A note on patronage in the Amarnaletters

Jana Mynafova*

Abstract: This article is intended as a supplement to the discussion on patronage in the Late Bronze Age
Levant (ca. 16-12" century BC) initiated by R. Westbrook’s seminal 2005 paper (WESTBROOK 2005). It
focuses on one of his case studies, namely the evidence provided by the Amarnaletters (mid-14" century
BC). To gain a deeper understanding of the social and political structure(s) of the above-mentioned region,
data closely related to the functioning of the Egyptian administration in the region are discussed and re-
evaluated. The search for patronage or patronage-like relationship(s) in the epistolary corpus is conducted
through a series of textual analyses.
Keywords; patronage, Amarna letters, Late Bronze Age, Levant, Akkadian.

Patronage is one of the universal means of forming and influencing social organiza-
tion and relations between individuals and as such it largely influences the internal dynamics
within a group of individuals. It is a tool by which a socially superior person creates a network
of subordinates who receive important benefits in exchange for their service and loyalty. The
problems of patronage are often a topic of historical and anthropological essays, especially in
the worlds of ancient Rome or medieval Europe. It was Raymond Westbrook, however, who —
in response to studies of LEMCHE (1996; 1995) and THOMPSON (1995) -, brought a new and
systematic perspective to the subject (WESTBROOK 2005). In his work entitled “Patronagein the
Ancient Near East”, he clearly articulated the four main points that characterize the concept of
patronage in the ancient Near East!: There is asymmetry in the relationship between the two
individuals, insofar as one holds a socially dominantposition while the other is socially sub-
ordinate (1). Their relationship is mutual, with both parties receiving desired benefits, either in
material or immaterial form (2). It cannot be a one-off affair — the patronage/clientship relation-
ship must be of a longer duration (3). Finally, the voluntary nature of the relationship — or at
least an apparent voluntariness (4) — represents another requisite criterion for the identification
of the relationship as that of client-patron.
In his methodological introduction, Westbrook also discussed other types of relationship
that are often associated with patronage but must be separated from it, such as legal relations
(which are formal), bureaucracy, commercial exchanges and especially kinship obligations. At

Charles University, Faculty of Arts, Czech Institute of Egyptology ; jana.mynarova@ff.cuni.cz.

This paper was written as part of research funded by the Czech Science Foundation, project GA CR 18-01897S
‘Economic Complexity in the Ancient Near East. Management of Resources and Taxation in the 3° and 2™
Millennium Bc’.
Following R. Westbrook, patronage andclientship in the Late Bronze Age Levant have been extensively dis-
cussed from the perspectives of social anthropology and its methods, especially by E. Pfoh, cf PFOH 2016, esp.
123-149; 2013; 2009; consult also the works of LEMCHE 1996; 1995; and THOMPSON 1995 on the Iron Age
Levant; recently PFOH and THOMPSON 2019. Not to be left out, however, are the studies of M. Liverani, who
— although he does not explicitly mention the terms patronage orclientship — addresses this topic extensively ;
see LIVERANI 2001, 128-134; 1983 a and b; 1971; 1967.

Akkadica 142 (2021),pp. 181-190 181

Akkadica 142 (2021)

the same time, however, Westbrook emphasised the symbiotic capacity of patronage to coexist
with these relationships. In terms of the internal dynamics of the relationship, he then distin-
guished between primary and intermediate patrons, counting sovereign rulers as primary patrons
while the term intermediary patron referred to individual nobles orofficials. Also, in the case of
these two categories, the boundary between them must be considered fluid as in some cases a
single patron can act as both a primary and an intermediary agent (WESTBROOK 2005, 210-212).
Oneofthe case studies that forms the main axis of WESTBROOK’s (2005, 223-227) as
well PFOH’s (2009, 365-369) discussion is a set of documents relating to Aziru, the ruler of
Amurru. Like other Amarnaletters, Aziru’s dossier inherently reflects the political and socio-
economic reality of the given parts of the Levant in the mid-14century BC.In its content,
formal structure and phraseology, it proves to be a very clear product of the hierarchical or-
ganization of the respective societies, reflected in the eloquent choice of words, and provides
a unique personal dimension to the relations of the individual correspondents. With respect
to the social status of the correspondents, the Amarnaletters are usually divided into two
numerically unequal groups, with letters of Great Kings and rulers of smaller independent
states being a minority, while the majority — almost 90 % of all the letters — is correspon-
dence in which either the senders or the addresseesare the rulers of the Levantine city-states.
It is these letters that are largely administrative in nature and offer an appropriate space for
the expression of the social role of the individuals involved. To gain a better understanding
of the social structure, its dynamics and its mechanisms of communication, such a two-fold
division is not sufficient and does not adequately cover all relevant criteria and aspects.It is
not only the social status of both correspondents but also the direction of their communica-
tion that plays an important role. Depending on the direction, in theory we can identify up to
six different types of communication. If we proceed from the socially superior sender to the
inferior addressee, the first group of letters contains those addressed by the Egyptian king
to the rulers of the Levantine city-states. The same protagonists then appear in communica-
tion in the reverse direction, i.e., from the rulers of the Levantine city-states to the Egyptian
king. It is this group that makes up the most numerous set within the Amarna correspon-
dence. However, the will and intentions of the Egyptian king could be communicated to his
Levantine subjects not only directly, but also through his appointed dignitary. Such a delegate
did not communicate with the Levantine rulers as a mere messenger conveying the king’s
decisions or demands but also communicated on his own behalf. Even so, it was clear that his
authority derived from the role of his superior, the Egyptian king. Similarly, the Levantine
rulers could address their demands and complaints not only to the Egyptian king himself, but
also to his appointed officials, with whom they could be in direct contact. After all, direct
contact between a ruler of a Levantine city-state and the Egyptian king was extremely rare.
The last two groups consist of communication between the Egyptian king and his appointed
dignitaries and vice versa. However, since these were communications between representa-
tives of the same administra-tive and bureaucratic structure, i.e, Egyptian, it is obvious
that they did not use a non-indigenous communication tool for their communication,i.e., the
cuneiform tablet, which served as the primary medium in the other cases mentioned above.

