BABYLONIAN DIPLOMACY IN THE AMARNA LETTERS.

• Author: WESTBROOK, RAYMOND
• Position: Bibliography included

Modern commentators view the pattern of negotiations in the Amarna Letters as reflecting an imbalance between Egypt and the Asiatic great powers. The Asiatic kings try unsuccessfully to wrest gold and status from the Pharaoh, and in doing so are often forced into humiliating concessions. The Babylonian dispatches are regarded as a prime example of this imbalance. Babylonian kings look, at best, self-abasing and, at worst, ridiculous, especially when describing their own actions and reactions in previous diplomatic incidents. A close analysis of Babylonian arguments, however, reveals a cunning and devious train of logic designed to gain the moral advantage over the Egyptian interlocutor. The Babylonian rulers Used the cultural conventions of the day to send hidden messages, the meaning of which would nonetheless be unmistakable to the recipient.

IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY B.C. the most powerful states of the Near East, Egypt, Hatti, Mittani, Babylonia, and Assyria, formed an international society, a "Great Powers' Club" with conventional forms of diplomacy and settled rules of protocol. [1] Their relations are detailed in some thirty-five items of correspondence in the Amarna Letters, all but two being letters from the Asiatic kings to the Pharaoh. [2] In principle, they corresponded on a basis of equality, as "great kings" who referred to each other as "my brother." In practice, the Egyptian ruler enjoyed an advantage over his Asiatic counterparts. As the head of a mature hegemonic power, more self-sufficient in prestige goods than the other powers, and in particular enjoying a near monopoly on the production of gold, he was able to bargain from a position of strength. Modem commentators, therefore, view the pattern of negotiations as one in which the Asiatic kings try unsuccessfully to wrest gold and status from the Pharaoh, and in doing so are oft en forced into humiliating concessions. [3]

The dispatches of the Babylonian kings appear to present an egregious example. [4] The Babylonian correspondent looks, at best, self-abasing and, at worst, ridiculous, especially when describing his own actions and reactions in previous diplomatic incidents. [5] But appearances can be deceptive. As Cohen has pointed out, the detailed negotiations in the letters were conducted on two levels: as subgames in which the nature of the relationship was assumed, and as metagames in which the issue was relative status. [6] At the metagame level, Babylonia did not need to assert its equal status, as did Assyria. [7] Nor did it seek a relationship of inter-dependence with Egypt like Mittani. [8] Rather, its aim was mutual advantage as between independent entities:

... as I am told, in my brother's country everything is available and my brother needs absolutely nothing. Furthermore, in my country everything too is available and I for my part need absolutely nothing. We have (however) inherited good relations of long standing from (earlier) kings, and so we should send greetings to each other. (EA 7: 33-41)

Where the relationship was being negotiated, the Babylonian king was not averse to making peremptory demands, as where he insisted that Egypt not entertain a delegation from Assyria, whom he claimed as his vassal (EA 9: 19-38).

In other instances, Babylonian tactics were capable of great subtlety. Aware of the disparity in their bargaining position with Egypt, the Babylonian kings might sometimes give the impression of negotiating at the metagame level, when in fact their goals were more modest. Making metagame demands enhanced their opening position, and allowed them ultimately to maximize the lesser gains for which they would settle. Furthermore, a close analysis of the Babylonian arguments reveals a cunning and devious train of logic, designed to gain the moral advantage over the Egyptian interlocutor, and a mordant sense of humor. The Babylonians used the cultural conventions of the day to send hidden messages, the meaning of which would nonetheless be unmistakable to the recipient. We will attempt to illustrate these points through three examples.

1. "AS PLENTIFUL AS DUST"

   The desire of Asiatic kings for Egyptian gold is often stressed, along with the fact that it put them in a weaker bargaining position. [9] Their approach to the question of gold, however, was not uniform. It is true that all saw gold, like other presents, as a measure of friendly relations: "If your purpose is graciously one of friendship, send me much gold" says the Assyrian king with characteristic directness (EA 16: 32-33). For Mittani it was a sign of "love," i.e., an affirmation of close alliance. But beyond this general symbolism, very different political functions were attributed to the receipt of generous shipments of gold. Mittani wished to use Egyptian gold as a means of acquiring (or maintaining) its status in the international community:

   May my brother send me much gold...may my brother show his love for me, that my brother greatly glorify me before my country and before my foreign guests. (EA 20: 71-79)

   Assyria reversed this reasoning:

   I am the [equal] of the king of Hanigalbat, but you sent me...of gold, and it is not enough for the pay of my messengers on the journey to and back. (EA 16: 26-31)

   Babylonia, however, stressed not status but the image of friendly relations that would be presented to the international community:

   That neighboring kings might hear it said: "The gold is much. Among the kings there are brotherhood, amity, peace, and good relations." (EA 11: r.19-23)

   ...