Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age

Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze AgeAuthor(s): Robert S. MerrilleesSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 42-50Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209981 .

Accessed: 04/07/2014 09:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.159.195.238 on Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:20:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209981?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


I p~

5~1~1"j~~ ia~tdBA1~; aI

42 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH 1986



* Hattusas

/

""t I TULJGOL

L\

0 Tell Brak * Alalakh

-- * Ugarit

Qadesh

4

•, ,

only Egypt came close to possessing the attributes of modern statehood. From the time of the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt around 3100

B.c., the Nile Valley had for all prac-

Far left: A Hittite warrior is carved in high relief on a section of the King's Gate at Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire. This guardian of the gate is shown wearing a belted kilt and a helmet and he carries a battle-ax and short sword. The relief is 2.25 meters tall and dates to the fourteenth century B.c. Left: Colossal sandstone statue of Akhenaten from Karnak, measuring more than 4 meters tall. Originally known as Amenhotep IV this unorthodox king of the Eighteenth Dynasty instituted a number of radical changes during his reign (1367-1350 B.C.). He is principally remembered for his adoption of the worship of the sun-disk Aten and his abandonment of the numerous gods of the Egyptian pantheon. Some scholars, therefore, view Akhenaten as the first monotheist. The art of the period, which is characterized by distortion of the human body and an emphasis on naturalism, has been called revolutionary and is certainly uncanonical. Drawings are by Linda Huff.

tical purposes become a nation with a fixed population and definable bor- ders within which the authority of the central administration, headed by the pharaoh, ruled supreme. Though at certain times in its history during the second and third millennia B.C., when the power of the Egyptian government was weakened by internal dissent or external intervention and regional rulers emerged who fragmented the political struc- ture of the country, the underlying unity of the Egyptian people always reasserted itself, and by the period of which we are talking the position and prerogatives of the pharaoh were unchallenged. Not even during the heresy of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), who promoted a monotheistic religion and who departed, albeit in an idiosyncratically Egyptian way, from traditional political and reli- gious orthodoxy in the first half of the fourteenth century B.c., was

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH 1986 43



there any move to upset the consti- tution or unity of the country.

The Hittites The Hittite kingdom of this time was of a different order from Egypt. The Hittites were Indo-Europeans who invaded Asia Minor and im- posed themselves on an indigenous population that had a different language and different ethnic origins. And whereas the geographical con- fines of the Nile Valley undoubtedly contributed to the consolidation of an Egyptian nationality and provided throughout the pharaonic period well-defined, if indefensible, fron- tiers, the home base of the rulers of Anatolia afforded no such intrinsic

subsequently fortified early in the fourteenth century B.c. The "land" itself comprised the great loop of the Halys River (now Kizil Irmak) in the middle of its course, together with the plain to the south of the salt lake, Tuz Gal, and was bounded on all sides by mountainous formations. Beyond these highlands the Hittite rulers faced potentially hostile tribes, especially to the north and the east, rival principalities or kingdoms like Arzawa in the southwest and Kizzu- watna in Cilicia, and opposing empires such as Mitanni and Egypt.

The Mitannians The Mitannians were also migrants who had infiltrated north Mesopo-

The Hittites

The rescue of the Hittites from historical obscurity is one of the great achievements of nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship. Long

known from the Bible as one of the tribes that was found occupying the Holy Land when the Israelites arrived, it was only through exploration and archaeological discovery that their homeland, history, language, and religion were identified and reconstructed, and their contribution to events in the Near East in the second millennium B.C. determined. To the surprise of the academic community the Hittites turned out to be Indo-European migrants, who originally came from southeast Europe via northwest Anatolia around 3000 B.C. and settled in the central highland area of Asia Minor, where they became politically dominant towards the middle of the second millennium B.c. The historical "land of Hatti," as it is known from texts of this time, was a state created by kings ruling from Boghazkey, which later became the capital of an empire extending into south Syria. Though assigned a warlike reputation, doubtless because of their well-recorded use of the light horse-drawn chariot, the Hittites developed a distinctive civilization whose closest parallel is probably to be found in the Crusaders' Levant. It was marked by massively fortified settlements and exceptional minor arts. Just who the Hittites in ancient Palestine were remains a tantalizing mystery.

