HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Late Bronze Age: An Age of Internationalism
The Late Bronze Age was a period of growing internationalism as multiple powers emerged in the Near East. No one power was able to build an expansive empire, though each controlled sizable territories with fluid boundaries. These powers, particularly Egypt, Hatti, Mitanni, Assyria, Babylonia, and others—often considered the “Club of Great Powers”[1]—engaged in international diplomacy that was facilitated through written correspondences and predicated upon metaphorical familial relationships.[2] Though there were certainly military conflicts, much of the extent correspondences from this period reveal that many kings were preoccupied with exchanging prestige gifts and precious materials as well as forging diplomacies through marriages. Egypt was particularly prominent during the Late Bronze Age and regarded as a wealthy (though stingy) and powerful polity by its peers. [3]
The Amarna Period: Egyptian Conquest and Control in the Levant
Egypt’s conquest and control in the Levant during the Late Bronze Age can be understood as occurring in four phases, according to Kuhrt:
the first was marked by aggressive, destructive campaigns (Amose I – Hatshepsut: 1552–1469 (1550–1458)); the second one was when Egyptian control was imposed and an imperial organization established (Tuthmosis III – Tuthmosis IV: 1469–1403 (1458–1390)); the third phase, equivalent to the ‘Amarna period’ in the wider sense, was the time when the empire was firmly established (Amenophis III – Horemheb: 1403–1305 (1390–1294)); finally, the fourth was the phase when, partly as a result of Hittite expansion in Syria, Egypt consolidated its control over the northern frontier, tightened its hold on the Canaanite region, but eventually lost the imperial territories (Sety I – Ramesses VI: 1305–1134 (1294–1134)).[4]
The first two phases leading up to the Amarna period resulted in significant destruction, some deportation, and concomitant shifting of settlements in the Levant to the coast, valleys, and along the main routes.[5] As for the period of concern for this discussion, phase 3, it started with Amenophis III, but was centered on Akhenaten (who changed his name from Amenophis IV), who moved Egypt’s capital to Akhetaten in Middle Egypt near Hermopolis in order to emphasize the exclusive worship of the sun-disc god Aten.[6] During this phase, as Kuhrt notes above, Egyptian imperial policy in the Levant had matured. As such, the kings of the various Levantine city-states were clients to the pharaohs and required to pay regular tribute.[7] Though these kings pledged their loyalty to Egypt, they remained in conflict with one another and they struggled with various marginalized people groups, such as the ḫābirū.[8]
Disorder and Conflict?: Sample Texts
Despite the control Egypt exerted over the Canaanite client kings, several of their letters suggest that the pharaoh was ill-informed of their situations, which were often plagued with intercity conflicts and threats from various marginalized peoples. Four such letters (EA 244, 254, 280, and 286)[9] that indicate possible disorder and conflict in Canaan will be discussed below.
EA 244 (“Lodging a Complaint with Pharaoh”)
In this letter, which is sent from Biridiya of Megiddo, Lab’ayu of Shechem is accused of sieging Megiddo (which is a mere 25 miles away), which is not an isolated event, but part of Lab’ayu’s aggressions in the area. This particular act of aggression has prevented the inhabitants of Megiddo from leaving the city and from attending to their pastoral and agrarian responsibilities.[10] Moreover, this issue is aggravated by both the withdrawal of Egyptian archers as well as pestilence. Though it is not stated in the letter, it has been posited that their withdrawal occurred during the transition from Amenophis III to Akhenaten.[11] As such, Biridiya requests a garrison of a hundred men, but it is not clear whether they were ever sent.
EA 254 (“Defending One’s Good Name”)
Whereas Biridiya accuses Lab’ayu of attacking Megiddo and causing problems, this letter is from Lab’ayu, who defends his own actions. He insists that he has not been disobedient to the pharaoh’s wishes (perhaps Amenophis III)[12] and that the pharaoh unjustly judges him because he has been slandered by Milkilu for entering his city, Gezer. This letter, as well as EA 253, which relates Lab’ayu’s same entering of Gezer, has often been considered confessional, but it is probably the case that Lab’ayu is boldly doubling down on his own loyalty while denouncing Milkilu.[13] He remarks that when he entered Gezer, he announced, “Everything of mine the king takes, but where is what belongs to Milkilu?”[14] His actions have been understood by Moran accordingly:
In another context, this might be understood as a complaint by Lab’ayu that the Egyptian yoke weighs much less heavily on Milkilu. But as the vassal correspondence in general makes clear, such a protest is not likely to be passed on to the king, and it runs completely against the tenor of the speech as reported in EA 253. We submit that he merely states a fact which is in no way resented but rather implies his own ready acceptance of his vassal-status. This lays bare the implications of the obvious answer to his repeated question where the possessions of Milkilu are. The latter, no less an object of the royal largesse, is the real traitor, and an ungrateful one to boot.[15]
Additionally, this letter is also concerned with the aforementioned ḫābirū whom Lab’ayu’s own son had joined.[16] It is clear that client kigns cannot even keep their own men from rebelling.
