
passages in the scriptural accounts of the conquest in the Book of Joshua,
and still more the valuable fragments in the first chapter of Judges, are
fairly in accordance with what we here learn from the tablets.

Abdikheba’s letters may be considered along with those of Milki-El and
Tagi, of whom Yanhamu, the powerful official, had just made an example.
Their voices take up the chorus of complaint:


    ABDIKHEBA. “Lo! Milki-El and Tagi have done as follows.... Thus,
    as the king liveth, hath Milki-El committed treachery against me.
    Send Yanhamu that he may see what is done in the king’s land.”


    MILKI-EL. “The king, my lord, shall know the deed done by Yanhamu
    after I had been dismissed by the king. Lo, he took three thousand
    talents from me and said to me, ‘Give me thy wife and thy sons
    that I may slay them.’ May my lord, the king, remember this deed
    and send us chariots to bring us away.”


    TAGI. “Am I not a servant of the king? But my brother is full of
    wounds so that I can send no message by him to the king. Ask the
    _rabisu_ (a title of Yanhamu) whether my brother is not full of
    wounds. But we turn our eyes to thee, to know whether we may rise
    to heaven or creep into the earth; our heads remain in thy hand.
    Behold, I shall try to make my way to the king by the hand of the
    surgeons.”


    MILKI-EL. “I have received the king’s message. Let him send the
    Pidati to protect his servant, and grains of myrrh gum for
    healing.”


As already pointed out, the blame for such occurrences belongs in the
first place to the Egyptian system of government. How little the petty
princes could expect, whether of good or evil, from their suzerain is
shown by glaring examples. King Burnaburiash complained that a Babylonian
trading company established by his ambassador in the Canaanite city of
Khinaton had, immediately after the ambassador’s departure, been attacked
and utterly plundered. The principals were killed, and the rest—some of
them mutilated—were sent into slavery. “Canaan is thy land; thou art king
of it,” continues Burnaburiash. “It was in thy land that I suffered this
injury; therefore restrain the doers of it. Replace the stolen gold, and
slay the murderers of my subjects to avenge their blood.” Whether this was
done was extremely doubtful, for part of the plunder had in all
probability already sufficed to secure a safe retreat for the brigands,
who, furthermore, were officials from some of whom letters have been
found. The natural consequence was that the ambassadors themselves were
attacked. Their caravan with gifts for Napkhuria was robbed twice in
succession, and they themselves were held to ransom. The Egyptian
Government nevertheless remained outrageously slack as ever, as we may see
from the following safe conduct granted on behalf of the Canaanite
miscreants: “To the princes in the land of Canaan, the vassals of my
brother. Akiya, my messenger, I send to the King of Egypt my brother.
Bring him safe and quickly to Egypt. Let no violence befall him.”

Prefects of Canaanite ports were naturally in most active communication
with Egypt. On some of the shrewder minds among these men it had dawned
that it pleased and amused the king to have immediate news of messages by
sea and land from far and near communicated in their letters. Abi-milki of
Tyre had carried this practice farthest, and he was also admirably skilful
in lodging complaints by the way. We owe to this worthy one of the
choicest pieces in the whole collection, the elegant pæan of a
place-hunter of more than three thousand years ago. It will be noticed
that some of his rhetorical expressions repeatedly recall those of the
Hebrew Psalter in the same way as do phrases in the letter of Tagi already
quoted. In fact, the Bible critic has much to learn from the tablets as a
whole. After the formal beginning, Abi-milki launches out as follows:


    “My lord the king is the Sun-God, rising each day over the earth
    according to the will of his gracious father, the heavenly Sun-God
    (Aten). His words give life and prosperity. To all lands his might
    giveth peace. Like the (Phœnician) god Ram-man, so he thunders
    down from heaven, and the earth trembles before him. Behold, thy
    servant writeth as soon as he has good news to send the king. And
    the fear of my lord, the king, fell upon the whole land till the
    messenger made known the good news from the king my lord. When I
    heard through him the command of the king to me, ‘Be at the
    disposal of my high officials,’ then thy servant answered his
    lord, ‘It is already done.’ On my breast and on my back write I
    down for myself the commands of the king. Verily, he who
    hearkeneth to the king his lord, and serveth him with love, the
    Sun-God riseth over him, and a good word from the mouth of his
    lord giveth him life. If he heed not the commands of his lord his
    city will fall, his house will perish, and his name will be known
    no more for ever in all lands. But he who followeth his lord as a
    faithful servant, his city is prosperous, his house is secure, and
    his name shall endure for ever.”


The letter continues for some time in the same strain, but at the end the
courtier bethinks him of his office of informer, and adds hastily:


    “Furthermore, Zimrida, the prefect of Sidon, sends a report every
    day to Aziru, Abd-Ashera’s son. Every word that comes from Egypt
    he telleth to him. I, however, tell it to my lord, that it may
    serve thee, oh my lord!”