Robert S. Merrillees

advantages. The hub of the empire was a city located in a region that lacked the topographical features, resources, and population necessary to give it a territorial cohesion com- parable to that enjoyed by Egypt. The capital of the "land of Hatti," Hattusas, modern Boghazkoy, lay on the northern slope of the central Anatolian plateau, on a spur that was a natural stronghold but was

tamia and north Syria and came to political power over the native Semit- ic inhabitants. They ruled a loosely knit confederacy of Hurrian princes (see the Mitanni sidebar for a descrip- tion of the Hurrians) from their capital Washshukanni, which has not yet been located but is believed by many to lay in the vicinity of the head- waters of the Khabur River. From this city their power extended into

north Syria, Armenia, and the upper reaches of the Tigris, but its limits, being political rather than geographical, were not fixed and tended to shift as the allegiances of its consti- tuent client-states changed. "Khurri land," though used as if it were synon- ymous with Mitanni, evidently sig- nified a territorial unit in its own right, that lay to the north of the confederacy and corresponded to the original homeland of the Hurrians. It has been suggested that Khurri land preceded Mitanni as a center of power and influence but was over- taken, though not entirely supplanted by, the ascendancy of the Hurrian princes, who joined together in a new and more militant union. Outside these two "lands" were other principalities governed by Hurrians, which, though not part of Mitanni, probably sympathized with its rulers and made common cause when confronting its enemies.

Syria and Palestine At the opposite end of the political spectrum from Egypt were the city- states in Syria and Palestine. Each of these city-states had as its nucleus a large urban settlement that was protected by stout fortifications and located in a commanding position astride major land and sea routes. Surrounding these cities, which were centers of administration, industry, and commerce, were hinterlands bounded by sea, mountains, or desert; these contained the human and natural resources required for sus- taining daily existence, and included villages, pastures, and grazing lands that supplied manpower and commodities to the cities. The city-states, which prospered from trading with and plundering each other, were in turn subjected to the strategic and economic designs of the larger political powers, like the Hittite, Mitan- nian, and Egyptian empires. As a result they were caught in a tide of shifting alliances and allegiances as the military and diplomatic might of the main protagonists ebbed and




??? ~? i. ~?l?c...r' .~365??.

?- - /P/r?1 ?\ \???. ..

..., ?Y,. ;iLLY. ?,? .. ;rrr I? ,i "" I,~o~ L~ , r

,? ?'- ~~??~\~~~~\~\?~C ?c? I . 1 c' (.'4 ?r ii ?? `'\??~' ?, Si~-?,.r.

'zi~ ???? ?~?rrrr i. ~1??' ?\\~~ b ~~?~?~?~sc?? rr ?? ~1~5 fir' ~

rye .. ?? :" '', ?? .. CII?rJ?? jt~?;S ..,.

~..~ "

Ji?kPi~ II 1!4: r:i

-- V -tplklr. '' i

??. r ,~ D*? ~~ ?-?- ''rjl ~ ~Sf~ ':~'ff ''li Ir ~c?; ?- SE rY y. ?i ?9~1 ?-?' j~r;r"~x

;ru/ c ? ? ~?~a~ \\ \\ -u\~

'' ~ ~j'tl ~7i~??LCI) ??i: C??;\j;i;'; .. _r ??` -~SiE~s~T~ ?-

Reconstruction of the southern fortification walls (dating to the fourteenth century B.c.) around the Hittite city of Hattusas (modern Boghazk6y). In front of the main casemate wall with its large towers is an outer, lower wall. In the center foreground is the entrance to an impressive postern gate.

flowed through the region. Jealous of their autonomy, the city-states never lost an opportunity-such as the death of a metropolitan king, the defeat in battle of the dominant imperial power, or the relaxation of external authority-to rise in revolt and assert their independence. Their rulers never stopped scheming, en- treating, and fighting.

