Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Akhenaten's Diplomatic Relations/Ability
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:02 am    Post subject: Akhenaten's Diplomatic Relations/Ability Reply with quote

This is not a post about war or war making ability.

A case study in Pharoanic Rule 101.

In the time of Amenhotep III, an Amorrite chiftain was acting up, pressing for more territory and more recognition from Egypt. Eventually, a punitive force was sent north to dispatch the bothersome creature.


Around Year 15 of Akhenaten, Aziru -- the son of that very chieftain -- was up to the same tricks fomenting rebellion, and making moves towards Byblos, all apparently with the backing of the Hittites as part of a low grade proxy war. In spite of being a loyal vassal of Egypt he allowed the Hittites to march across Amurru, he also besieged Sumur (Egypt's nerve center in the area), ran the Egyptian governor out and destroyed the city.

Our hero, the unique one of the disk, demanded Aziru rebuild the city (!). Aziru replied he wanted to be made governor (!?!) and said the delay was due to hostile neighbors; which was true as none trusted him. Rib-Addi of Byblos had been warning Akhenaten for years not to trust Aziru (Akhenaten said he was tired of hearing from him). Rib-Addi would not enter into a treaty, so Aziru forced Rib-Addi from his own city and killed him.

Akhenaten rebuked him and demanded Sumur be rebuilt. About a year later Aziru received some Hittite envoys which made Akhenaten mad. Really, really mad this time.

Escorts were sent to Syria to fetch Aziru and bring him to Egypt to receive a stern tongue lashing from our mighty king (!?!). Aziru was eventually released (!!?!!) whereupon he promptly renounced his allegiance to Egypt and submitted to Suppiliuliumas.

Discussion questions:
1) Which pharoah was quickest to assert his will?
2) Which pharoah acted decisively?
3) Which pharoah seems like the more effective ruler?
4) Did Aziru fear or respect Akhenaten?

(these are rhetorical)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it interesting that it seems as though everything went wrong in the last 4 years of Akhenaten's reign.

Letters from Suppiuliumas dated to the very early reign of Akhenaten seem to indicate some business as usual. (I will send you gifts if you send me some?) Then there's a flurry of activity: 5 temples in the theban area of Karnak and Luxor; a whole new capital whipped up in short order, complete with necropolis; a nice tribute in year 12.

Then year 13-17+ it seems complete pandemonium:

* In short order we see 4 rulers/corulers: Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhare and Tutankhaten.
* I know of at least one courtier (May, who may be the later treasurer Maya) who falls into disfavor.
* Many deaths: Meketaten, Tiye, Kiya, Nefertiti (no matter if she reincarnated as Neferneferuaten or not, she still died in that time period it seems), Akhenaten himself, Smenkhare, Meritaten, and the younger princesses also disappear.
* The foreign policy completely collapses. The egyptians suffer a downright defeat from what I understand.
* The insccription in the theban tomb dated to Neferneferuaten (or Smenkhare) may indicate some return to religious orthodoxy even before Tut comes to the throne?

That just makes me wonder:
Do we have any indication of deaths among the courtiers? I.e. is the death rate among the royals coincidence? Illness? Foul Play?

Are there more courtiers who fell into disfavor? Does the plethora of rulers indicate an internal power struggle? If there is a power struggle is it the result of the political problems suffered abroad or the cause for these problems?

I realize the answers may just not be there given the sketchy info we have Smile Any thoughts?
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Letters from Suppiuliumas dated to the very early reign of Akhenaten seem to indicate some business as usual. (I will send you gifts if you send me some?) Then there's a flurry of activity: 5 temples in the theban area of Karnak and Luxor; a whole new capital whipped up in short order, complete with necropolis; a nice tribute in year 12.


Some speculate that the fanfare in year 12 was related to Aziru (the troublesome Amorrite chieftain) being returned to Egypt. Akhenaten had been stomping his foot and demanding his return for years, so this would have been something akin to the Unabomber being caught. And of course, Aziru might have brought fabulous things with him to demonstrate his value.

Quote:
Then year 13-17+ it seems complete pandemonium:


Geopolitically you have to back up a bit. And this is a point which irked me about the notion that 'things were swell until Year 15, then something suddenly happened'. Suppiuliumas moved on Tusharatta (the Mitanni) about Year 7 of Akhenaten's reign. The wheels were in motion for the ultimate collapse long before that.

Now, assuming 6-12 months to prepare, it would appear Suppiuliumas decided to take on the Mittani just about the time Akhenaten retired to his new city. Is it coincidence? Was Supp somehow led to believe that Akhenaten was timid (Aziru thought so). Maybe obsessed with things other than matters of state?

Even with good intelligence and perhaps a treaty, it is a bold move by Supp, since Tushratta was Akhenaten's brother in law by diplomatic marriage. A different pharoah would likely be on the march pretty quickly.