Two princes, Adad-nirari of Nukhashi and another whose name is now
illegible, apparently take a higher rank than their neighbours. Nukhashi
is often named in these tablets as well as in Egyptian inscriptions, and
it must have been situated on the north-east slope of the Lebanon range.
We have also letters from the towns of Biruta (Beyrout), Hashab, Hazi,
Kumidi, Kadesh on the Orontes, Sidon, Akko, Rubiza, Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer,
Gaza, Lachish, Shamhuna, Mushihuma, Dubu, and others, while there are many
more so mutilated that their origin can no longer be determined.

These letters, though by no means all of them containing important
contributions to the history of political intrigue, are often of interest
from the light they throw on manners and customs. A few further extracts
are therefore given here.


    “To the king my lord, my gods, my sun; Yabitiri is thy servant,
    the dust of thy feet, &c. And a faithful servant of the king am I.
    I look hither, and I look thither, but it is not light; then I
    look to the king my lord, then there is light. A brick may be
    removed from its firm bed, but I move not away from the king’s
    feet. Let my lord the king ask Yanhamu, his _rabisu_. While I was
    still young he brought me to Egypt, and I served my lord the king
    and stood at the gate of the palace (as page). And to-day, let my
    lord the king ask his _rabisu_, I guard the gates of Gaza and of
    Joppa. I am also attached to the Pidati of my lord the king;
    whither they go thither do I go with them, as even now. On my neck
    rests the yoke of my lord the king, and I bear it.”


The following tablet from the neighbourhood of the Jordan promises good
results as the reward of future research for geographical details:


    “To Yanhamu, my lord: Mut-Addi is thy servant at thy feet. I told
    thee before, and it is so indeed; Ayab hath fled in secret, as did
    also previously the king of Bihishi before the commissioners of
    the king his lord. Is Ayab now in Bihishi? [He is there] truly as
    the lord king liveth, truly as he liveth. For two months he has
    been there. Behold, Benenima is present, Tadua is present, Yashua
    is present; ask them whether he hath fled from Shadi-Marduk, from
    Astarti. When all the cities in the land of Gari were in
    rebellion, Adma (Udumu), Aduri, Araru, Mishtu, Migdal, Ain-anab
    and Sarki were taken, then later Hawani and Yabesh. Behold,
    moreover, as soon as thou hadst written a letter to me I wrote to
    him (Ayab) that thou hadst returned from thy journey (to
    Palestine?). And behold he came to Bihishi and heard the command.”


The names Ayab and Yashua recall Job and Joshua to our minds.

The great alacrity shown in this letter was, as we already know, most
acceptable to Yanhamu. Another Syrian chief, whose name has been
obliterated, complained bitterly that Yanhamu had refused him a passage
through his territories, although he showed the royal summons to Court.
This, indeed, may have been an indirect favour to his correspondent. Very
amusing is a group of three synoptic letters, written by one scribe for
Biri ... (the name is imperfect) of Hashab, Ildaya ... of Hazi, and
another. These vassals had evidently taken the field together. They recite
their tale like a chorus of schoolboys repeating a lesson.


    “Behold, we were besieging the cities of the king my lord in the
    land of Amki (_i.e._, cities that had fallen away and had ceased
    to pay tribute). Then came Itakama, the Prince of Kinza (Kadesh),
    at the head of Hittites. Let my lord the king write to Itakama,
    and cause him to turn aside and give us troops that we may win the
    cities of my lord the king, and thenceforth dwell in them.”


Itakama was specially unpopular with his neighbours. Apparently he was one
of the more powerful allies of Aziru, and as such his special task was to
press as hard as possible on the foes of the Amorites in southern
Cœle-Syria. Perhaps, however, Aziru and Itakama did not come together till
each for a time had fought his battles alone. The Hittites in Itakama’s
force were, of course, prominently mentioned to alarm Pharaoh. They may
have been Hittite spearmen enrolled by the prince of Kadesh, much as the
Habiri and Sutu had been enlisted by his chief rival Namyauza. It is even
possible that the soldiers of Kadesh had always been armed in Hittite
fashion; perhaps the town was already inhabited by people of Hittite
stock. Later the Hittites actually seized Kadesh, and it is questionable
whether it was for the first time. Itakama himself, however, scouts any
thought of defection; nay, he writes:


    “To the king my lord, &c. I am thy servant, but Namyauza hath
    slandered me to thee, oh my master. And while he was doing that he
    occupied all the inheritance of my fathers in the land of Kadesh,
    and my villages hath he set on fire. Do not the officers of my
    lord the king and his subjects know my faithfulness? I serve thee
    with all my brethren, and where there is rebellion against my lord
    the king, thither I march with my warriors, my chariots, and all
    my brethren. Behold, now Namyauza hath delivered up to the Habiri
    all the king’s cities in the land of Kadesh and in Ube. But I will
    march forth, and if thy gods and thy sun go before me I will
    restore these places from the Habiri to the king that I may show
    myself subject to him. I will drive out these Habiri, and my lord
    the king shall rejoice in his servant Itakama. I will serve the
    king my lord, and all my brethren, and all lands shall serve him.
    But Namyauza will I destroy, for I am for ever a servant of the
    king my lord.”