Cyprus The history of Cyprus at this time cannot be easily reconstructed because the Cypro-Minoan texts from the island and Ras Shamra (Ugarit) cannot be read yet and there is dis- agreement on the identification of the ancient place-name of Alashiya, which many writers take to indicate part or the whole of Cyprus. Archae- ological data, however, suggest that internal conditions were peaceful, that trade inside and outside the island was flourishing, and that the pattern of settlement was dominated by large towns around the east, south, and west coasts that served primarily as centers for industrial and commercial activity. None of these cities, whose foundations mostly go back to the mid-seventeenth century B.C., appears to have been protected with fortified walls until the thirteenth century B.C. at the earliest - and even then they were not all fortified, and the fortifications do not all date to exactly the same period. It is diffi- cult to avoid the conclusion that the

Seafaring in the Late Bronze Age

Much of the commercial intercourse between the communities around the eastern Mediterranean basin, even those within reach of each other

by land, was carried out by ship, and seafaring, which had been practiced as early as the fourth millennium B.C. in the region, reached its apogee in skill, regularity, and activity during the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.c. It is evident from textual, pictorial, and archaeological evidence that Egypt, and every principality or city-state with access to the sea from the Aegean to the Levant, had ships flying, as it were, under their own home flags. Who built, owned, and manned these vessels is still the subject of scholarly debate, and whether one "nation" or another ruled the waves at any stage in this period is an issue of undiminished controversy. It cannot, however, be doubted that ships were constructed at many places around the east Mediterranean- including Cyprus - and belonged to the rul

,rs of these states, or to merchants

acting on behalf of the government or independently. There is no reason to believe that any one political entity- Myc enaean/Minoan, Hittite, Cypriote, Syro-Palestinian, or Egyptian-monopoli2 ed the sea lanes in the Late Bronze Age or was in a position to regulate the m

"vement of another's ships, except,

of course, where entry to territorial waters was concerned. Navies and sea battles are not attested until the late thirteenth century B.c., but the use of ships for marauding and piracy can be shown to have been a not uncommon occurrence. The raids of the aptly named Sea Peoples were the culmination of a process of increasingly hostile use of the maritime environment.

Robert S. Merrillees

threat they faced came from abroad rather than inside the island, and there can be no doubt that the dis- ruptions to human habitation and culture at the end of the thirteenth century B.C. were the result of foreign invasion. At the same time evidence is lacking to support any contention that Cyprus was ruled as a single, cen- tralized, constitutional or political unit; it is more likely that there were

multiple autonomous urban entities. Moreover, the fact that no Hittite or Egyptian objects inscribed with royal names from royal sources have thus far turned up in scientific excavations of fourteenth- and thirteenth- century sites makes it highly unlike- ly that Cyprus, or any part of it, was ever subjected to imperial domination or even influence from the mainland.




Around 1285 B.c., near the Syrian city of Qadesh on the River Orontes, two powerful empires-the Egyptians and the Hittites-vied for control of Syria. The battle, which was repeatedly recorded on carved walls of Egyptian temples, has been the subject of many discus- sions. A portion of the Egyptian army, led by Ramesses II, was approaching the city, in anticipation of a con- frontation with the Hittites, when they were joined by several tribesmen who turned out to be Hittite decoys. The new travelers misled the Egyptians in to thinking that the Hittites were still in Aleppo. Ramesses, feeling confident after learning this news, continued on to Qadesh instead of waiting to be joined by the other divisions of the Egyptian army. Luckily, Egyptian scouts captured two Hittite spies and forced them into revealing that the Hittite forces were waiting in ambush a short distance away. The Egyptians, having little time to prepare for battle, were attacked, and a total victory by the Hittites was only prevented by the late arrival of an Egyptian support-force. This extra help enabled the Egyptians to drive the Hittite chariot forces into the river, where they sought safety on the other side. The next morning Ramesses took the initiative against

- the much larger Hittite army, which was led by - king Muwatallish. The battle probably ended in m a stalemate, although both sides eventually claimed victory. This drawing is of one part of the battle depicted at the Ramesseum in i 7 Thebes.

??~?-?t u

,7 ,,- "' .. : :?? C;I L- .tiC1 tl k 'C/ ~~53=

ci~C~~.'14 L- ,, -

'h O CCr- C L z ) L~'~ ??j fi

rt~`c~\-?~ ~--Y_ 111

ru '' .~

t~; ~- --- , /1 --f tj- ?Cr ~tr r r ,i?

k~ ?,i~~i? ,r!

