ORGANIZED ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATION

Mario Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy (New York: Routledge, 2011), 334.

Though these sample letters suggest that Canaan was rife with disorder and conflict in the Amarna period, Egypt actually maintained effective control through highly organized administration and communication and by allowing client kings to compete for loyalty rather than micromanage their relationships. How Egypt organized its administration of and communication with its client kigns and exploited their conflicts will be addressed here, starting with their use of administration centers and diplomatic scribes.  

Egyptian Administration Centers

The Levantine territories conquered and controlled by Egypt by the Amarna period were divided into thirds and overseen by administrative centers. The province of Canaan was managed by Gaza, the province of Amurru was the responsibility of Sumur, and the province of Ube, Beqa, and Damascus was monitored by Kumudi. At each center was a commissioner (Akk. rābiṣu) as well as a military garrison, which were charged with the tasks of exacting tribute, enforcing pharaonic judgments, and dealing with local issues. The Egyptian presence was felt particularly along the Phoenician littoral and in the Jezreel area were there fortresses, such as at Beth-Shean and elsewhere.[1] These administrative centers were also crucial in the production of correspondences by Egyptian-controlled scribes.  

Diplomatic Scribes: The Scribal Code of the Amarna Letters

As previously mentioned, the Amarna letters, which are crucial to understanding Egypt’s Late Bronze Age imperial policy, were written in Akkadian, but their use of Akkadian is heavily debated. They have been the object of frequent linguistic studies, which have typically considered them to be written in Canaano-Akkadian, as opposed to Middle Assyrian, Middle Babylonian, or Standard Babylonian.[2] They have generally been analyzed as indicative of an actual dialect that mixes an Akkadian foundation with local Canaanite features, but a recent dissertation has heavily challenged this notion. This study by Mandell argues that these letters are written in a language that is not indicative of actual speech, but functions as a scribal code that is necessarily translated and verbalized as the situation requires. This scribal code was created by Egyptian-controlled scribes so that it would be effective for the management of foreign client kings. She argues that these scribes were controlled by Egypt on the basis of several grounds,[3] especially a recent petrographic analysis that indicates that many of the Amarna letters were produced at the administration centers mentioned above as well as Beth-Shean as opposed to the cities from which they purportedly originated.[4] She also argues that the scribes did not merely write down the messages of others, but that they played an integral role in diplomacy. In the case of EA 286, she argues that there are several indications that the scribe was structuring the letter carefully so that it could be well-received by its Egyptian audience, including its postscript.[5] Moreover, with regard to the importance of these letters, she writes:

The importance of writing diplomatic letters went beyond the pragmatic need for communication via written message. These tablets also served a symbolic function that of a tangible link between rulers. Also, in the case of lesser rulers, proof of communication with Egypt was a means of demonstrating their power to a local audience.[6]

All of this indicates that Egypt was intimately involved in managing its communication with its client kings, which, along with its administration centers, allowed for effective management of Canaan.