The Idrimi Statue Inscription is perhaps the earliest complete biography of a political figure that has been discovered to date. Written on a statue of Idrimi sitting on a throne, the inscription is a generally chronological abridgement of King Idrimi’s political and military activities in fifteenth century northern Levant (BCE). While there exists more biographical information about the lives and acts of earlier political figures, information about those figures is usually spread among many sources, requiring synthesis in order to construct something that resembles a complete biography. In contrast, Idrimi’s inscription presents a whole story. It addresses his youth, his rise to power, his activities while in power, and, implicitly, his death. Sharruwa was the scribe who composed and inscribed the text. His name appears twice near the end of the inscription. One of Idrimi’s sons, Addunerari, is also identified by name. From other texts, we know about another of Idrimi’s sons, Niqmepa, who reigned in Alalah after his father.[1] Some scholars estimate that a close relative like Addunerari commissioned and influenced Sharruwa’s work. If that is so, the inscription presents a deliberate, unified account of the rise and rule of a prominent minor king by his contemporaries.[2]
Moreover, it provides contextual details that are quite revealing. Of course, a text like this also has disadvantages. We cannot corroborate many of the historical, or most of the interpretive, assertions. Like many political biographies, it contains a hearty, hagiographic predilection. Still, despite its complications, the political biography of Idrimi addresses perennial themes of strategy and statecraft such as juggling political equities, forming alliances, and the pursuit of certainty. For students of strategy, the Idrimi inscription offers another advantage: It precedes by almost 1000 years the textual evidence for self-conscious, analytic discussion of political and military strategy. It is safe to say that Idrimi, and his contemporaries, were not influenced by Herodotus, Thucydides, or Sun Tzu, much less by Machiavelli, Clausewitz, or Fukuyama. Its antiquity therefore also serves as a useful yardstick for political and military thought that aspires to be classical.
Most readers will not be familiar with the Idrimi Statue Inscription or its historical context, the Ancient Near East during the Late Bronze Age, approximately 1600-1200 BCE. Therefore, the first part of this essay will briefly describe the provenance of the artifact and the historical setting of the events described in the text. This will precede the main substance of the essay, a translation of the inscription and a commentary on the content that is relevant to political and military strategy. In the appendix, for readers who have a background or an interest in preclassical history and the philology of ancient languages, I have assembled a short bibliography which serves as a gateway to further study.
The Indrimi Statue and History: Provenance, Origin, and Dating
In 1939, British archaeologist Leonard Woolley led the expedition that uncovered the Idrimi statue in the ancient city of Alalah. Woolley is known for introducing improved standards of organization and accountability to archaeological excavations. He did more than most of his predecessors to map and record precisely excavated sites and the location of movable artifacts upon discovery. His relatively meticulous approach provides reasonable assurance that the Idrimi statue is authentic, and that we correctly understand its geographic origin.
Inscribed Statue of King Idrimi [3]
Scholars of antiquity use several methods to date and contextualize artifacts like the Idrimi statue. Evidence that helps identify the earliest and latest possible dates of fabrication and composition include the artifact’s location and stratum; art and design features; composition materials; carbon dating and related scientific analyses; scribal methods and tools; orthography; linguistic details; and historical references within the text. When a few or several of these forms of evidence corroborate, we can be especially sure of the artifact’s origin. This is the case for the Idrimi Statue Inscription. Its material, linguistic, and textual evidence all point to the second half of the 15th century BCE, sometime between 1450-1400.[4]
The language of the text is Akkadian, the Semitic lingua franca of the Ancient Near East. It is written in cuneiform, the common script of the Akkadian language. However, the language used is not entirely traditional, “correct” Akkadian. It employs several linguistic features that are Canaanite, a distinctive family of Semitic languages that includes Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Hebrew. Scholars usually refer to this blend of languages as Peripheral Akkadian. Small states in the Levant were the primary users and sources of Peripheral Akkadian.
Lines of Akkadian Cuneiform Inscription on the Left Shoulder of King Idrimi [5]
Even before considering the content of the text, the provenance and origin of the Idrimi statue along with its material and linguistic evidence enable us to identify the inscription’s historical setting, which I will review in order to better understand Idrimi’s story.
Historical Setting
The ancient city of Alalah was located in modern Turkey’s Hatay Province, about one mile from the current Syrian border and the Orantes River. Not unlike today, the people of the area tended to be at least as closely connected culturally and linguistically to the Levant and Mesopotamia as they were with Anatolia. The political affinities of Alalah and its neighboring small states vacillated according to the fortunes of the most powerful states, (not unlike today). While Idrimi’s Alalah was more-or-less a self-ruling city, one reason that it survived is because it aligned itself with a great power. It became a vassal state.
