‘I am Idrimi, the son of Ilim-ilimma, servant of Adad, Hebat and Ishtar, the lady of Alalah, my ladies. In Aleppo, my paternal home, a hostile incident occurred, and we had to fiee to the people of Emar, my mother’s relatives, and we stayed in Emar. My brothers, who were older than me, stayed with me, but none of them thought the things I thought. I thought this: whoever will gain control over the paternal home will be the true first-born son, and whoever will not, will remain the servant of the people of Emar. I took my horses, my chariot, my groom, and rode in the desert, entering the land of the (nomadic) Sutians. There, I spent the night in my covered chariot. The next day I departed and arrived in the land of Canaan, where there is the town of Ammiya. In Ammiya, there were people from Aleppo, Mukish, Ni’ and Ama’u: as soon as they realised that I was the son of their lord, they joined me, and thus I increased the total number of my companions. For seven years, I lived among the Habiru (fugitives), releasing birds (for omens) and examining (sacrificial) entrails, until in the seventh year Adad turned towards me. So I made ships, filled them with my soldiers, and proceeded via sea towards the land of Mukish and reached land at Mount Casius. I marched inland, and my land found out, and they brought me oxen and sheep. In a single day, in unison, Ni’, Ama’u, Mukish, and Alalah, my city, came to me. My brothers found out and they came to me: since they concluded a treaty with me, I confirmed them as my brothers.
For seven years, Barattarna, the mighty king, king of the Hurrians, was hostile to me; but in the seventh year I wrote to King Barattarna, king of the Umman-Manda, reminding him of the services of my ancestors, when they were at their service and our actions were pleasing to the kings of the Hurrians, and they had made a binding agreement between them. The mighty king paid heed to the previous services and the oath between them, respected the (previous) agreement — both in terms of the structure of the oath, and in terms of our services — and accepted my regards. I increased my loyalty even further, which was already considerable, and through my valiantness and my loyalty I returned to him a (otherwise) lost dynasty. I swore the binding agreement and (so) became king in Alalah.
The kings of the south and the north came to me: since they had heaped on the ground the. . . (?) of my fathers in their lands, I picked it up from the ground and raised it even more. I took my soldiers and marched against the land of Hatti. Seven of their fortified cities: Pashahu, Damarut-re’i, Haluhhan, Zisal, le, Uluzina, and Zaruna, these were their cities and these I destroyed. The land of Hatti did not assemble against me, so I did what I wanted. I captured their prisoners, I took their valuables, their possessions, their things, and I divided them among my auxiliaries, my brothers, and my friends: their parts I provided. I returned in the land of Mukish and entered my city Alalah.
With the prisoners and the valuables, possessions, and things that I brought from the land of Hatti, I built a palace. I made my throne like the throne of (other) kings, I made my brothers like the brothers of the king, my sons like their sons, I made my companions their companions. The inhabitants of my land I made to live in favourable places; those who did not have a dwelling, I made them dwell, thus consolidating my reign. I made my cities like they were before, at the time of the ancestors. The signs that the gods of Alalah had established, and the sacrifices that our ancestors used to perform, I performed them regularly: these things I did, and I entrusted them to my son Adad-nirari.
I ruled for twenty years. I wrote my deeds on my statue, (so that everyone) may see them and bless me.’
Euphrates to mark the fact that he had reached the edge of the world. However, these incursions did not last long. Only with Tuthmosis III would the Egyptians eventually implement a more methodical and progressive strategy to subdue the Levant and southern Syria, achieving several military successes. Having consolidated their control as far as Ugarit and Qadesh (Figure 19.3), the Egyptians developed a conflictual relation with Mitanni. However, the situation was soon turned into a peaceful agreement between the two powers.
Egyptian control in the Near East was divided into three levels. There were a few areas under direct Egyptian control, such as some ports, the fertile area of Yarimuta (on the plain between Acre and Meg-iddo), used to provide for the troops, and some cities in strategic locations, such as Beit She’an (the best attested city archaeologically). The entire region was divided into three provinces, whose main centres were: Gaza, in the province of Canaan; Sumura, in the province of Amurru, on the Lebanese coast; and Kumidi, in the province of Ube, Beqa and Damascus. These three cities hosted Egyptian governors, their storehouses and garrisons. They were the main centres of Egyptian control, especially for the secondary and more widespread type of dependence on the Egyptians.
This system allowed local small kings to continue to rule in their states by sealing a treaty of dependence to the Egyptian king. This treaty forced the vassal to obey the great king. The agreement was entirely one-sided. In fact, the Egyptian king was not interested in local conflicts in the area, as long as the winners remained loyal to him. In other words, Egypt did not provide support to his vassals. In terms of tributes, the amounts required were sent in letters and then collected each year, or on other occasions in case of further requests (Figure 19.4). If the local king was able to control the city entrusted to him, pay the tributes and ensure military support to the Egyptian troops in the area, the Egyptian king was satisfied and did not require more.
® Provincial capital ¦ Egyptian garrison • Local city/kingdom
_ _ Area under Egyptian
Control (ca. 1450-1350 BC)
---Border after Suppiluliuma’s
Conquests........Internal borders between provinces
Figure 19.3 Map of the Egyptian territories in Syria and Palestine between the fifteenth and thirteenth centuries bc.
However, the Egyptian indifference to the frequent conflicts among vassals caused a progressive deterioration of the political organisation of the Syro-Levantine states, with several usurpations, conquests and plunders.
The third level ofpolitical control was applied on some marginal states, located along the borders of the Egyptian territories, such as the Sinai (on the other side of the line of coastal fortresses protecting the passage between the western Delta and the southernmost Levantine cities), the Transjordan plateau, the hills in the West Bank, and the forests of northern Beqa and the Upper Orontes. In these areas, the Egyptian ruler could not exact a fixed tribute, due to the lack of palaces and recognisable political leaders. Moreover, the groups living in these areas frequently hindered the network of communications that had to pass through their territories. This problem led to several Egyptian expeditions in these areas, as a response to the continuous raids at the hands of these ‘bandits’.
