What is also clear is that there is now enough evidence for us to form more than a shadowy view of what truly ancient diplomacy was really like. Certainly it was intermittent and generated no permanent institutions; and how far rulers recorded transactions or negotiations and to what degree they differed in their practices, we know rather patchily. There exists, however, one rare exception.
The ancient Near East
Recent historical scholarship and translations of the earliest known writings and epistolary exchanges have shown that diplomatic practice â as we
understand the concept â began in the ancient Near East from around the mid-third millennium BC.
2 These translations include
Letters from Early Mesopotamia, seventeenth century BC Mari (Syria) archives, and
Amarna Letters (consisting of about 400 diplomatic correspondences between the Eighteenth Dynastic Court of Egypt and the political entities of the ancient Near East).
3 The geography of the ancient Near East (or ancient Western Asia, as the region is also known) covered the modern states of Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, south-western Russia, Syria, Turkey, the Mediterranean coast and Egypt. A number of political entities â kingdoms, dynasties, empires, states and other organized polities â with varying degrees of size, power, autonomy, dominance and longevity operated in this region. Among them were Mesopotamia, EkallĂątum, Babylonia, Hatti, Hasura, Alahah, Elam, Hamzi, Assyria, KaranĂą, Amorite, Ugarit and Mari. Others were E
nunna, Mittani, Yamhad, Egypt, E
nunna, Qabara, Qatanum, Arrapha, Lagash, Agade and Ur. These entities were ruled by powerful kings and emperors, including Hammurabi of Babylon, Rim-Sin of Larsa, Ibal-pi-El of E
nunna, Amut-pi-il of Qatanum, Yarim-Lim of Yamhad and the Pharaohs.
These letters (written originally on clay tablets) open valuable windows of information about the interstate relations that existed among these political entities. From them we have diplomatic stories about competition and control over trade routes,
4 strategic military cooperation and counter-alliances, treaty negotiations and ratification, extradition of political fugitives and deserters, emissary orders and dynastic marriages, and exchange of political, artistic and âluxuriously craftedâ gifts.
5 They also contain terms and expressions that explain the offer of friendship as well as alliance formation and acceptance. For instance, in the Mari archives, the term
salĂąmum means âto be friendlyâ or âto ally withâ, and
salĂźman lĂȘqum means âto receive friendshipâ.
SalĂźman akĂąnum means âto establishâ and
salĂźman epĂȘum means âto form friendshipâ.
QĂątam napĂąsum means âto strike the handâ or to reject an offer of alliance. We also know from these documents what gestures and rituals diplomats used to conclude or reject treaties and alliances. For instance, the term
sissiktum in the Mari archives refers to the hem of outer clothing or strap that could be bound. To hold a
sissiktum means to conclude an alliance by seizing or tangling the hem of the garment. The touch of the throat also symbolized the conclusion of an agreement or a treaty.
Qaran subĂąt X wuurum means âto let go the hem of a garmentâ or to breach a treaty/alliance.
6 More familiarly, the exchange of royal gifts was a diplomatic gesture of friendship; and the lack of it was as a sign of hostility.
7In addition to these terms and symbolisms, the letters contain evidence of arbitration and mediation, diplomatic codes of conduct, customs and conventions, the exchange of envoys and description of their missions. Ambassadors were appointed for specific missions with specific sets of instructions. They were chosen from among the senior officials of administration who demonstrated profound knowledge of state affairs and policies. Their primary functions included coordinating the military, trade and diplomatic efforts of their sovereigns.8 They promoted the interests of their states and defended their policies. In some instances, officials of the host entity made arrival, safety, comfort and departure arrangements for visiting diplomats. They also reserved the right to approve visiting envoysâ departure, and in some cases, provided armed escorts for their return.9 Some sovereigns invested full authority in their diplomatic agents while on duty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari, appointed Abum-ekin ambassador plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with Hammurabi, the king of Babylon. Abum-ekin exercised this prerogative power by objecting to a clause in the treaty and then descriptively reported it to his king as follows:
The exercise of plenipotentiary powers was not a widespread practice; it only worked among political entities with equal powers and influence. Great kings imposed degrees of obligation on less powerful entities. For instance, vassal states had no diplomatic relations with the enemies of their overlords; their policies were subordinated to the interest of their overlords. In fact, overlords made frequent requests for military support from their dependent entities. âWhereas the vassal has many obligationsâ, William Moran writes, âthe suzerain has none.â11 In brief, a âpaternityâ, abĂ»tum or âfather and sonâ relationship existed between overlords and their vassals.