During the 15th century BCE, the three kingdoms of Egypt, Hatti, and Mittanni possessed the lion’s share of influence over the international politics of the Ancient Near East. The New Kingdom of Egypt was the largest and most powerful of the three, but its influence in the northern Levant was limited. Located much further from Alalah than the other two kingdoms, Egypt was constantly absorbed by its several other interests and responsibilities in Africa, the Mediterranean, and Mesopotamia. Consequently, despite more than twenty military expeditions to the area, Egypt’s practical influence over the northern Levant was relatively minimal.[6] While smaller and less powerful than Egypt, Hatti and Mittanni were quite potent. They actively and often dramatically influenced much of the northern Levant, especially the states that were nearest to them. In the 15th century, Hatti and Mittanni were also partway through a centuries-long struggle for regional hegemony in the northern Levant. In fact, the Idrimi inscription provides an interesting snapshot of one moment in that protracted struggle, which I will address shortly.[7]
Karte: NordNordWest, Lizenz, Author’s Modifications
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II ruled over Egypt during the reigns of Idrimi and his son, Niqmepa. Thutmose III is best known for his frequent military campaigns, which included an attack against Mittanni. Several years later, Amenhotep II campaigned further to the northwest, crossing the Orontes River and encroaching on Idrimi’s territory as well as on Kizzuwatna, a traditional Hittite sphere of influence. Despite their imposing expeditions, neither of the two pharaohs established a lasting political structure through which to rule the territories that they raided and the states that they defeated. At least once, Thutmose III merely re-appointed the indigenous rulers that he had conquered, signifying that the source of their political authority had changed even if the fact of their authority had not.[8] Thus, when the Egyptian army left at the end of each fighting season, life returned more or less to normal. Normal, however, was not necessarily stable or safe. Rather, Egypt’s departure caused local and regional conflicts to return to the forefront.
It is true that some pharaohs would appoint Egyptian prefects, who remained behind in conquered territories. Some pharaohs would also take captive the sons of prominent local rulers. They brought the scions back to Egypt for two reasons: First, they served as political hostages; second, they were groomed to replace their fathers, ruling back at home but with a concern for, and first-hand knowledge of, Egyptian interests. In practice, however, prefects rarely ruled. They advised and admonished. Court-groomed scions presented their own, unique challenges. Sometimes, they would turn on Egypt. Sometimes, court-grooming made scions so foreign that they could not establish meaningful rapport with their native people. Thus, despite Egypt’s experimental attempts at influencing the Levant, Hatti and Mittanni remained far more politically relevant to Alalah and its neighbors in the north.
At least three matters indicate that Hatti’s influence reached a nadir during the reign of the three kings who were relatively contemporaneous with Idrimi and Niqmepa: Zidanta II, Huzziya II, and Muwattalli I. First, Zidanta II established a parity treaty with a counterpart, Pilliya, king of Kizzuwatna.[9] Kizzuwatna was a kingdom situated north of Idrimi’s Alalah and south of Hatti. Hittite kings rarely established alliances on equal terms, so a parity treaty is an indicator that Zidanta II’s influence was somewhat restricted. Second, sometime after the parity treaty, Mittanni conquered much of Kizzuwatna, and Pilliya subordinated himself to Mittanni.[10] Despite promises for mutual defense, Hatti could not or did not defend its sworn ally against Mittanni. Third, a treaty between Idrimi’s successor and the ruler of Tunip, a city-state that was located near the modern Syrian city of Hama, acknowledged allegiance and subordination to Mittanni.[11] Had Hatti been more influential and powerful in the middle and late 15th century BCE, these records would read much differently. Hatti seems to have mattered very little to Idrimi.
The Kingdom of Mittanni left far fewer records than did Egypt and Hatti. However, based on the same texts noted above, we know that during this period Parattarna was a prominent Mittannian king. He subdued Kizzuwatna sometime after Zidanta II had established his treaty with Pilliya. If the Hittite kings of this era exhibit a nadir of Hatti’s regional influence, Parattarna exhibits the highwater mark of Mittanian influence. Scant though it is, the diplomatic correspondence between Pilliya and Idrimi supports this conclusion. And as explored in the translation and commentary below, the Idrimi inscription does also.
Idrimi’s rise and reign occurred during this period, among these powers. While Idrimi was undoubtedly aware of Egypt, Egypt’s lack of political staying power in the northern Levant during the 15th century ensured that Hatti and Mittanni would be the most influential international powers. In fact, Alalah’s status, choices, and relative independence revolved around its relationships with Hatti and Mittanni.
Translation: The Idrimi Statue Inscription[12]
1-2I am Idrimi, the son of Ilī-ilimma, the servant of the Storm God, Hebat, and Ishtar, the Lady of Aleppo, my lady.
3-12Calamity occurred in Aleppo, the house of my father. So we fled into the presence of the people of Emar, the sisters of my mother, and we settled in Emar. My brothers, who were older than me, they settled with me. However, none of them remembered those matters which I remembered. I said, “Whoever is of the house of his father, indeed he is a great son. But whoever is for the sons of Emar, indeed he is a servant.”
13-27I took my horse, my chariot, and my driver. I crossed into the land of the desert, and I entered into the company of the Suteans. I spent the night in my chariot, among them. On the second day, I set out. Then I went to the land of the Canaanites. I settled in the land of the Canaanites, in Ammiya. In Ammiya dwelled the people who were formerly of Aleppo, of Niya, and of Amaae. They saw me, the one who was the son of their lord. Then they gathered to me. It was there that I was raised in status.
27-42I settled in the company of the Hapiru for a long time, for seven years. I released birds; I inspected lambs. Then, in seven years’ time the Storm God returned to me, so I built ships. I loaded formations of nullu soldiers onto the ships. I approached the land of the Mukishim by way of the sea, and I arrived on dry land, in front of the Hazi mountains. I went up, and my land heard me. They brought goats and sheep before me. And within one day, as one person, the people of the land of Nihi and Amaae, the land of Mukish, and the city of Alalah, my city, they had turned to me. My brothers heard, so they came to me. My brothers found relief with me; I guarded my brothers.