Figure 19.4 Syrians presenting their tribute to the Egyptian king (tomb of Menkheperresoneb, from the reign of Tuthmosis III).
Hittite control developed along different lines. The system was established during the reign of Sup-piluliuma. The latter partly took control over the Syrian states formerly under Mitannian control, and partly gained the support of states formerly under Egyptian control, such as Ugarit, Amurru and Qadesh (Figure 19.5). The Hittite system was very similar to the Mitannian one. It was based on mutual loyalty established through written treaties. The Hittite king ensured protection to his loyal vassals and contributed to the consolidation of political relations among the north Syrian states. Hittite presence, however, was more invasive than Mitannian presence in the area. It did not allow alliances between small kings, and every problem had to be dealt with directly by the king. Therefore, any controversy inevitably required the intervention of the Hittite ruler. This allowed him to modify the local political structure of the Syrian states, from the borders between states to the relations of dependence between small kings and their own vassals. Just like the Egyptians, the Hittites also required the yearly payment of a tribute, which was not collected, but personally delivered to the Hittite court. Apart from these standard practices, there were specific agreements developed to deal with particular or exceptional cases.
In many cases, on top of this system of dependences, another type of control was implemented. This was a characteristic aspect of Hittite policy, namely, the appointment of members of the royal family of Hattusa in the conquered states. In the two key cities of the region, Aleppo and Carchemish, Suppil-uliuma appointed two of his sons as kings. Moreover, he gave a pivotal role to the king of Carchemish. Eventually, the latter became so powerful as to become almost a Hittite viceroy in Syria. When Aleppo’s power declined, Carchemish managed to acquire even more territories, from Aleppo itself to the former kingdom of Mukish (where a son of the previous king was appointed), the region of Ashtata and Emar (in the Euphrates Valley, south of Carchemish) and Siyannu (on the Mediterranean coast). Another type of political control was implemented through the establishment of actual kinship relations, such as the marriage that linked Hattusili III to the royal house of Amurru. The name and personal seal of Shaushgamuwa, king of Amurru, shows that he was of Hittite descent on his mother’s side.
Regarding the small kingdoms, rivalries continued in the Mitannian area (as in the case of Idrimi), and significantly increased in the Egyptian area. There were conflicts between Amurru and Ugarit, Amurru and Byblos, Tyre and Sidon, and the expansionistic campaigns of Qadesh, Shechem and Jerusalem. Only the Hittites managed to keep these rivalries under control, although mainly in the north. In
Figure 19.5 Hittite territories in Syria, ca. 1350—1190 bc.
These conditions, the attempts of the Syro-Levantine kingdoms to rise to power only took place before the consolidation of the great powers’ control (for instance in the case of Aleppo and Qadesh at the beginning of the Mitannian control in the region), or in marginal areas (such as the attempt of Amurru to rise to independence from both the Egyptians and the Hittites). The only attempt that managed to last was the one of Carchemish. However, this was simply because it did not rise against the system, but as an integral part of it. In fact, the ‘viceroyalty’ of Carchemish in the thirteenth century bc laid the foundations for the Neo-Hittite state, a power that would last even after the fall of the empire.
Each kingdom followed the dynastic rule according to which no one could seize the throne (not even a usurper), if he did not belong to the royal family. This principle, however, still allowed a wide range of individuals to rise to power. A throne undoubtedly constituted an indissoluble inheritance. The two principles by now widespread on a family level, namely, personal merit and the non-biological theory about inheritances, caused bitter fights among brothers. These fights were worsened by the kings’ polygamy and the influence of mothers in the selection of the heir to the throne.
Once on the throne, the king was still conditioned by a series of factors. The first factor came from his superiors, since a lesser king was always a vassal to a great king. Second, the king was influenced by his subjects, since the ‘city’, with its high concentration of elite groups (from the maryannu to merchants, scribes and priests), was powerful enough to express its opinions and disapproval. Finally, there was the king’s own family and social class, made of the ‘great ones’ and the ‘sons of the king’, potential rivals and leaders of internal revolts. The situation was therefore quite unstable. On an ideological level, the situation emphasised those ideals of valour and initiative. However, from a practical point of view, it entailed several internal conflicts. Together with the political dependence to a great king, these conflicts worsened an already difficult economic and demographic situation.
The palace administration was based on a highly bureaucratic and hierarchic structure, led by a governor (sakin mati), a series of functionaries responsible for specific sectors (such as the harbour, chariots, fields and so on), and several professional groups (which should not be considered proper ‘corporations’). Outside the palace, villages and cities had their own political microstructure, led by a delegated official appointed by the king (hazanu), the institution of the ‘elders’, which was a legacy of the ancient pluralistic and kin-based political organisation of the area and an assembly. The elders, usually five, represented the village when dealing with requests from the palace, such as searches for fugitives or when merchants were killed. In these cases, the village rested on its communal solidarity and remained silent in front of the royal judges. The elders would state that they knew nothing about the events, and the village paid the compensations required, to then deal with the problem internally. Therefore, below the great and small kings, there was a third level of political organisation. This was constituted by local communities, with their collective structure made of communal fields, wells, and pastures, their contributions to the palace (the payment of tithes and the dispatch of men for corvee work), their collective responsibilities, and their kin-based structure. More than anywhere else, in Syria and the Levant village communities still held a role in the Late Bronze Age that had long disappeared elsewhere, suppressed by the intrusive nature of the great urban organisations, namely, the temple and the palace.
World History