/rfy ~! C I I r r.

rW 1LLi' t 1' 3 rii

Y~L1 I-j r d I?i ? 1 i ?? i/Z' !i L~? \ - c=~ ~ --I s?,l P? ?cr ;li t.-o4 a

i ' I L-i t

-;j ,I .I i :-Si' -? ?- ?i! I-

(r= I' I n I r ;iBI

??i, ~C (L,,L I ( t~ :? IIt. IC~ s C/ ?C~? b-i:

Ih -I C1 i! c,

I r ' ' I "

?,lcr ? )~T z ?, \"' F;,

'`??- ul ~ 1 .J ?~ \v i_?'1II: .i ; --?I.,--- . . ~"`~~C

?CI~ cr \c, .? i%; I' .v

r-v ,, ,,:1.1- I-i

\ jc~ '-e ~ ir r1~ .-I --~?~ ~trT~~-- / c?~ i't/I:''

"' ,1 S~L;I?: 7?1 ?? \---. t~

~ I Ir- ?. \t- i.~- rlr" rr ?C

I, ,, 1 --

r-- II; ,ZJ

r/

~cl C,, ,L I r, rI

??~;211~ -v

j Is? /` I~ r~l` ~ '1 :? ?? ?~`rt~~~Y ~ ..?t. .I? :~iw` --------

.3. ??? c ~~--U1~L~~ ? r ~C : ;117 i;I' ..,. ~-?~-LC-_ I i~T~r: '~ " 121 ? r ~-r??'?

.~...~ r.e J. ~ rr"` ?') ?? ~~ ~C~r~ 1

~?;7...... ---~:;.~:~ I, .. :; ,~?: rl.l......_.l:~.~~?~~.~~-.-,.,..,--..... ....~.. C: .:.:....;i......~..l-....;..-.--.I----? ;` r cf~~ C?~; r.i-

~~a~, ?i~ r, Lr;?C'i? I: s. ~ i,, c? '~ c'~;;Z! 4 ?r cr----~ r' '?~I

r ~sr~ J J i -?. c c~ .?, -I j~ .r. ?Gh

~T~___ ~~.z Ka ???-?-?\. -----?C---?CT?----?l--~? --??-?~-??~-C?.---m-????rr-r?--- ????~? ?????-???? ?~. i i . ? ?)\'?~? ''II .,I ..., )').". 1. ??~. .~~-,~YY~,~,~ 1-~-~---I-1 ---_--? --?- ,,Y-.--..,,Y.i-~I--~~I-LI---Y;YIY?-Y-YII ?-??Y-?--l------?

Conflict Syria's strategic location - at the crossroads between Anatolia and Palestine, and between Mesopotamia and the east Mediterranean-gave it a political and commercial impor- tance out of all proportion to its own territorial integrity and natural resources. In the first half of the fourteenth century B.C. Egypt's control of Syria, which had been established by Thutmosis III in the fifteenth century B.C., began to slacken as a result of the military inactivity of the later Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs Amen- hotep III and Akhenaten, whose pre- occupation with internal matters created a power vacuum in the area. That Egyptian rule was not directly challenged until the second quarter of the fourteenth century B.c. may be attributed to several factors. In the first place the only regime in a position to assert its claim to Syria, the Hittites, had itself been under attack from within Anatolia and did not succeed in overcoming internal opposition until a strong ruler as-

cended the throne about 1380 B.C. in the person of Shuppiluliumash I.

In the second place the Mitan- nian kingdom held sway over upper Mesopotamia and the adjacent parts of eastern Syria and enjoyed good diplomatic relations with Egypt. There may even have been some understanding between the Mitan- nian and Egyptian rulers concerning their respective spheres of influence in Syria. This alliance, which enabled both sides to maintain the status quo and deter any potential Hittite threat, was nevertheless put under serious strain when Shuppiluliu- mash I concluded a treaty with the king of the Khurri land, who was the adversary of the Mitannian king Tushratta. Tushratta's expectations of Egyptian intervention to help redress the balance were not fulfilled by Akhenaten. When in 1365 B.c. the Hittite emperor moved against Tush- ratta, Mitannian authority over Syria collapsed and was replaced not by a unified administration but by a series of treaties with important city-

states in the north that secured the Hittites' southern flank. There en- sued a struggle for power among the various principalities located between the Hittite and Egyptian dominions; this came to an end when Shuppilu- liumash I destroyed the Mitannian kingdom and subjugated the city- states of Syria.

