Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:45:11.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Ugaritic Letter to Amenophis III Concerning Trade with Alašiya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

E. Lipiński
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Seven Amarna letters (EA 33–39) are addressed to Egypt by the king of Alašiya, whose name is not given, and one by his chief minister to the minister of Egypt (EA 40). The letters contain references to an exchange of gifts, which were delivered by sea (EA 39 and 40). This exchange amounted to the maintenance of commercial relations and one letter even mentions, in a broken context, Egyptian tradesmen (EA 34). This is what the king of Alašiya writes to the king of Egypt:

38 [. .uš-ši-ir] ki-ma ar-hi-iš39 [a-nakurA-]la-ši-ialútám-kà-ri-ia40 [ù 2] o1[ú-meštám-] kà-ru-ka ù41[1 m]e-i-it [x-x-]GA-GI it-ti-šu-nu,

“[let go] quickly [to A]lašiya my tradesman [and] your [twen] ty [tra]desmen and [one h]undred2 …… with them”.

All these Amarna letters date most likely from the reign of Amenophis IV (1379–1362), alias Akhenaten.

A somewhat earlier reference to Egyptian trade with Alašiya is to be found in an Ugaritic letter uncovered in room 77 of the main palace of Ugarit3 and addressed to Nimmuria, viz. Amenophis III Nebmare (1417–1379)4, by an official whose name is omitted.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1977 , pp. 213 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zaccagnini, C., Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV–XIII (Oricntis Antiqui Collectio, XI; Roma, 1973), 119, cf. 91Google Scholar.

2 The spelling me-i-it seems to testify to the use of an Ugaritic form of the word “hundred”, spelt m'it in the singular.

3 Virolleaud, Ch., Le Palais royal d'Ugarit V (Mission de Ras Shamra, XI; Paris, 1965)Google Scholar, No. 8 (RS 18. 113A). The letter has previously been mentioned by Virolleaud, Ch., “Les nouvelles tablettes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra (XVIIIe campagne, automne 1954)”, in CRAIBL 1955, 73–82Google Scholar. It has now been re-edited with an unpublished fragment (RS 18. 113B) by Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O., Die Elfenbeininschriften und S-Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 13; Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976), 21–22Google Scholar and Pl. VII, S 33–34. See also Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartin, J., Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Teil I. Transkription (AOAT 24; Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976), 156–157, No. 2.42–43Google Scholar. Neither of these publications contains a translation or an interpretation of this letter. Room 77 seems to have yielded only one other fragment (PRU V, No. 7 = RS. 18.113).

4 The doubts about the identity of Nmry, expressed by Liverani, M., Storia di Ugarit (Studi Semitci 6; Roma, 1962), 28, note 6, are not foundedGoogle Scholar.

5 Ch. Virolleaud has suggested the alternative restorations m'i[dḫ], m'i[ḫd], or m'i[ḫdym]. The second one is adopted by Linder, E., The Maritime Texts of Ugarit: A Study in Late Bronze Shipping (Diss. Brandeis University, 1970), 41–42Google Scholar, who interprets rb. m'i[ḫd] in the sense of “harbour master” (cf. ibid., 208–211). However, one would expect to find the spelling m'a[ḫd] instead of m'i[ḫd]. According to Astour, M. C., “Ma'ḫadu, the Harbour of Ugarit”, in JESHO 13 (1970), 113–127Google Scholar, m'aḫd was the proper name of the harbour of Ugarit.

6 While Ch. Virolleaud supplied respectively two or four letters, Gordon, C. H. (Ugaritic Textbook, Roma, 1965, No. 2008)Google Scholar suggested reading m'i[t] and thus supplied only one letter, admitting an uninscribed space between this word and [']bdk. The latter's restoration is followed by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín (see note 3). The reading m'i/šmn] seems to fit best in the lacuna indicated by Ch. Virolleaud who had examined the tablet when it was in better condition than now. In fact, the letters bdk have now disappeared.

7 According to Helck, H.-W., Der Einfluss der Militärjührer in der 18. ägyptischen Dynastie (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens, XIV; Leipzig, 1939), 46Google Scholar, note 2, and 48, note 5, this title is related to the administration of royal estates and, more particularly, to the reporting on their annual economic balance. See also Vergote, J., Joseph en Égypte (Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia, III; Louvain, 1959), 117–118Google Scholar.

8 To simplify the transcription, the letters which are damaged, but whose reading is fairly certain, are not inclosed here in partial brackets. Ch. Virolleaud's decipherment of lines 10–14 (obverse) has been partly completed by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (see note 3).

