that the attitude of the Babylonian king (to which the letter itself is a testimony to
a woeful lack of geographical understanding) was shared by the Egyptians. The two
countries were distant from one another in more ways than one.
Second, the fact that the letter (like almost all of the other letters in the archive)
was written in cuneiform in a form of Akkadian reveals the intellectual superiority
of Mesopotamia, as the origin of writing and the creator of the diplomatic lingua
francaof the Ancient Near East. The Egyptians apparently saw no reason to impose
the use of their language on others; they did not even expect their own vassals in
Palestine to use the Egyptian language. Cuneiform Akkadian was a practical medium
used throughout the Near East, but no more. The Egyptians certainly did not reveal
any great enthusiasm to develop a knowledge of the actual land whence this language
and writing originated, nor to pursue a rapid exchange of letters with the kings of
that country.
Third, and most important, this letter informs us about the nature of contacts
between the ‘Great Kings’. In this case, our interest is the relationship between the
kings of Egypt and Babylon, but their relationship is illustrative of that prevailing
in the Bronze Age. For the most part, the ‘Great Kings’ of the Bronze Age only had
contact via correspondence. There were few, if any, major summit conferences between
the cosmic powers.^1 This stands in contrast to the regular contact between these
‘Great Kings’ and the lesser kings and princes. The ‘Great Kings’ were themselves
celestial and did not intend to share their environment with other celestial beings.
— Egypt and Mesopotamia —Figure 34. 1 Letter from Burnaburiash, king of Babylon, to Amenophis IV, king of Egypt,
found at Amarna in Egypt. (Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.)