contrast, was based on discourse and communication: even the imagery was intended
to convey easily understandable messages. The result is that very few traces of Egyptian
thought ever penetrated into other systems of thought whereas traces of Babylonian
astronomy survived in Greek science and traces of Babylonian myth survived in the
Christian religion (to mention but two examples).
The boundaries of ancient Egypt were not effective at keeping others out (as demon-
strated by the invasions of the Hyksos, the Sea Peoples, the Libyans, the Nubians,
the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Arabs), but they were
effective at providing an incubation chamber in which ideas could be nurtured.
However, those ideas were not destined for a long life once they slipped across the
borders – even if the visual forms remained attractive, the Egyptian content was
usually lost.
The frailty of the unprotected Egyptian ideas must be set beside the resilience of
Babylonian thought, and placed in the context of the political environments in which
these flourished. Nor indeed, however, can the frailty of the Babylonian temples be
compared with the durability of the Egyptian tombs. The power and durability of
the Egyptian empire differed fundamentally in every way from the power and durability
of the Mesopotamian kingdoms.
CONCLUSIONS:
HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICALDuring the Bronze Age several empires shared the stage and none succeeded in the
type of hegemony that characterised the enormous empires of the Iron Age. During
the Bronze Age, Egypt may have been unsuccessful in a policy of expansion in Western
Asia, but it was the greatest power, and Egyptian activity had an influence throughout
the Near East. During the Iron Age, by contrast, Egypt was a marginal entity, and
the Egyptians were largely reduced to reacting to the movements of others. For
Babylon this meant that in the Bronze Age there was little direct activity linking
the two powers, while the direct contact between Egypt and Babylonia in the Iron
Age was almost peripheral for both.
Until the collapse of the Indus Civilisation in the east, Elam had been exposed to
a threat on its eastern flank as well as the Mesopotamian threat on its western flank.
With Assyria weakened and the Indus gone, the Elamites posed a threat to Babylon,
and thus diminished any potential Babylonian threat to the Hittites. Therefore,
although there was no direct connection between Hatti and Elam, Elamite activity
did have an influence on Babylonia activity vis-à-vis Mitanni and Assyria.
Certainly, there can be no doubt about the fate of Babylon, which was sacked by
the Elamites shortly after Hatti was eliminated: the Elamite sack of Babylon coincided
with the period of Assyrian weakness that preceded the expansion under Tukulti-
Ninurta I towards the west. Evidently, the forces that eliminated Babylon will have
freed the Assyrians to move towards the coast. With the Assyrians occupied at the
Mediterranean, the Babylonian renaissance was thus initiated with the conquest of
Elam. This era also coincided with the debut of a millennium of conflict during
which the Assyrians would repeatedly destroy Babylon.
Although the Mycenean states at Ephesus and Miletus were less important to the
other major states of the Near East, they were decisive for the kings of Hatti, and
— David A. Warburton —