9 The sense of the word ḥwt in this passage has already been recognized by Caquot, A. and Sznycer, M., Textes ougaritiques, I, Mythes et légendes (LAPO 7; Paris, 1974), 197Google Scholar, note t. One can also find a discussion on the meanings of ḥwt in Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J., “Zur ugaritischen Lexicographie (XI)”, in Ugarit-Forschungen 6 (1974), 19–38 (see 25–26)Google Scholar. One of the accepted meanings is “Gebiet”.

10 Cf. Drower, M. S., in The Cambridge Ancient History, II/1 (3rd ed., Cambridge, 1973), 490Google Scholar. One may doubt whether the Ugaritic tablet RS 11.857 (Herdner, A., Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Paris, 1963), No. 80)Google Scholar is a muster of unnamed Alašiyan prisoners of war in the service of Ugaritic masters, as suggested by Alt, A., “Ein phönikisches Staatswesen des frühen Altertums,” in Forschungen und Fortschritte 18 (1942), 307–309Google Scholar; id., “Bemerkungen zu den Verwaltungs- und Rechtsurkunden von Ugarit und Alalach”, in Die Welt des Orients 3 (1954–59), 7–18, 234–243, 338–342 (see 15 ff.); and Eissfeldt, O., Kleine Schriften II (Tübingen, 1963), 358Google Scholar; id., Kleine Schriften III (Tübingen, 1966), 218–220, or rather a list of Alašiyan families at Ugarit.

11 M. Dietrich and O. Loretz have partly completed Ch. Virolleaud's decipherment of line 14′ (reverse). The present writer suggests reading k. tmkrn instead of w.mkrn at the beginning of line 14

12 The restoration of nšm is conjectural. For the rest of the line, one may refer to b.lbk.'al.tšt in PRU II, No. 13, lines 23–24, and to b.lbh.'al.yšt in PRU V, No. 59, line 27. In both cases, the subject and the direct object precede the expression which corresponds to Old Hebrew šīm 'al lēb (I Sam. 21,13; II Sam. 13,33 [with 'l instead of 'l]; 19,30; Is. 42,25; 57, 1.11; Jer. 13,11; Mal. 2,2; Cant. 8,6).

13 In the light of the expression b'u.tb'u in CTA, No. 16 (II K), col. VI, 3, one might restore b'u.b'at, “I went indeed to”, as well.

14 The use of 'l.'ap (cf. II Sam. 14,4.33; I Kings 1,23) suggests restoring s['adt. mlk].

15 The form yšt'al seems to be a Gt-imperfect; cf. Hoftijzer, J., “A Note on G 10833: 'išt'ir and Related Matters”, in Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971), 361–364 (see 364)Google Scholar. It is explained in the following way by Rainey, A. F., “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” in Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971), 151–172Google Scholar (see 167, § 9.33): “the sentence w. mlk. yšt'al … might be taken as a very polite way of presenting a petition to the monarch (cf. the obsequious style of the epistle as a whole), ‘and may the king (permit himself to) be asked’…”

16 The expression w. rgm. 'ank, in which the infinitive is used instead of a finite verb just as in w. rgm. hw of line 6′, is also attested in PRU II, No. 2, lines 38, 50, and probably in several broken passages of this text, in which also [w.] rgm. hy occurs (line 41).

17 This reading of Ch. Virolleaud is corroborated by the photograph. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz read mlkn.

18 The basic meaning mkr is “to deliver” goods, but the verb can often be translated by “to sell”. The form tmkrn is the third person feminine plural of niphal or N-imperfect, with the n assimilated to m as in tmkrn (2nd pers. mase. plur.) of PRU V, No. 116, line 16. (For this text see Miller, P. D., in The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets (Roma, 1971), 41Google Scholar). Instead, the simple stem is used in PRU V, No. 126, if the following restoration is correct: 3[w]. hm. ly[s 4']. mṣrm 5nmkr[h], “and if he does not pay, we shall sell him in Egypt”.

19 Holmes, Y. L., “The Messengers of the Amarna Letters”, in JAOS 95 (1975), 376–381Google Scholar (see 379–380, where the author refers to EA 39, lines 10–16).

20 Glanville, S. R. K., “Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuthmosis III: Papyrus British Museum 10056”, in ZÄS 66 (1930), 105–121Google Scholar; 68 (1932), 7–41; Hayes, W. C., in The Cambridge Ancient History, II/1 (3rd ed.), 369Google Scholar.

21 Nibbi, A., The Sea Peoples and Egypt (Park Ridge (New Jersey), 1975), 124–138Google Scholar.

22 In the Amarna period, she contends, there is abundant evidence for sailing along the western Asiatic coast, but so far none at all for Egyptian sea-faring (ibid., 133, cf. 127–128).