EA 280 (“An Accusation Against the Ruler of Jerusalem”)
This letter is from Shuwardata (probably of Gath) who accuses ‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem of bribing the men of Qeltu (perhaps Keilah) to follow him though the pharaoh had already given permission to Shuwardata to wage war against that city. Additionally, Shuwardata asserts “Lab’ayu, who used to take our towns, is dead, but now [an]other Lab’ayu is ʿAbdi-Ḫeba, and he seizes our town.”[17] In another letter from Shuwardata not featured here (EA 283), he expresses his desire to pay homage to pharaoh, but that he is hindered by an overwhelming opposition from thirty cities.
EA 286 (“The Ruler of Jerusalem Defends Himself”)
Just as Lab’ayu sought to defend himself following the alleged slander from Milkilu, ‘Abdi-Heba likewise claims that he has been slandered and falsely accused of rebelling against the pharaoh. After denying this, he brings to the king’s attention several issues:
Lost are all the majors; there is not a major remaining to the king, my lord. May the king turn his attention to the archers so that archers of the king, my lord, come forth. The king has no lands. (That] ʿApiru has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain. But if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king, my lord.[18]
Not only does he stress these issues, but he also lays blame on various individuals, such as the pharaoh’s commissioners as well as Ili-Milku (probably Milkilu),[19] indicating further strife and disorder in the pharaoh’s land.[20]
[1] See Mario Liverani, ed., Le lettere dei “Grandi Re”, vol. 1 of Le lettere di el-Amarna (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1999), 312–14. See also Marc Van die Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000–323 BC, 2nd ed. (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 129–30.
[2] Kings who regarded each other as equals saw referred to the each other as “brother” and kings who did not regard each other as equals used “father-son” terminology. This diplomatic custom is first attested in the ED period and has been used extensively in the Late Bronze Age. See Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 19–36.
[3] See Podany, Brotherhood of Kings, 191–264.
[4] Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330 BC (New York: Routledge, 1995), 1:320.
[5] See Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 1:320–24.
[6] See Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 1:194–204.
[7] See Mario Liverani, “A Seasonal Pattern for the Amarna Letters,” in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 337–48.
[8] The identity and nature of the ḫābirū are heavily contested, especially with regard to their possible association with the early Hebrews. For a discussion on this term and others relating to various people groups and social classes in the Amarna letters, see Anson F. Rainey, “Amarna and Later: Aspects of Social History,” in Symbiosis: Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestina, ed. William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 169–87, esp. pp. 172–76. See also Klaas R. Veenhof, Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen, GAT 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 170–76.
[9] These letters have been selected by Gabriel Pizzorno for this discussion and their titles are his own.
[10] It is not entirely clear, but the text may describe both sheep plucking and harvesting as separate activities, so William L. Moran, ed. and trans., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 298, esp. note 1.
[11] See Anson F. Rainey, “Briefe aus Palästina,” in Briefe, trans. D. Schwemer, vol. 3 of Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments,ed. Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhem (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 199. See also Juan-Pablo Vita, Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters, AOAT 406 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 66.
[12] See E. F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of the Amarna Letters: With Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964), 114.
[13] See William L. Moran, “Amarna Glosses,” RA 69(1975): 147–58, esp. pp. 147–51.
[14] Moran, Amarna Letters, 307.
[15] Moran, “Amarna Glosses,” 151.
[16] Here Rainey, “Briefe aus Palästina,” 197, states, “Das Umland des in den Bergen gelegen Sichem diente al seines der typischen Rückzugsgebiete der ḫapirū-Banden.”
[17] Moran, Amarna Letters, 321.
[18] Moran, Amarna Letters, 327.
[19] See Michael W. Several, “Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire in Palestine During the Amarna Period,” PEQ 104 (1972): 123–33, esp. p. 123.
[20] See Several, “Reconsidering the Egyptian Empire,” 125, for a discussion on the apparent incompetence of the Egyptian commissioners.