182
 J. Myndfova, A note on patronage in the Amarnaletters

However,if we return to the evidence for the existence of patronage in the Late Bronze
Age Levant presented by Westbrook in his seminal paper, then it is above all the communica-
tion of Aziru of Amurru that constitutes a crucial source for postulating the very existence of
this socio-political concept in the region. Leaving aside his letters addressed to the Egyptian
king himself or references to his hostile activities abundantly documented in the letters of
other Levantine rulers, especially the unfortunate Rib-Hadda of Byblos’, there is still his
communication addressed to two different Egyptian officials, Tutu (EA 158, 164 and 167’)
and Ha‘ay (EA 166), by means of which he expresses his sentiments. To achieve his goals,
Aziru turns not only to the Egyptian king himself, but also to his high officials, whose influ-
ence and power he wants to use to gain the desired goals and benefits, including his protec-
tion. For WESTBROOK (2005, 212, 226-227), this behaviour is a typical example of so-called
intermediary patronage, and he suggests that references to the Egyptian officials attested in
Aziru’s (but also in other) letters can be understood as references to possible patrons. Thus,
to understand more fully the socio-political role of these dignitaries in the chain of communi-
cation between the rulers of the Levantine city-states and the Egyptian king, we need to ex-
amine each case in more detail. Only then will we be able to draw more general conclusions.
This group consists of a total of twenty-oneletters with no clearly prevailing geographi-
cal distribution pattern. Although the majority were sent from the northern coastal regions,
more precisely from the area of Amurru, Byblos, Sidon and Beirut, they could also — albeit to
a lesser extent — originate from the Jordan Valley and eastern Lower Galilee. In the case of
someletters, however, we are not even able to determine with certainty the seat of the respec-
tive rulers. As for Amurru, both ‘Abdi-ASirta and his immediate successor Aziru address their
letters to three different officials: Pahanate (EA 62), Tutu (EA 158, 164, 167’, 169°) and Ha'ay*
(EA 166). Andit is the vizier Ha'ay’ who is an addresseeofa letter sent by another Levantine
ruler, Rib-Hadda of Byblos (EA 71). This prolific ruler of Byblos is the most frequent sender
of letters addressed to Egyptian officials’. In addition to Haay, he also directs his letters to
Amanappa (EA 73, 77, 82, 86, 87 and 93) and Yanhamu’ (EA 102), as well as to an unnamed
official, identified by means ofhis title only (rab#, EA 95). Yanhamu also appears as an ad-
dressee in a letter dispatched by the ruler of Beirut Yapah-Hadda (EA 98), as well as one sent
by Mut-Ba'lu of Pella (EA 256). Letters addressed to unnamedofficials identified simply as
the magnates (rabid) were also sent by Bayadi of Anaharath® (EA 238) and Hibiya, a ruler of a
yet unidentified city-state, possibly in the Beqa’ Valley (EA 178; cf LIVERANI 1998, 265). For
twoletters, namely EA 145 and 210, it is very difficult to determine the status of the addressee.

See especially EA 107; 114-117; 124-126; 132; 134 and 138.

Anidentification of the addressee of EA 169 as Tutu is highly speculative but the interpretation of IZRE’EL
(1991 Il, 53-55) is considered plausible and therefore followed here.
For different ways in which the nameis written consult HESS 1993, 75-76.
See EA 71:1.
This fact, however, is probably directly related to the total number of Rib-Hadda’s extantletters, which form by
far the largest group within the Amarna Levantine corpus.
Already KNUDTZON (1964, 454) followed by others, cf MORAN 1992, 175 n. 1; LIVERANI 1998, 200 @ LA
161); RAINEY 2015, 556.
Identified with Tel Rekhesh; for the petrographic data consult GOREN, FINKELSTEIN, NA'MAN 2004,240-241.

183