>CP: Hi Mark, Could you post the relevant king-list from Waddel for those of us who don't have access to his book?
-M: That would be a pain - the list is long, and I am a slow typist.
>CP: We have had a limited discussion on the Hittite kings, and I concluded that they were closely related to the royal family of Egypt, not in a recent sense through intermarriage, but having the same basic pedigree.
>M: Who says ... kings were physcially present?
>CP: Kings gave the impression of being everywhere at once. I don't know the extent of their travels and use of doubles. We get a clue in the Bible when it talks about "the Sojourn" in Egypt. This would have been a mostly seasonal event for the royal family, but it was also a cyclical thing in that the primary royal court shifted back and forth between Mesopotamia and Egypt.
>CP: Kingship could also be "carried off" to use the Sumerian expression. If one tribal group become the most numerous and vital, then a member of the royal family might establish his personal dominance by exploiting that group. Examples of this include the establishment of a new Nubian throne as superior in Egypt by Shabaka (a.k.a. Takelot III/Tiglath-pileser III). Later ones would be establishment of a superior Persian throne by Cambyses (a.k.a. Tanutamon) and others of his generation. The even later "Greek" throne of Alexander was established in the very same way. There was no change in ruling house during any of these transitions! There are forum posts on this topic. They should come up with a search on "sojourn" or "primary royal court".
>M: Where are the Greek kings?
>CP: We have also discussed that there does not seem to be an independent royal Greek culture in the dynastic period. A Greek national (rather than tribal or city-state) identity may have begun to arise after the Trojan War, but we have found that Greek kings themsleves were chosen from the extended Near Eastern royal family and that this continued all the way through the conquest of Alexander the Great.
>M: Shouldn't such kings live in the most physicly secure locations that are also convenient? I don't think Kings worried so much about security in the modern sense. Their primary threat was family!
>CP: Shouldn't top ruling families be placed near centers of the copper trade? Not necessarily. The royal family sought to control all aspects of wealth. They had ministers to look after particular comodities.
-M: I do remember reports about how the copper trade was restricted in China. I was suspecting that something similar was occuring in the near East.
>M: Could these kings have ruled from Lanarka Cyprus and/or Sohar Oman?
>CP: No, I think the traditional cities of Egypt and Mesopotamia remained actual home to the court. But there was the appearance of a functioning royal court in every locale.
-M: OK. I notice that Akkadian(or Assurian) was the primary diplomatic language during Akhanaten's rule. Was Mesopotemia more powerful then?
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.