Hittite hegemony over Syria re- mained unchallenged by Egypt until the Nineteenth Dynasty, when Seti I sought at the end of the fourteenth century B.C. to reassert Egypt's pre- eminence in Asia. Having consoli- dated his hold on Palestine, he then engaged the Hittites in battle, regain- ing control of southern Syria before concluding a peace treaty with the Hittite ruler Muwatallish, who had not long before ascended the throne. Seti I's successor, Ramesses II, whose reign spanned much of the thirteenth century B.C., returned to the attack shortly after his accession and fought the Hittite army outside Qadesh, but neither side was able to claim com- plete victory. The Egyptian forces




I

'';- L j

? i \

I. \~- Ji ' W I

/ / r

\i

\Ii - c

___ ''1)~HI

Captive Sea Peoples are portrayed in this dra wingof a scene from Medinet Habu where Ramesses III is shown presenting them before two Egyptian gods. Drawing is from Nelson and others (1930).

did, however, stage a tactical retreat that enabled Muwatallish to advance as far as Damascus. In any event, following this major clash, both sides found themselves-no doubt partly because of their concentration on the Syrian front - faced with troubles in other parts of their own empires and unable or unwilling to do more than skirmish with each other. Finally Ramesses II and the

new Hittite king Khattushilish III concluded a peace treaty in about 1270 B.c.; this initiated a period of relative security and friendly relations between the two kingdoms. This tranquil era came to a rude end when invaders of still-uncertain origin (called the Sea Peoples) began their depredations in the east Medi- terranean about the end of the thirteenth century B.C., destroying, or at

W d~~le ~r ~iJw wPt

~* ~4~ e~s ~rt

4~ ~k~ ?4~bret 4*

~ir ~ffck~~~?:t ~~~geOl ~~~~~I ~~~~~ 1tP ptc~~$ tc~-a.i F3- P~

<~t 'j ~ C'FP~t~ ~\eQ ?cwa~a-t~~QiK Ft~fT- PfP~p ESW4~*!

The peace treaty between Ramesses II and the new Hittite king Khattushilish III has been discovered both in Egypt and Anatolia. The Hittite version is shown in this drawing of one of the clay tablets that was found in the Hattusas archive.

least contributing to the collapse of, the Hittite empire, and devastating Syria and Palestine before being halted at the Egyptian Delta.

Accommodations Securing their territorial conquests in Syria and Palestine and extending their areas of influence as a buffer to their opponents' ambitions became the principal concerns of the Hittite and Egyptian kings. Apart from the practice of regular, normally annual, military campaigns into the van- quished territories (both to crush any hint of insurrection and replenish supplies of foodstuffs, livestock, raw materials, and manufactured goods), the rulers of both empires brought the full paraphernalia of diplomatic coercion and persuasion to bear on the city-states. In addition to the in- stallation of a member of the royal family or household as governor in: the subjugated city or province, a member of the local ruling dynasty could be chosen as district adminis- trator, assisted by a metropolitan "ad- visor," and made to swear an oath of fealty, which, if broken, would incur the wrath of the gods or, failing that, of man. These vassals, who had to go through all the motions of obeisance, from doing regular personal homage to their overlords, submitting to every demand made of them, to humbling themselves in public address, were responsible for raising and sending the annual tribute. If not required to supply troops for the metropolitan army when fighting in their own re- gions or even further afield, they had at least to provision the campaigning forces. They were not allowed any direct contact with foreign powers but they enjoyed, at least in theory, security of tenure and an assurance of protection from external aggres- sion. Diplomatic marriages and the taking of hostages were other means employed to enforce vassals' loyalty.