The article which proposes Akhenaten as a "shrewd diplomat" bases that on the observation that the other vassals did not fall until very late in his reign (the implication being that everythign was rock solid up to then). The problem is that once the Mitanni fell, a giant power vacuum was created and the damage was done - the remaining vassal city-states were small potatoes in comparison. Not only had the Mitanni been a check on the Hittites for 100 yrs or more, but now the Assyrians were freed from domination as well. Two demons were thus set loose.


Quote:
I.e. is the death rate among the royals coincidence? Illness? Foul Play?


Another question is whether the attempt to hack out the names of the other gods, which happened about that same time, was related to the plague. Some have supposed that after he losses his wife and daughter, he thinks "Aha! Aten is mad because I havent been thoroughly devoted to him/it". I dunno, maybe just coincidence, but it would be nice to think there were reasons behind SOME of his actions, LOL.

The Armana letters and other archives seem to show a plague of some sort in the Levant about that time. Some letters try to down play it 'dont believe we are afflicted, things are great!' (translation: dont boycott or quanratine us). Later, some are open about it. One king admits to being very sick. (Supp actually dies from this plague, though several years later).

There were the numerous requests for help and reinforcements along the border to help with rebellions. Sending forces in response would have increased traffic thru the Levant and thus the chance of it being brought home to Egypt. A full expeditionary force would have assured it.


Quote:

Are there more courtiers who fell into disfavor? Does the plethora of rulers indicate an internal power struggle? If there is a power struggle is it the result of the political problems suffered abroad or the cause for these problems?


I dunno about the courtiers, but rapid succession is rarely a good sign (of course neither is very, very long reigns, LOL).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Another question is whether the attempt to hack out the names of the other gods, which happened about that same time, was related to the plague. Some have supposed that after he losses his wife and daughter, he thinks "Aha! Aten is mad because I havent been thoroughly devoted to him/it". I dunno, maybe just coincidence, but it would be nice to think there were reasons behind SOME of his actions, LOL.


I had always wondered when exactly the persecution of the god's names ocurred. I seem to remember that Amenhotep II's name "Nebmaatre" was spelled "phonetically" (not using the image of the goddess Maat) on the shrine belonging to Tiye in KV55. That always seemed pretty extreme to me because Maat really represented order.

Smile It does make one wonder if there was a method to some of the madness, doesn't it?

Similarly would the ready return to orthodoxy have been helped by the chaos that seems to have ensued at the end of Akkies reign? Seems that people would be more than willing to return to the old ways when things seemed to go much better with the country.

Quote:
I dunno about the courtiers, but rapid succession is rarely a good sign (of course neither is very, very long reigns, LOL).


Sounds like what we refer to as the "Goldilocks Problem" Laughing
Not to short, not too long, it should be 'just right'.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excerpt from a vassal lord in Tyre to Akhenaten:

Quote:
To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Abi-Milku, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times. I am the dirt under the sandals of the king, my lord. My lord is the Sun who comes forth over all lands day by day, according to the way (of being) the sun, his gracious father, who gives life by his sweet breath and returns with his north wind; who establishes the entire land in peace, by the power of his arm : (...); who gives forth his cry in the sky like Baal, and all the land is frightened at his cry.


You gotta love how obsequious and deferential these guys are. All the lesser vassal (city-state kings) tend to mention the 7 times 7 thing - some do it front and back. The more powerful ones seem to omit that part.

They sure take up a lot of valuable tablet space to show repect. Here's the good part:

Quote:
The servant herewith writes to his lord that he heard the gracious messenger of the kind who came to his servant, and the sweet breath that came forth from the mouth of the king, my lord, to his servant--his breath came back! Before the arrival of the messenger of the king, my lord, breath had not come back; my nose was blocked. Now the breath of the king has come forth to me, I am very happy and (satisfied?) day by day. Because I am happy, does the earth not (prosper?)?


Akhenaten clears clogged nasal passages! Amazing Smile

Later he too warns of the treachery of Aziru:

Quote:
Moreover, Zimredda, the king of Sidon, writes daily to the rebel Arizu, the son of Abdi-Asratu, about every word he has heard from Egypt. I herewith write to my lord, and it is good that he knows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this intereting--

Savitri Devi on Akhenaten refusing to send help to vassals:

"For the principle which guided him [Akhenaten], in his systematic refusal to help his loyal vassals in their struggle against the "nationalist elements" of Syria, seems to have been that of the right of Syrians, as people distinct from Egyptians, to dispose of themselves and solve thrie own problems. He saw clearly that some of them were in favor of Egyptian domination; the majority, however seemed to be against it. The best course for him-- whose unprejudiced sympathy extended equally to all mankind-- was to let them fight out the question of their future status without interfering. The interest of Egypt, of his supporters, of himself (who had all to gain from the conservation of his empire and his prestige, and all to lose by their loss) mattered little, if opposed to that idea of the right of all nations to live free under the same life-giving Sun, the father of all. And it is because he loved all men impartially in his universal God of life and love that Akhenaten believed in that right, as in something fundamental."
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like a lot of emotional projection and idealizing ("The best course for him-- whose unprejudiced sympathy extended equally to all mankind...").