43-60Moreover, for seven years Parattarna, the strong king, the king of the armies of the Hurrians, made an enemy of me. In the seventh year, I wrote to Parattarna the king, the king of Ummanmanda. And I spoke about the services of my fathers, when my fathers found relief before them, the Hurrians, and about our other affairs concerning the kings of the armies of the Hurrians. It was good! Thus, they established between them a strong oath. The strong king listened to what I said about the services of my predecessors and the oath that was between them. And he respected the oath. He received my greeting gift for the sake of the matter of the oath and for the sake of our services. [Translator’s note: One unclear, untranslated sentence is here.] A lost house returned to him. I spoke to him regarding my case and regarding my loyalty, and then I was king. The kings to my right and my left rose up against me, against Alalah, for he had made me equal, like them.
61-63[Just as they piled up my ancestors upon the ground, so I piled up theirs upon the ground. In battle I piled them high.][13]
64-80I took an army and I went up against the land of Hatti. I seized seven cities: Passahe, Damarutla, Hulahhan, Zila, Iae, Uluzila, and Zaruna. I seized these cities, and I destroyed other ones.[14] The land of Hatti did not assemble or come before me, so I did what I wanted. I took them captive. I took their property, their goods, their pilferable things. I divided it for the army, my auxiliaries, my brothers, and my friends. I took their weapons. Then, to the land of Mukishhe I returned. And I entered into Alalah, my city, with the captives, and with the livestock, and with the property, and with the goods, and with the pilferable things which were from the land of Hatti. I brought these things down.
81-91I had an estate built. I made my throne like the thrones of kings. I made my brothers like the brothers of the kings, my sons like their sons, and my companions like their companions. I settled the inhabitants who were in the midst of my land in their good dwellings. I settled those inhabitants who previously were not settled. I established my land, and I made my cities equal to those which came before me. Then I established the signs of the gods of Alalah, like my fathers here before. So, I routinely performed those prayers and offerings of my grandfather, which he had routinely performed. Then, I entrusted them into the hand of Addu-nērārī my son.
92-98Whoever tears down this statue of mine, may his descendants be subdued; may heaven curse his name; may the underworld take his descendants; may the gods of heaven and earth constrain his kingdom and his country. Whoever alters or erases it, may the Storm God, the lord of heaven and earth, and the great gods destroy his name and his descendants from his land.
99-101Sharruwa the scribe, the servant of the Storm God, the Sun God, the Moon God, and Ishtar, Sharruwa is the scribe who wrote the inscription on this statue. May the gods of heaven and earth cause him to live; may they guard him; may they be good to him. May Shamash, the lord above and below, the lord of ghosts, cause him to live.
102-104I reigned 30 years. I wrote of my service, about myself. May others look upon the words which I wrote. May they pray on my behalf.
Commentary: Small States, Great Powers, and the Saving Grace of Statescraft
Idrimi’s biography asserts that he began his adult life with little political power, he engendered influence among several domestic and neighboring constituencies, he sought and found favor with the region’s international hegemon, he went to war against the hegemon’s rival, he defended his newly established kingdom against local threats, and he provided stability for many of those who lived in his realm. Idrimi produced more out of his situation than the beginning balance of power suggested was likely or possible. He successfully created political power and instituted a particular political order.[15] If we accept the broad arc of the account, even if we are skeptical or merely ignorant regarding the veracity of many details, Idrimi’s inscription offers insight into strategy and statecraft at work in the 15th century BCE.
Idrimi’s biography of course reflects strategic decisions that are exclusively relevant to his milieu. Today, for example, Syrian rebels do not need endorsement from Mittannian kings in order to create a new state. However, explicitly and implicitly, Idrimi’s biography reveals perennial characteristics of strategy and statecraft, which happen to be relevant to Syrian rebels, modern states, and most other political actors. The inscription bears witness to connected yet dissonant political communities existing within a single international system. It reflects the immense and constant effort required to harmonize relationships among these communities. It demonstrates that geography matters greatly but is not determinative. Furthermore, it illustrates the abiding tension between political agency and circumstance, a tension which animates a similarly abiding human pursuit for certainty. Using Idrimi’s biography, I will elaborate these challenges as they appeared in the era. In the conclusion, I will comment on their perennial relevance.
Political dissonance within a political system
Describing the international political system of the Late Bronze Age is beyond the scope of this essay, but it merits a brief note here. During the Late Bronze Age, states borrowed several rudimentary tools of local diplomacy from the previous era, refined them, and employed them on a vast scale. Diplomatic correspondence, treaties, royal marriages, familial language, exchange of court officials, and lavish gifts were some of the customary devices and mechanisms that rulers used to pursue their agendas with other states. These devices and mechanisms constituted an institution through which rulers formed, transformed, and dissolved systems of relationships. The phrase “international system” may evoke impressions of a dull, routine bureaucracy managed by well-educated yet oblivious elites, a rote authority beyond alteration that is blind to local nuance or creative options. This section provides historical evidence for why that ought to not be so. The challenges confronting Idrimi and others like him were too complex to produce rote, dull, predictable results. Although rulers employed tools and institutions that formed a discernable system, the goals and consequences of their efforts were anything but systematic, routine, or predictable.