The history of the north Syrian coastal emporium of Ras Shamra, ancient Ugarit, is instructive in this regard, for not only does it epitomize




B.C. Egyptians Hittites Mitannians Assyrians Syrians

1500 Thutmosis III (1490-1436)

Egyptian conquest 1450 Mitannian

domination Mitannian influence in north Syria

1400 '"Amarna period" Amenhotep III Tushratta (c.1400-1350) (1405-1367) Shuppiluliumash I Akhenaten (1375-1335) Ashshur-uballit I Hittite conquest

1350 (1367-1350) Mitanni overthrown (1365-1330) Tutankhamen (1347-1339) Murshilish II

(1334-1306) Horemheb Muwatallish

1300 (1335-1308?) (1306-1282) Seti I (1308-1291) Battle of Qadesh Ramesses II Khattushilish III (1285) (1290-1224) (1275-1250)

1250

1200 Invasion of the Sea Peoples

Note: The information given above is based on table 5 of the chronological tables in Ancient Iraq (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1964) by Georges Roux.

the fluctuating fortunes of the city- states in this pivotal region but it also appears to have had a direct and decisive effect on the pattern of trade in the east Mediterranean basin.

In the early fourteenth century B.C., at the time of Ammishtamru I, Ugarit was within the Egyptian sphere of influence. Evidence for an exchange of gifts and correspondence between the ruling families of Ras Shamra and the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhe- naten, marked especially by a royal marriage in the mid-fourteenth century B.C., confirms the diplomatic link and friendly relations between Ugarit and Egypt. Faced, however, with a double threat from the Hittite king Shuppiluliumash I in the north

and Aziru of Amurru to the south, Niqmaddu of Ugarit made a treaty with Aziru, who subsequently en- tered into an agreement with Shup- piluliumash. As a result Niqmaddu had to accept the sovereignty of the Hittite emperor and pay a large annual tribute. Though evidently not occupied by the Hittites and loyal to its overlord for the rest of Niqmaddu's reign, Ugarit under his successors may have joined a general uprising in Syria against the Hittite king Murshilish II, encouraged by the Egyptian pharaoh Horemheb. In any event the attempted secession was unsuccessful, and this time the Hit- tite king placed Niqmepa, his own choice, on the throne of Ugarit about 1325 B.c. For the rest of the four-

teenth and all of the thirteenth century B.C. Ras Shamra seems not to have strayed from the Hittite fold, though the peace treaty between Khattushilish III and Ramesses II probably allowed a resumption of diplomatic contacts with Egypt in the second half of the thirteenth century B.C. Even then the Hittites appear to have refrained from directly intervening in the city's internal affairs.

Commercial Contacts The dynamics of the interconnec- tions between the kingdoms, principalities, and city-states around the east Mediterranean in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.c. were unquestionably economic, as resource-




The Mitanni

A dynasty of kings known as the Mitanni controlled one of the three

dominant political centers in the eastern Mediterranean during a 150- year period beginning in the fifteenth century B.C. Their kingdom extended from northern Iraq to the Mediterranean coast in a belt the width of modem Syria, a zone that brought them into contact with the period's other great powers: the Hittites of Anatolia and the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs in Egypt. Indeed, it is through their diplomatic correspondence with the Hittite and Egyptian rulers that the Mitanni kings come into sharpest focus, for they have otherwise left little recog- nizable mark on the second-millennium Syrian landscape.

The most surprising feature of the Mitanni is their ethnic identity. Their names are Indo-Aryan, as are their gods Indra, Mitra, and Varuna, who are in- voked on a treaty between the Hittite king Shuppiluliumash I (1375-1335 B.C.) and the Mitannian Mattiwaza. Textual references from fifteenth- and fourteenth- century archives indicate, however, that the Indo-Aryan Mitanni constituted only a small aristocratic minority within the territory they administered. The area was essentially populated by Hurrians (an autochthonous, or indigenous, group already established in north Syria by, at the latest, the end of the third millennium, and whose language was neither Indo-Aryan, Indo-European, or Semitic but perhaps ancestral to the Urartian spoken in the Caucasian highlands by the first millennium). Although the Mitanni intruders appear to have ruled in close association with a Hurrian landed bureaucracy in the fifteenth century, control gradually passed into Hurrian hands. After around 1350 B.c. a divided Mitannian Syria was assimi- lated into the political spheres of the As- syrians in the east and the Hittites in the west. Mitanni palace intrigues, abetted by the machinations of the Assyrian king Ashshur-uballit I (1365-1330 B.C.), and the Hittite Shuppiluliumash I put a close to the Mitanni kingdom.

