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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account