Paul Schroeder’s definition of international system is a helpful tool here:
“[S]ystem” in international politics means here essentially what I understand Michael Oakeshott to mean by the constituent rules of a practice or a civic association: the understandings, assumptions, learned skills and responses, rules, norms, procedures, etc. which agents acquire and use in pursuing their individual divergent aims within the framework of a shared practice. Examples of a “system” in this sense are the structure, grammar, and rules of a common language; the rules and understandings involved in playing a game or practising a profession; and, in this case, the rules and understandings underlying the practice of international politics.[16]
In other words, an international system may prescribe how states pursue interests, but it does not prescribe which interests states will pursue. Idrimi’s biography makes a case for Schroeder’s characterization of a “system” in international politics. Even in Idrimi’s short, simplified political biography, the communities that make up the political landscape are far too complex to produce results that are rote, unresponsive, or predictable, even if their tools are indeed common, ordinary, and habitual. Even in Idrimi’s day, there was dissonance and variety within the system.
Idrimi’s biography attests to multiple, overlapping political communities. These communities influenced one another but did not control one another, even in those cases where substantial scales of power prevailed. The support or opposition of one community did not necessarily produce a complementary reaction from the other communities. Indeed, sometimes a reaction from one community prompted an opposite reaction in one of the others. Idrimi handled each of these communities on their own terms, according to their own distinct rules, for a single end. At least three political communities appear in the biography: Idrimi’s domestic constituency; a circumscribed political community consisting of Alalah and two great powers, Mittanni and Hatti; and a larger, less clearly defined community consisting of Alalah and its small state neighbors.
Idrimi’s domestic constituency grows and transforms a few times throughout his biography. It begins with fellow refugees from Aleppo, Niya, and Amaae, who have settled further south, in Canaan. Apparently, Idrimi becomes a prominent leader of this group as he waits, inquires of the Storm God, and prepares troops and matériel. The group transforms and grows when Idrimi conducts his seaborne landing. At that time, some of those who had remained in Niya, Amaae, and the surrounding area begin to follow Idrimi. The people of Alalah, which will become Idrimi’s city, follow him as well. Idrimi’s brothers who had been living in Emar join him. After these developments, Idrimi’s domestic constituency transforms once again as he establishes his kingdom in Alalah and he asserts authority over both settlers and non-settlers.
The inscription says little about how this domestic group responded to him, how he gained and maintained their support, or what kind of friction developed within the community as it transformed and grew. The brief descriptions that the biography offers are unconvincingly, uniformly positive.
They saw me, the one who was the son of their lord. Then they gathered to me.[17]
I went up, and my land heard me. They brought goats and sheep before me. And within one day, as one person, the people of the land of Nihi and Amaae, the land of Mukish, and the city of Alalah, my city, they had turned to me.[18]
It would not be a surprise if Idrimi’s task was more difficult than the inscription tells it. If he was the admired heir of an esteemed lord, his domestic role may have been a bit easier. Even so, leading any large group is arduous, especially during major transitions like the ones Idrimi navigated. One of Idrimi’s interminable tasks was fulfilling and sustaining his self-appointed role as leader over a transforming, growing domestic political body—the community in which he exerted a measure of direct authority.
A second political community consisted of the relationships between Alalah and the two closest great powers, Mittanni and Hatti. As mentioned above, there is corroborating evidence that the inscription is accurate regarding this detail: The only great power of consequence in the northern Levant during Idrimi’s reign was Mittanni, simplifying Idrimi’s options about how best to align itself with Egypt, Hatti, and Mittanni. But if Idrimi’s best options were clear, they were not necessarily easy to reify. It clearly was not easy to establish a good relationship with Mittanni, and even a moderately successful military campaign against Hatti’s periphery demanded considerable resources and effort.
Hundreds of diplomatic texts from the Late Bronze Age indicate that most established small states as well as “start-up-rulers” like Idrimi came to rely upon a formal or informal alliance with one of the three great powers. This was especially true during the last two centuries of the Late Bronze Age. While these alliances always favored the great power, some small states established more favorable terms for themselves than others. But however favorable or onerous the terms, alliance with a great power became, as some like to say, a necessary though not sufficient condition for successful statehood. It was an essential component of small power strategy. Leaders of small states who attempted to forego a relationship with a great power vanished or soon changed their minds under duress. Thus, it is not surprising that Idrimi had the foresight to establish an alliance with a great power.
Several features of the description from lines 42-60 of the Idrimi Statue Inscription are particularly noteworthy for the historian of diplomacy and the student of strategy, because these features enhance the picture of great power relationships at that time and place. The first detail, already mentioned above, is that Idrimi labored to establish an alliance with Mittanni, rather than with Hatti. Alalah was geographically closer to Hatti. In fact, Hatti had a notable history of influence over Kizzuwatna, the region immediately north of Alalah, and over northern Syria, including Alalah itself. So Alalah’s alignment against Hatti is strong evidence that Mittanni had gained a temporary advantage over Hatti in northern Syria for at least part of the 15th century. The detail also corroborates the Hittite records that indicate that the 15th century was, in fact, a low point for its influence and presence in the area.
It is also significant that Idrimi’s alliance with Mittanni corresponded with war against Hatti. The list of seven peripheral Hittite cities solidifies further our understanding of Idrimi’s place in the community of great powers.