Efforts to isolate the Mitanni in the archaeological record have met with little success. The location of their capital city Washshukanni in the northern Khabur can only be conjectured. The likeliest site has generally been thought to be Tell Fekheriyah on the Thrkish- Syrian border. Several expeditions, the most recent in the mid-1950s by a Ger- man team, have failed to produce impressive second-millennium remains however. Recent analyses of the trace elements and thermoluminescence of clay used for tablets written by Mitanni kings, presumably at Washshukanni, and discovered in archives elsewhere have cast further doubt on Fekheriyah's suitability: The clay bears no relation- ship to wares from that site, nor indeed from any in the Jezirah, the area watered by the Khabur River and its tributaries to the east. Moreover, the number of settlements in this region seems to de- cline sharply in the mid-second millennium, and candidates for the Mitanni capital are consequently few (A. Dobel, W. J. van Liere, and A. Mahmud, "The WaSukanni Project of the University of California-Berkeley,"Archiv fiir Orient- forschung, volume 25, pages 259-64, 1974-1977). It is instead two sites from the fringes of the Mitanni kingdom that have until recently provided the only well-defined occupation levels for the period. In the east, excavations at Nuzi, near Kirkuk in northern Iraq, revealed the palace of a governor to the Mitanni king Shaushshatar (mid-fifteenth century) enclosed by an extended residen- tial district and temples. The second site with Mitanni connections sits at the other end of the kingdom. Alalakh (Tell Atchana), in the modern Turkish Hatay, was a small vassal-principality with again a palace, temple, and houses, but of coastal Syrian type. Our picture of the Mitanni world may soon be much en- riched, however, thanks to renewed excavations in the upper Khabur, the kingdom's capital district. Current excavations at Tell Brak are beginning to uncover a monumental secular building

dated to the mid-second millennium, and this has been associated with Mitanni seals and pottery.

Outside this diffuse archaeological framework, certain categories of arti- facts, iconographic motifs, and technological developments have been ascribed to a Mitanni culture. A luxury ware decorated with white paint on a dark ground and shaped principally into thin- walled chalices or goblets has been found from Assyria to the Levantine coast in levels dated from the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries B.C. It has consequently been associated with a Hurrian/Mitan- nian aristocracy, although the ware seems an indigenous development from earlier pottery types. More specifically Indo-Aryan, perhaps, are certain motifs on Mitanni royal seals; an upright pillar below a winged disk is related by H. Frankfort (Cylinder Seals: A Documen- tary Essay on the Ancient Near East, London: Macmillan, 1939) and others to the Indo-Aryan concept of a "pillar of heaven" supporting the sky. King Tish- ratta's gift of an iron object to the Egyp- tian Amenhotep III, and presumed Mi- tanni hegemony over the iron mines of Armenia, could suggest that the Mitan- ni rulers were intimately connected with known technological advances in iron- working during the latter half of the second millennium. Finally, a Hittite trea- tise on horse-training, the author of which bears a Mitanni name, implies a reputation in equestrian matters, although the Mitanni role in introducing the horse into Mesopotamia remains ambiguous.

The Mitanni, then, represent one of several second-millennium ethnic groups in the ancient Near East whose historical presence is documented but whose archaeological presence still eludes us. Their case should caution us against oversimplification in interpreting an- epigraphic ancient societies where the subtleties of social and ethnic relation- ships may well remain concealed in a mute archaeological context.

