The increasing separation between palaces and the wider population in the kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age was in contrast to the increasing interaction between royal palaces, which were linked to each other in a series of personal, commercial and cultural relations, creating a stronger international environment than in previous periods. This general tendency led to the development of a concept of social ‘caste’, indicating that certain individuals were aware of the fact that they belonged to a superior social stratum. This development was shared by different cultural traditions and nationalistic and ethno-centric behaviours. It was expressed through a widespread tendency towards the accumulation of the best products made for the palaces.
The appreciation for beautiful horses, chariots, weapons, clothing, jewellery and perfumes led to the spread of locally produced goods and of a concrete effort to gain the best products directly from the place where they were produced (Figure 16.3). Regarding high-end craftsmanship, it therefore becomes difficult
Figure 16.3 Maritime trade in the Late Bronze Age: Syrian merchant ships unload their goods in an Egyptian harbour (Thebes, tomb n. 162).
To establish the origins of the objects discovered in Late Bronze Age palaces. For instance, chariots found in Egyptian tombs can be attributed to Mitanni or northern Syria thanks to the identification of the types of woods used, rather than the objects’ features and style. On the contrary, jewellery and glass are so homogeneous in style throughout the area that establishing their origins remains an extremely difficult task.
This network of communication and exchanges extended as far as Egypt and the Mycenaean world. The far east remained largely marginal in this period. The elitist nature of these interactions made them completely different from the ones attested in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. The system was more centred on royal courts and less on organised groups of merchants, while the former competition between different commercial networks was replaced by a single overarching network. This network was not aimed at undermining rivals from their privileged positions, but at providing a type of exchange designed to increase the prestige of the main political players (that is, the royal courts) in the eyes of the population. Consequently, commercial and diplomatic networks began to overlap. In particular, diplomatic networks took over the high-end and more prestigious side of trade. Naturally, utilitarian exchanges continued to exist and prevailed on a quantitative level, but they were almost entirely concealed on a propagandistic level. Overall, the network was articulated into three sub-systems, namely, the exchange of messages, people and commodities.
The exchange of messages was developed to support the other two sub-systems. In fact, the vast majority of royal correspondence was centred on marriage negotiations, requests of specialists and gift-exchange. However, messages still had an intrinsic value, as demonstrated by letters simply containing greetings and by the importance of formalities in these letters. Despite the cultural differences existing between Babylonia, Egypt, Hatti and Syria, the formulation of an address to a king still had to follow certain international formulas considered to be the correct ones. The Egyptian principle was to address the king simply mentioning the name of the sender and of the receiver. The Near Eastern one focused on rank, so that the name of the more important person had to come before the less important one, or on courtesy, where the name of the receiver preceded the one of the sender. The different combinations of these three principles were highly dependent on etiquette otherwise there would have been serious political consequences.
The same can be said about greetings. Among great kings, letters begin with an exchange of wishes and information on the sender’s health, from the king himself to his family, the most important officials in his court and even chariots, horses and the entire kingdom. Small kings greeted Egyptian kings with a self-deprecating statement. This was not part of the Egyptian custom and the Egyptians themselves saw it as a typically Near Eastern practice. However, in the Near East, small kings did not greet Hittite or Mitan-nian kings in this same way, indicating that this type of greeting was developed to address the semi-divine Egyptian king.
Just like in the Mari Age, the lingua franca was Akkadian, written in cuneiform. The practice of communicating in Akkadian even reached Cyprus and Egypt and was used as a ‘third’ language among non-Babylonians. For instance, the small kings of Canaan wrote to the king of Egypt in Akkadian and vice versa and the same happened in their correspondence with the Hittite king. Consequently, bilingual and multilingual lists reappeared. The only difference was that previous examples of these types of texts were developed in already bilingual areas (Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millennium bc; Hurrian and Hittite in Anatolia). Now, however, these texts were used in areas speaking one language, in order to be able to understand the diplomatic language of the time (such as the Egyptian-Akkadian texts from El-Amarna). Alongside these texts, used in scribal schools, there were interpreters used for direct communication. This category of specialist has been attested from as early as the third millennium bc, but by this phase it became much more frequently attested and needed.
This ‘international’ Akkadian was not particularly consistent. In the better equipped courts, which had probably used Akkadian for a longer period of time, the Akkadian used is generally correct. However, it is still filled with local variations, expressing the Hurrian, Hittite, or Western Semitic origins of the scribes writing the texts. In more marginal areas, which had become part of the system more recently, such as the Levant and Egypt, the influence of the local language had a much stronger influence. This led to the development of several glosses, the incorrect use ofverbs, of literary references that made little sense in Akkadian and so on. Finally, as frequently happens in cases such as these, the ‘third’ language used by people speaking different languages generated serious misunderstandings on the connotations and denotations of words and phrases. This is especially the case with more technical terms, fundamental in any political discourse.
Letters were delivered by messengers, who were more akin to emissaries and ambassadors than simple message-bearers. Their role was not just limited to the physical delivery of the tablet. It required them to be tactful enough when adding the necessary explanations to the negotiation, understanding and responding to the reactions of the receiver. They therefore acted as mediators of an often complex long-distance interaction, constantly kept on the brink of fracture. Emissaries were protected in their journeys through letters of safe-conduct and by the norms of hospitality in foreign courts, where they dined at the king’s table and were treated with high regard. However, as soon as a problem arose, emissaries were the first to suffer the consequences. It was common practice for kings to keep them at their court, sometimes for years, in order to put pressure on the other king. Being an emissary was therefore both a prestigious and dangerous role. This difficulty often led these men to request exemptions through documents signed by the king.
The role of messengers and their frequent detention in foreign royal courts is closely connected to the practice of exchanging people in the political relations of the Late Bronze Age. The most important and concrete expression of this practice can be found in the frequent inter-dynastic marriages (Text 16.4). Normally, the practice had to be reciprocal and this is the way it is described in the sources, although the complex network of inter-dynastic marriage was often far from being reciprocal in actuality. For instance, an Egyptian king explicitly proclaimed that he was glad to marry a Near Eastern princess, but that no foreign king could marry Egyptian princesses. In this way, Egyptian kings placed themselves on a superior level compared to the rest of the Near Eastern kings. Even among the latter, however, at least as far as the sources reveal, reciprocity was not practiced. In fact, it seems that princesses only moved in one direction, so that a king who gave a princess in marriage to another king, would in turn receive one from a third king. Consequently, mutual kinship ties between two courts were an exception, rather than a rule.
World History