I took an army and I went up against the land of Hatti. I seized seven cities: Passahe, Damarutla, Hulahhan, Zila, Iae, Uluzila, and Zaruna. I seized these cities, and I destroyed other ones.[19]
Had Mittanni required war against Hatti as a condition of alliance, it would not have been a unique arrangement; but neither was it inevitable. Treaties from this era often contained a clause describing responsibilities for mutual military support or, alternatively, exclusively enumerating the small power’s military responsibilities. Indeed, great powers sometimes exempted themselves from explicit reciprocal responsibilities. The military support required of small powers varied widely. Small states encountered different obligations, even if the reason for the differences is not usually clear.[20]Idrimi’s campaign against Hatti may have been voluntary or may have been mandatory. Either way, the detail continues to reinforce our perception of the state of the great powers at a particular moment, and it illustrates how one small power found its niche among them.
The generous space that the text devotes to the account of the alliance is telling, too. The narrative of Idrimi’s pursuit of peace with Parattarna of Mittanni consumes almost twenty lines, nearly twenty percent of the whole biography. Furthermore, what characterizes the passage is emphatic and impassioned language, which is a testament to the importance of the alliance in the eyes of the biographer.
Moreover, for seven years Parattarna, the strong king, the king of the armies of the Hurrians, made an enemy of me.[21]
And I spoke about the services of my fathers, when my fathers found relief before them, the Hurrians, and about our other affairs concerning the kings of the armies of the Hurrians. It was good! Thus, they established between them a strong oath.[22]
A lost house returned to him. I spoke to him regarding my case and regarding my loyalty, and then I was king.[23]
Not enough data currently exists with which to precisely measure Idrimi’s life and reign; a conservative estimate is a thirty- to forty-years span. So it is remarkable that this one event in the course of such an interesting life, spanning many decades, monopolizes the biography.
While these details testify to this particular alliance’s particular importance, they also shed light on the growing importance of alliances between small states and great powers in the Ancient Near East more broadly. This seems to be a novel development in international history. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, an alliance with a neighboring great power was necessary only for some states, and merely helpful for others. At the time of Idrimi, in the middle of the Late Bronze Age, such alliances had become both more frequent and more necessary, even while many small kingdoms remained independent. Within 150 years of Idrimi’s reign, virtually every small state in the Levant had a close relationship with one or more of the great powers. While simultaneously a sign of subordination and even explicit vassalship, an alliance with one of the powerful kingdoms also conferred a measure of legitimacy and staying power. Sometimes, frankly, the biggest benefit of an alliance with a great power was the protection that it provided from the great power itself! Perhaps this was the case with Idrimi, who claims to have been Mittanni’s enemy until Parattarna changed his mind and endorsed Idrimi’s kingship. But whatever the reason, small powers both sought bilateral alliances with great powers and were themselves sought out for them with increasing frequency. The circumscribed community between a small state and one or more great powers became a more prominent feature of the political landscape.
A third political community identified by the Idrimi Statue Inscription consisted of neighboring rulers of small states and nomadic or unsettled groups such as the hapiru.[24] In the Idrimi inscription, members of this group make an antagonizing entrance following Parattanna’s royal appointment of Idrimi.
The kings to my right and my left rose up against me, against Alalah, for he had made me equal, like them.[25]
Parattanna appointed Idrimi as king, after which Idrimi’s peers attacked him. Although alliance with a great power conferred some stability, legitimacy, and protection, it was not always sufficient to ensure the viability of a small kingdom among hostile peers. In fact, an alliance with a great power could actually provoke hostility from smaller, neighboring rulers, who did not readily accept the rising peer. As a consequence, small states needed to establish amicable relationships with their neighbors or, alternatively, maintain a deterrent or defensive capability.
Here again, a detail of the Idrimi inscription that testifies to a particular fracas between Alalah and its small state neighbors reflects a typical challenge that confronted many other small states in the Ancient Near East during the Late Bronze Age. The Amarna letters, for example, attest to similar struggles.[26] Small states and nomadic groups frequently fought one another. Sometimes they fought out of resentment, because they were aligned with the same great power; sometimes as belligerent proxies because they were each aligned with a different great power. Thus, neighboring small states and nomadic peoples amounted to a political community that required engagement and management all its own.
Domestic, great power, and neighboring peers: these three political communities were connected in Idrimi’s day; they clearly influenced one another. Idrimi’s relationship with his domestic community influenced the range of options available to him as he engaged Mittanni. Likewise, Mittanni’s range of options depended in part on whether or not Idrimi’s domestic constituency was adequately supportive and stable. At the same time, these political communities were dissonant relative to one another. They did not judge political legitimacy according to the same criteria. Idrimi’s good relationship with his domestic constituency did not necessarily constitute legitimacy in the eyes of Parattarna. Nor did Parattarna’s hegemonic backing automatically translate to support and legitimacy among Idrimi’s small kingdom peers. Sometimes these communities reinforced one another, sometimes they tested and strained one another. Yet the communities, their connection, and their dissonance, taken together, constituted a recognizable, international political system of states that used similar tools and institutions to pursue their aims.