The land of Ube here named corresponds to the Hobah of the Bible,
mentioned in Genesis xiv. 15, as the place to which Abram pursued the
conquerors of Sodom, who had carried Lot away. According to the margin of
the Revised Version, Hobah lay “north of Damascus.” In a letter from
Akizzi of Katna (see p. 44), we read, however, “Oh, my lord the king, as
Damascus in the land of Ube stretches out her hand to thy feet, so Katna
stretches out her hand to thy feet.” The statements may be reconciled by
the hypothesis that in the Old Testament the position of the town after
which the district is named is more exactly indicated. Other lands named
in the tablets are more difficult to identify. To mitigate a famine in
Gebal, Rib-Addi intended to send for grain from Zalukhi in Ugarit, but his
enemies detained his ships and frustrated his intentions. Zalukhi does not
seem to be mentioned again, and Rib-Addi in a later letter compares Ugarit
with the region round Tyre as regards its administrative relation to
Egypt. Abi-milki, the Tyrian prefect, once informs the king, “Fire hath
devoured the city of Ugarit; one half of it hath it destroyed and not the
other.” Finally, a certain Yapakhi-Addi, after an unsuccessful attempt to
get provisions into Rib-Addi’s city Simyra, reproachfully informs Yanhamu
that Aziru has extended his dominions from Gebal to Ugarit. Ugarit must
thus have been the most northerly of the Egyptian possessions in Asia, and
therefore not far from the site of the modern Alexandretta. This outlying
position made the little state a somewhat insecure jewel in the crown of
Egypt. King Kadashman-Bel seems to have been of this opinion when (see p.
27) he included in his little list of ladies impossible for a royal harem
“a maiden from Ugarit.” Evidently he meant to enumerate superciliously
petty foreign “princesses” only.

Of a certain land of Danuna (considered a part of Canaan) we learn further
that its king died, and that his brother succeeded to the throne
unopposed. One of the two may be identical with the king of Tana; who, as
Rib-Addi briefly mentions, was about to march to Gebal, but was forced by
scarcity of water to return home.

A few letters from women are among the tablets. Two probably came from the
wife of Milki-El, who was hard pressed by the Habiri when her husband was
called to Egypt. Two others are addressed, “The handmaid to my mistress”;
perhaps they were sent along with Tushratta’s letters to his daughter in
Egypt and were from one of her playfellows or relatives. Finally, the
daughter of Napkhuria, married to Burnaburiash, sent a small tablet to her
father by a special envoy named Kidin-Ramman. “Before the face of my lord
let him come” indicates that the letter was “to be delivered in person.”
It is a pity that this dainty little letter is for the most part
illegible.





V. POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN THE TELL EL AMARNA PERIOD.


However favourably the religious reform of King Napkhuria may be estimated
on its own merits, it by no means strengthened the authority of Egypt in
Asia. Of course it could have in no way been the cause of the state of
affairs in Syria and Canaan; perhaps Amenophis III., whatever his own
great slackness, simply inherited the confusion in this part of his
empire. The heaviest blows could not in the long run prevent the Habiri
from returning to the attack again and again at brief intervals. Their
need of expansion was greater than their fear, and, after all, it mattered
little to Pharaoh whether the Habirite or the Canaanite paid tribute in
Palestine as soon as the intruder was prepared to acknowledge his rights.
Napkhuria’s great weakness was his obvious partiality for those of his
officials who had become Aten worshippers, and the eagerness of these men
to exploit the royal favour was in proportion to their disbelief in the
permanence of the movement for reform.

In their Babylonian form the Tell el Amarna tablets are in the first place
the product of the diplomatic custom of the time, but in many details of
their contents they show that the civilisation of Western Asia had for
centuries been based on a Babylonian foundation. With the lack of exact
information so frequently to be deplored in Egyptian accounts, the wordy
narratives of the campaigns of Thutmosis III. scarcely enable us to
determine exactly from which of the greater powers he had succeeded in
wresting districts of Syria and Palestine. As regards the political
situation there, even at the beginning of the Kassite Dynasty—a change
probably attended by long internecine struggles—Babylonia seems to have
lost its western possessions on the Mediterranean, and we may rather
suppose that it was the kings of Mitani who ruled these territories in the
time of Thutmosis III.