Marie-Henriette Gates




deficient places like Egypt or Ugarit sought to obtain the commodities necessary for maintaining the living standards (and supremacy) of their ruling elites. Apart from securing the spoils of war and the extraction of tribute, the latter even engaged in some peaceful trade, which it is generally thought they monopolized. Since the Old Kingdom, Asia had supplied Egypt with wood, including resins; oils, particularly olive oil; semiprecious stones like lapis lazuli; and tin or bronze, none of which was locally available in the quantity or quality desired. From about the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. Egypt began adding to its imports copper and iron and diversifying its sources of supply to include Myce- naean Greece, Anatolia, and Cyprus. The Hittite empire's main require- ments appear to have been metals such as tin, foodstuffs, and manpower in the form of slaves. A city- state like Ugarit, which was rich in primary produce, had also to import its metals, particularly copper and tin, but acted as an entrep6t (an inter- mediate trade center) with its own industrial base. It therefore provided other city-states in Syria and Palestine, as well as the Hittites and Egyptians, with raw, processed, and manufactured goods such as cereals; oils and wine; and articles in metal, ivory, glass or faience, and stone. Cyprus, Crete, and Greece had to obtain their tin either in metallic form or in bronze from abroad, and in turn ex- ported large quantities of pottery, much of it serving as containers for oils, unguents, or drugs. During this period there was a significant change in the pattern of trade, for which Ugarit's submission to the Hittites seems to have been responsible. Whereas until the mid-fourteenth century B.C., Cypriote and Mycenae- an vases had been conveyed in con- siderable numbers, evidently via Ras Shamra, to Egypt, their importation all but ceased after the death of Ak- henaten. Trade with Palestine, however, continued unabated. All this

came to an end with the upheavals caused by the Sea Peoples about the end of the thirteenth century B.C.

Conclusion The fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. witnessed an exchange of people, goods, and ideas between the countries bordering the east Medi- terranean basin on a scale unprece- dented in Levantine prehistory. This efflorescence of diplomatic, commercial, and social contacts was no revolution, as the foundations had been well laid in the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries B.c., but the inten- sification of relations was a phenom- enon of the age and led to the high- est degree of material affluence and cultural cross-fertilization achieved during the Bronze Age. Nor did these interactions betoken a lessening of belligerency or warfare, for hostili- ties between the pharaohs of Egypt, the Hittite emperors, and the Mitan- nian kings provided the backdrop against which all the developments and events in the region took place. This constant state of armed confron- tation, which did not interfere with trade, culminated in the mass move- ment of peoples at the end of the thirteenth century B.c. This put an end to the coastal towns of Cyprus, the Hittite empire, and some of the city-states along the Syrian/Palestin- ian littoral and altered the whole pattern of settlement and civilization throughout the east Mediterranean basin. Only Egypt emerged from this catastrophe unscathed.

Suggested Reading

1973 Acts of the International Archaeolog- ical Symposium, "The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean," Nico- sia, 27th March-2nd April 1972. Nicosia: Republic of Cyprus. Minis- try of Communications and Works. Department of Antiquities.

Bass, G. E 1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Ship-

wreck. Series: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 57, Part 8. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Baurain, C. 1984 Chypre et la Mediterrande orientale

au Bronze recent. Synthese historique. Series: Atudes Chypriotes 6. Athens: Acole frangaise d'Athenes.

Buccellati, G. 1967 Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria.

An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israel- ite Kingdoms. Series: Studi Semitici 26. Rome: Istituto di studi del Vin- cino Oriente, Universita di Roma.

Drioton, E., and Vandier, J. 1975 L'Egypte. Des origines

t la conquBte

dAlexandre. Fifth edition. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Edwards, I. E. S., and others 1973 The Cambridge Ancient History.

Third Edition. Volume 2, part 1. His- tory of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800-1380 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1975 The Cambridge Ancient History Third Edition. Volume 2, part 2. His- tory of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gurney, O. R. 1969 The Hittites. Second edition. London:

Penguin Books, Ltd. Lucas, A.

1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Fourth edition, revised and enlarged by J. R. Harris. London: E. Arnold & Co.

Merrillees, R. S. 1968 The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery

Found in Egypt. Series: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18. Lund, Sweden: Paul Astroms F6rlag.

Muhly, J. D. 1973 Copper and Tin. The Distribution of

Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age. Series: Transactions of the Connecti- cut Academy of Arts and Sciences 43. Pp. 155-535. Hamden: Connecti- cut Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Nelson, H. H. and others 1930 Medinet Habu-Volume I. Earlier

Historical Records of Ramses III. Series: The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications 8. Edited by James H. Breasted. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sanders, N. K. 1978 The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the An-

cient Mediterranean 1250-1150 B.C. Series: Ancient Peoples and Places 89. London: Thames and Hudson.

Strange, J. 1980 Caphtor/Keftiu. A New Investigation.

Series: Acta Theologica Danica 14. Leiden: Brill.




Documents

Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age