Harmonizing expectations among these political communities even briefly, for a single issue, must have demanded immense, constant effort. The Idrimi inscription hints at this chore of statecraft when it describes the long process of building a viable domestic constituency and the equally long process of convincing Parattarna to become an advocate rather than an enemy. Idrimi signed up for a difficult, complicated, unforgiving job. It is incredible that he succeeded. Of course, political leaders of any age are familiar with the struggle required to satisfy constituent parties of various kinds. In recent decades, political scientists have attempted to delineate precisely the boundaries of this perennial challenge.
In the late 1980s, the political scientist Robert Putnam earned attention in academic and policy communities when he described his theory of two-level games. When conducting negotiations for international policy solutions, political leaders must find options that satisfy both international and domestic communities, which have very different rules and expectations.
The politics of many international negotiations can usefully be conceived as a two-level game. At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing coalitions among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments. Neither of the two games can be ignored by central decision-makers, so long as their countries remain interdependent, yet sovereign.
The political complexities for the players in this two-level game are staggering. Any key player at the international table who is dissatisfied with the outcome may upset the game board, and conversely, any leader who fails to satisfy his fellow players at the domestic table risks being evicted from his seat. On occasion, however, clever players will spot a move on one board that will trigger realignments on other boards, enabling them to achieve otherwise unattainable objectives.[27]
The Idrimi statue inscription contains insufficient data to demonstrate the validity of Putnam’s theory in detail. But it does underscore the perennial, enigmatic, and downright wicked challenge of harmonizing dissonant political communities regarding a myriad of issues over a long period of time. Indeed, identifying at least three discernable political communities, the Idrimi inscription illustrates a challenge that goes even beyond Putnam’s modern two-level games.
The geo and the politics of geopolitics
By today’s standards, the restricted geographic scope of the geopolitical pressures during Idrimi’s day would be considered regional rather than comprehensively international. Nevertheless, and despite its relative brevity, the Idrimi inscription provides an interesting example of the concept of geopolitics at work. On the one hand, Egypt, the strongest kingdom of the era, does not merit a single comment in the text despite its several impressive military campaigns. Egypt’s isolated position in the Nile River Valley provided unparalleled protection from invasion and a capacity for self-sufficiency and large-scale growth. Egypt grew powerful enough to mount long range foreign expeditions precisely because it was isolated in a wealthy region. Yet it was separated from Alalah by two seas, the Sinai Peninsula, and about 500 linear miles of Levantine land mass. Thus, maintaining a line of communication between Egypt and the northern Levant in order to maintain permanent, continuous influence in the area required substantial resources and effort. Pharaohs were unwilling to attempt such a massive commitment on a permanent basis. Geography muted the influence of Egypt in the northern Levant, so it is unremarkable that the Idrimi inscription leaves Egypt unmentioned.
On the other hand, according to the text, Hatti, a powerful kingdom much closer to Alalah than Egypt, merits scorn and military assaults against its peripheral towns. At the time, geography tended to amplify Hatti’s interest in and influence over the northern Levant. Located in central Anatolia, bound by three seas in the north, west, and south, many of Hatti’s strongest connections to the rest of the world naturally developed to the southeast and east. Alalah was only about 350 linear miles away, situated in the abundantly productive region of modern Cilicia. Whether as a partner or as an adversary, Hatti was geographically predisposed towards a close connection to Alalah. Yet during Idrimi’s reign, Hatti mattered little to Alalah despite its geographic predisposition. Fifteenth century Hatti’s challenge was thus not geographic; it was political. Hatti’s domestic political challenges, described briefly above, temporarily deprived the kingdom of international connection and influence, even with close-by and small kingdoms where connection and influence ought to have been easiest and most natural.
The convergence of Egypt’s geographic challenge and Hatti’s political challenge created Mittanni’s opportunity. Located about 300 linear miles to the east of Alalah, spread between the northernmost sections of the Euphrates, Khabur, and Tigris rivers, Mittanni’s geographic connection with Alalah was roughly equivalent to Hatti’s. The distance was about the same, and the terrain similarly posed a series of minor obstacles to overland traffic. Egypt and Hatti found themselves geopolitically hamstrung for different reasons, so Mittanni extended its influence over Alalah and Kizzuwatna. While Parattarna seems to have been a strong Mittannian ruler, it is also true that with Egypt and Hatti’s capacities for power projection curtailed, Parattarna’s westward expansion became much more practicable.
Understood within its historical context, the Idrimi inscription provides ancient evidence that geography indeed mutes and amplifies international political power. At the same time, it demonstrates that geography is not necessarily determinative. Constructive political order can overcome geographic obstacles, while political disorder can render geographic advantages nearly irrelevant.
Agency, circumstance, and the pursuit of certainty
The Idrimi inscription exhibits the role of both agency and circumstance in statecraft. Idrimi’s ambition and intent are clear early in the text: “Whoever is of the house of his father, indeed he is a great son. But whoever is for the sons of Emar, indeed he is a servant.”[28] Deeply offended by the unnamed disgrace that befell his family, Idrimi intended to reestablish his family’s social or political prominence, perhaps both. His subsequent personal decisions, risks, and sacrifices served that goal. Yet Idrimi and his plans did not encounter a political vacuum, one that begged for occupation. Idrimi and his ambition were constrained by circumstance in many ways. He could not or would not return to Aleppo because the unnamed calamity had been so severe. He could not reestablish his family’s stature in Emar because the preexisting political and social systems were too prominent. Nor could Idrimi immediately establish rule elsewhere in Canaan or Syria, because his political clout and material means were insufficient. Later, he encountered a prominent constraint in the form of Mittanni. And he was further constrained by the opposition of local minor kings, who did not want him as a peer.