When everything is extracted from the sources that exist, two features stand out. The first is the overarching conceptual framework within which equal and allied powers conducted interstate relations. They did so in a humanistic spirit of âbrotherhoodâ and âfraternityâ,
ahûtum,
athĂ»tum. For instance, Ć amĆĄi-Adad, the king of Assyria, referred to himself as a âbrotherâ of the ruler of E
nunna and IĆĄhi-Adad of Qatanum. Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, also referred to Zimri-Lim of Mari in the same manner. The kings of IĆĄhi-Adad and Zimri-Lim addressed the rulers of IĆĄme-Dagan and Babylon, respectively as brothers.
12 The concept of brotherhood is more pronounced in a letter Ibubu, a high official of Jirkab-Damu, the king of Ebla, addressed to an agent of Zizi, the ruler of Hamazi. He wrote:
It is obvious from the preceding references and quotations that the metaphor of brotherhood guided relations among equal political entities. What underpinned this metaphor was the concept of the extended family. Raymond Cohenâs assessment of this concept in the Amarna letters is revealing. He observes:
It is important to note that the concept of âfamilyâ as expressed in these diplomatic letters was not limited to biological blood groups, nor was it confined only to sovereign lords; it was also used to describe relations between overlords and the leaders of their vassal states as well. Some princes and sub-kings also addressed one another in such terms.15 Thus, the concept of fraternity provided the route to a political alliance.
The second feature is the impact of religion on diplomatic relations. Religious views shaped interstate relations to an extent that may be described, to borrow Brian Cox and Daniel Philpottâs words, as âfaith-based diplomacyâ.16 They note that politics and interstate relations in the ancient world possessed a âtwo-vectored spiritual orientationâ;17 politics was orientated towards the supernatural and the transcendent was believed to be active in human affairs. Put another way, the political order of ancient Near Eastern societies was structured on divine principles, with the heads of the pantheon as the owners and ultimate rulers of states. And diplomatic relations were conceived of as relations between the gods. This concept is profoundly illustrated in a treaty between the Hittite, Hattusilis, and Ramses II of Egypt:
The quotation above shows that interstate treaties were held to be divinely sanctioned. In other words, the gods were the ultimate contracting parties with kings as their earthly representatives. Because the gods were the ultimate source of power and authority, treaties were concluded and sworn in their presence, and treaty tablets placed before them.19 Treaties were the oaths of the gods who served as witnesses to their swearing. That is why treaty documents were referred to as a âtablet of the life of the godsâ, tuppa nßƥ ilĂąni, or âtablet of the bondâ in Mari archives.20 As godly authorized agreements, treaties were supposed to last forever. The gods were believed to punish the party that breached a treaty. It has been argued that this concept explains why contracting parties performed the ritual of touching the throat to conclude an accord.
Despite the generally friendly nature of relations among these political entities, there were plenty of instances of wars and conquests.21 Foreign conquests were carried out only as divine will of the gods with the kings as their generals. Conquest was deemed to be a gift to the deities while defeat was regarded as a punishment from the gods for sins committed. So ever present was the pantheon that it raises a question about its relative role: did the concept come first or was it more a useful way of finding a basis for at least some kind of diplomacy?
One may argue that the fraternal mode of address symbolized equality of status among the entities. No single entity enjoyed significant superiority either in human or natural resources to dominate other entities for a long period of time.22 Evidence of Abum-ekin rejecting a clause in a treaty with Hammurabi attests to the balance of power that existed across the region. We know that states of equal power act in concert. The majority of the leaders of those states had equality of status and were independent of one another. As is evident in their letters, alliances did not last long because of the lack of âsustained common purposeâ. Ambitious and powerful kings strengthened their positions and reinforced their political ends by forming coalitions. From these diplomatic sources, we are able to deduce that a profound sense of community, an organic relationship, grounded in friendship and kinship rather than inorganic abstractions of national interest, pervaded these relations.23 As in many other and later cultures, these political relationships were strengthened and reinforced by dynastic marriages.24 However limited the record may be, Cohen argues that there is more than enough evidence to conclude that the roots of modern-day diplomatic principles and frameworks go deep into the ancient Near Eastern world.
This evidence is exceptional and it is likely that the general scarcity of information does not hide more sophisticated diplomatic structures which have been lost. For most of the state structures took the form of large, loosely formed empires, with porous boundaries, slow communications and little need to deal on any continuous basis with any other entity which had to be treated as an equal. Such conditions did not give rise to the development of very complicated diplomacy nor to the devices required to pursue it. We have an idea of the kind of attitude that must once have been general. It arises out of the survival of the Chinese Empire from ancient times into the modern world.