Mitani, though still an extensive power, had seen its best days at any
rate when Tushratta with difficulty ascended the throne of his fathers.
The name “Hanirabbat” by which it was known to all its neighbours, must be
the older name, and also that of the original province to which later
acquisitions had been united. It is an established fact that Eastern
Cappadocia, the mountainous province of Melitene on the Upper Euphrates,
was still known as Hanirabbat about 690 B.C., and that, on the other hand,
Mitani, in the narrower sense of the term, must have corresponded to the
later Macedonian province of Mygdonia, _i.e._, Mesopotamia proper. We have
seen, however, that Ninua, afterwards the Assyrian capital Nineveh, was
part of the dominion of Tushratta, otherwise he could hardly have sent
Ishtar, the goddess of that city, to Egypt. The subsequent capital of
Assyria may have been the most easterly possession of the kingdom of
Hanirabbat-Mitani, the centre of gravity of which lay farther westward. In
the letters there is a remark of the king of Alashia recommending Pharaoh
to exchange no more gifts with “the kings of the Hittites and of
Shankhar.” Mitani is, perhaps, here named Shankhar from its dependencies
in Asia Minor, or we may suppose it to have been the name of Tushratta’s
residence.

In contrast to the Hittite empire, which was pressing forward from the
neck of Asia Minor through the passes of Issus into Syria, and was rapidly
increasing in power, Mitani stood on the eve of its fall. Babylonians and
Hittites were alike watching to pluck the ripe fruit, and perhaps it
lacked little to decide Tushratta, instead of fighting once more for the
crown, to capitulate to the invading Hittites and see the end of the
kingdom of Mitani. The great “love” of this king for Egypt was not,
therefore, called forth merely by the glitter of gold, but also by dire
political necessity. The catastrophe occurred some few decades after the
correspondence comes to an end for us. Mitani vanished from the states of
Western Asia and gave place to small Aramaic kingdoms, while the eastern
boundary, together with Ninua, was seized by Assyria as the first step to
her subsequent suzerainty in the East.

But still more swiftly overtaken of fate was the XVIIIth Dynasty in Egypt.
Napkhuria did not even see the completion of his city at Tell el Amarna,
for he died in 1370 B.C. His reform followed him, and the victorious
champions of Amon could raze to the ground the hated City of the Sun’s
Disk. They must already have been on the march when in a happy moment it
occurred to a keeper of the royal archives to conceal the clay tablets in
the earth and thus save them for remote posterity.





BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX


The best translation of the Tell el Amarna tablets available for English
readers is that from the German of H. Winckler, published by Luzac,
London, 1896.

Professor Flinders Petrie’s _Syria and Egypt from the Tell el Amarna
Letters_ (Methuen, 1898) is a synopsis of the letters as far as they
belong to the relations of Egypt and Syria, with the addition of
geographical and historical notes. In the Introduction Professor Petrie
gives a harrowing account of the casual way in which the tablets were
found and of the criminal carelessness with which these priceless records
were subsequently handled.

Some years afterwards, in 1891-2, Professor Petrie himself excavated what
was left of the ruins of the royal city of Amenhetep IV. An account of his
discoveries on that site and of his deductions from them may be found in
his finely illustrated memoir _Tell el Amarna_ (Methuen, 1894). He
particularly emphasises the skill and originality displayed in the remains
of the arts and crafts of the Tell el Amarna period, and emphatically
points out the evidence of active connection between Egypt and Ægean
(Mykenæan) civilisation at that time. His appreciation of the character of
Akhenaten differs considerably from that formed by the author of the
present pamphlet, and should be compared with it. In vol. ii. p. 205 _et
seqq._ of his _History of Egypt_, Professor Petrie maintains the same
views. The same volume also contains his earlier synopsis of the Tell el
Amarna tablets.

Professor Maspero’s account of the historical bearing of these tablets is
worked into the second volume of his great _Histoire Ancienne des Peuples
de l’Orient_, which is entitled _Les Premières Mélées des Peuples_. A
translation of that work has been issued by the Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge, but in any parts relating to Biblical
history the student will do well to consult the original.

The bearings of the tablets on Biblical history, and particularly the
evidence they have supplied as to the early date at which the art of
writing was practised in Syria and Palestine, have been favourite themes
of Professor Sayce. His arguments and conclusions on these points may be
found in _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_ (S.P.C.K.
1894); _Patriarchal Palestine_ (S.P.C.K. 1895); _The Egypt of the Hebrews
and Herodotus_ (Rivington, Percival & Co., 1896), and elsewhere.

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO
London & Edinburgh