According to the text, Idrimi was aware that his ambitions and options were constrained by circumstances, even if he did not say so explicitly. One of the most interesting manifestations of this awareness assumes a religious form: “I released birds; I inspected lambs. Then, in seven years’ time the Storm God returned to me.”[29] In Idrimi’s day, releasing birds and inspecting the organs of lambs were methods of divination, to determine the will and favor of the gods. Since gods influenced the material realm, Idrimi needed to ensure that his plans coincided with those of the gods. Idrimi sought the disposition of the Storm God, until he determined that the Storm God favored him and would make Idrimi’s plans succeed. Keenly aware that his plans were uncertain, keenly aware that he was constrained by circumstances, Idrimi sought certainty.
Idrimi’s religious practices are strange to us. We cannot imagine that reading animal organs would produce better, more timely decisions than straightforward reflection. We certainly cannot imagine that the methods of antiquity could produce better correlation coefficients than our political scientists, though sometimes they might. However, we can appreciate a quest for certainty when making momentous decisions, seeking confirmation that an ambitious strategy will succeed. In Idrimi’s time, rulers sought certainty in ways very different from our own. Then and now, strategy and statecraft have not been activities with assured outcomes.
Conclusion: The Intriguing Relevance of the Past
The Idrimi Statue Inscription provides a glimpse of some unique challenges to political and military strategy and statecraft in the Ancient Near East during the Late Bronze Age. It also highlights characteristics of strategy and statecraft that transcend time and place. Idrimi had to manage and respond to political communities that were connected yet dissonant in order to achieve any of his goals. The effort that Idrimi exerted to achieve even marginal success must have been immense and constant. Geography helped shape Idrimi’s circumstances and available options, as well as the circumstances and options of other states. But geography did not solely determine what was achievable, as political conditions and organization proved to be consequential, too. Idrimi exercised agency, but his agency was shaped and constrained by a variety of circumstances, geographic and otherwise. The tension between Idrimi’s ambitions and his limiting circumstances is one factor that animated his pursuit of certainty.
The challenges of strategy and statecraft that are apparent in the Idrimi Statue Inscription can inform our expectations today. While they do not offer concrete solutions, they enable us to anticipate and understand certain problems rather than be surprised by them.[30] I could offer recent historical examples to testify to the persistence of these challenges, but readers will readily identify good examples on their own. Here, however, is a distillation of the challenges discussed above:
- Political leadership involves managing distinct political communities that are largely independent, operating according to their own assessments and their own standards. Management of these communities demands sustained effort to accommodate, coordinate, and harmonize a range of often conflicting expectations.
- The concept of geopolitics is valid and a helpful tool for real phenomena. Keen awareness of geopolitics, in the simplest sense of the term, helps us anticipate and assess political and military difficulties as well as possibilities and opportunities.
- Geopolitics is only one example of a broader, enduring tension between political agency and circumstance. Preexisting political, social, and material arrangements do not determine outcomes, however formidable they may be. Yet, neither do great political ideas, ambitions, and passions ensure success.
- Strategy and statecraft are necessary activities. Indeed, they are fundamental human activities. But they are never certain activities. However sophisticated or crude our methods of divination, uncertainty remains. It is convenient that Clausewitz’ observations of war so often apply to peacetime relations, too. Like war, politics is the realm of uncertainty.[31]
- Last, in view of our current moment which is marked by renewed interest in the characteristics of great power competition, the Idrimi inscription reminds us: 1) Even the greatest powers ought not underestimate the tyranny of distance; 2) Great powers can extend their capacities for influence through a strong, stable domestic base; 3) Great powers can extend their influence through constructive relations with small powers.
This essay has introduced readers to a single preclassical political text and has provided a short commentary on the challenges and characteristics of strategy and statecraft that are reflected within. The challenges that are discernable in Idrimi’s biography are not novel. They reverberate in texts and history from Herodotus through today. Yet the fact that they offer few new lessons ought to intrigue us, not bore us. Preclassical texts like the Idrimi Statue Inscription offer a unique window into political history, thought, and practices because they are uninfluenced by what has become known as classical or western political tradition (or any other known tradition, for that matter). While fascinating and worthy of study in their own right, these texts therefore provide a proving ground of sorts for any student of political and military strategy.
If components of classical political and military thought are actually true and reliable, if they are not bound by the circumstances and milieu that produced them, they should be observable in preclassical texts like this one.
Paul Edgar is the associate director of the William P. Clements, Jr. Center for National Security at the University of Texas-Austin.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Selected Bibliography of Relevant Works in English
Albright, William F. “Some Important Recent Discoveries: Alphabetic Origins and the Idrimi Statue.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 118 (1950):11-20.
Fink, Amir S. Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, chronology, history. BAR International Series 2120 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010).
Fink, Amir S. “Where was the Statue of Idrimi Actually Found? The Later Temples of Tell Atchana (Alalakh) Revisited.” Ugarit-Forschungen 39 (2008):162-245.
Greenstein, Edward. “Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 4, J. Sasson, editor, (New York: Scribner, 1995): 2421-32.
Greenstein, Edward and David Marcus. “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 8 (1976): 59-96.
Lauinger, Jacob. “Discourse and Meta-Discourse in the Statue of Idrimi and Its Inscription.” MAARAV, A Journal for the Study of the Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures 23.1 (2019):19-39.
Lauinger, Jacob. “The Electronic Idrimi.” The Electronic Idrimi, 2020. Accessed December 20, 2021. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/aemw/alalakh/idrimi/.
Longman, Tremper. “The Autobiography of Idrimi” (1.148). In The Context of Scripture, I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, editors, (Leiden: Brill, 1997):479-80.
Medill, Kathryn M. “The Idrimi Statue Inscription in its Late Bronze Age Scribal Context.” Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 382 (2019): 243-59.
von Dassow, Eva. State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalaḫ under the Mittani Empire. (Bethesda: CDL Press, 2008).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
NOTES
[1] Alalah Text 15 (AlT 15). Hereafter, texts from the Alalah corpus are identified by the abbreviation AlT and a number.
[2] Some scholars uncritically use the Idrimi inscription as a historical text, while others label and treat it as wholesale fiction. I will not address this dispute here in detail. But in short, we ought not paint ourselves into a corner by treating the text as either simply history or simply fiction. It contains verifiable historical facts and corroborates external evidence of the political state of the northern Levant in the 15th century BCE. (See my brief discussion on the date of composition, below.) However, the inscription also employs motifs that are common in ancient texts that are fictive. We can prudently employ and discuss both characteristics.
[3] British Museum, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en>, via Wikimedia Commons.
[4] Katryn McConaughy Medill, “The Idrimi Statue Inscription in its Late Bronze Age Scribal Context,” BASOR 382 (2019) 243-245. Medill briefly and lucidly reviews the scholarly argument regarding the composition date of the text, concluding, as I also do, that it was written in the second half of the 15th century BC.
[5] Detail from British Museum, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en>, via Wikimedia Commons.
[6] Donald R. Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III (Boston: Brill, 2003).
[7] Map is the author’s modification of Karte: NordNordWest, Lizenz: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en>, via Wikimedia Commons. Modern political boundaries included to facilitate reader quick reference.
[9] Catalog der Texte der Hethiter 25 (CTH 25).
[10] AlT 3. Translation by Eva von Dassow, State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalah under the Mittanni Empire (Maryland: CDL Press, 2008): 34. See also Dassow’s full translation in “Late Bronze Age Inscriptions from Babylon, Assyria, and Syro-Palestine,” in Mark Chavalas, ed., Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation (Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006): 174-176.
[11] AlT 2. Translation by Eva von Dassow, “Treaty between Niqmepa and Ir-Teshup (Alalakh Tab. 2),” ETANA: Electronic Tools and Ancient Near East Archives, October 19, 2007, <http://www.etana.org/node/577>.
[12] In this section, the range of superscript numbers at the head of each paragraph identify the lines of Akkadian text.
[13] Many good scholars of Akkadian will strongly disagree with my interpretive choice here. Unlike most of the inscription, there is not a scholarly consensus for the translation of these few lines, which present several difficult linguistic problems. I have chosen to use an interpretation offered by Edward Greenstein and David Marcus in “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 8:1 (1976) 59-96. While Greenstein and Marcus do not offer unassailable linguistic evidence for their interpretation of these particular lines, in my opinion, they do capture the gist of the section better than others.
[14] I borrowed this sentence directly from Jacob Lauinger’s translation at the Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/aemw/alalakh/idrimi/corpus/; accessed December 20, 2021. It is a simple sentence, but Lauinger’s translation choice is faithful, unique, and elegant.
[15] Lawrence, Strategy xii. I have intentionally paraphrased two of Lawrence’s sentences from his introduction in order to summarize Idrimi’s accomplishments. In my view, Lawrence’s summary of strategy as a continuous process of trying to move oneself into a more advantageous position is the most accurate and comprehensive definition available.
[16] Paul Schroeder. The Transformation of European Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) xii.
[20] We do not have a copy of Idrimi’s treaty with Parattanna and we have good reason to doubt that one was written. Mittanni did not often issue written treaties. Additionally, the language used to describe Idrimi’s pursuit of an alliance with Mittanni seems to favor a verbal treaty, not a written one.
[21] Idrimi line 42-44 The temporal adverbial clause, “for seven years,” may signify importance and drama, too. If so, seven years reflects a long period or a complete season of enmity and negotiations leading to alliance, rather than seven calendar years.
[24] In the Late Bronze Age, the term hapiru described a wide range of peoples. It seems that one common thread between the various groups described by the term is that they were unsettled, which might apply to refugees looking for a place to settle as well as nomads with no intention of settling.
[26] Written during the 14th century BCE, about 100 years after Idrimi, the Amarna letters are an archive of diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and several other city states and kingdoms. Several of the characteristics of international affairs that appear in the Idrimi inscription also appear in the Amarna letters.
[27] Robert Putnam. “Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games.” International Organization 42:3 (Summer, 1988) 427-460.
[29] Once again, the number seven may indicate a period of seeking divine support rather than precisely seven calendar years. See note 21.
[30] Hal Brands & William Inboden, “Wisdom without tears: Statecraft and the uses of history,” Journal of Strategic Studies 41:7 (2018): 916-946.
[31] Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University, 1976), 101.