Geopolitically, the empire had been at its zenith since the start of Amenhotep III's rule. Earlier Thutmosids had subjected slightly larger areas, but those gains were short lived and the it was basically at its largest maintainable size.

There was a delicate balance in the area. The Mitanni held the Assyrians in check as well as the Hatti. The Hatti held the Arzawa in check. South of the Mitanni were several city states outright governed by Egypt and others as vassals to Egypt. Those vassals fought amongst themselves now and again in an effort to eek out some gains at the expense of another.

In those cases, it was to Egypt's benefit to let them fight it out themselves because it prevented any one of them from becoming too powerful and thus a threat to Egypt. It had nothing to do with some notion of Syrian self-rule or love of mankind.

The early years of his reign most of the complaints were not for help, but about the way they were treated ('why do you make my envoy stand in the sun? If you want to stand in the sun, go ahead, but my man gets ill in the sun'). There was also intelligence coming in from people on the scene warning the misshapen king of the situation - which was ignored. Akhenaten even complained about the reports!!!

By the middle of his reign it would have been about 30-35 years since a major show of military force in the area and a few vassals got uppity. Rising powers on the sidelines were curious whether Egypt still had its act together. The Hatti, Arzawa, Amorrittes and perhaps the Assyrians were looking to assert more influence in the area. Even trade routes were threatened when Labayu threatened Jerusalem, and Gath-Rimmon.

It became very clear to all watching that Egypt had grown indolent when the Amorrites ran an Egyptian governor out of town and destroyed the city. Maybe there was a sense of entitlement or hubris on the part of the Egyptians or perhaps the king was distracted in Atenville. From all appearance Akhenaten just couldnt be bothered with much outside Atenville. This it spelled the end of much of the Egyptian hegemony in the area:

* The Hatti wiped Mitanni from the map - killing the brother in law of Akhenaten in the process. So much for love of all mankind.
* With another superpower in the area that was even closer, the Amorrites basically switched sides.
* The Assyrians were freed to grow into a superpower
* The Hatti expanded right up to the Orontes river without crossing it and with that several northern Syrian vassals fell to the Hatti.

It was far from the Syrians being allowed to "dispose of themselves and solve thrie own problems". The Hitties conquered them and Egypt did little to help their vassals. At the end of Akhenaten's reign a large portion of the empire entrusted to him slipped away to the Hatti - every gain they made to the south came at the expense of Egypt. A good deal of the gains by Thutmosis III and all the diplomatic efforts of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III were squandered away to a rival power.

It is very hard to spin that as any sort of modern day notion of self rule or humanitarian act.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Let the king heed the words of his servant...Rebels killed Aduna, the chief of Irqata, but nobody said anything to Abdishirta and so they have gone on taking the territory for tehmselves...I am afraid...Send archers."

- Letter from Rib-Adda, chief of Byblos, sending on scene intelligence to Egypt, reporting the fall of a vassla-ally.

Rib-Adda would later be killed and his rebel-killer set free by Akhenaten. Eventually, Byblos would fall into the Hatti camp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
.. modern day notion of self rule or humanitarian act.


That rather summed up what I was thinking.

I have a hard time believing that these notions played any role in the thinking of the ancient world.

It seems that trade and conquest were the two aspects of maintaining power. Looking at the actions of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep II, which includes taking foreign princes hostage, nailing enemies upside down to the prow of the boat as an example, public executions of rebel leaders, you get a different picture of what it took in those days to maintain an empire.

I think that self rule and humanitarian considerations are more of a modern invention, and even today they don't play that much of a role in decision making. (Yeah I'm a cynical person Smile )
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I think that self rule and humanitarian considerations are more of a modern invention


I agree.

Bronze Age "foreign policy" was largely force majeure: what will you pay me not to kill you or what can I pay you not to kill me?

That said, once it was clear that new territory conquered could not be held for long, or was too expensive to conquer for what it yielded, Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III did manage to use diplomacy effectively to cement relations with those who could not be conquered or would not stay conquered. Which is to their credit.

By the time of Akhenaten's 5th Year, it had been an entire generation since an Egyptian expeditionary force had been seen in northern Syria. Allies, oppenents and enemies were right to wonder if the old girl still had it (meaning Egypt, but could apply to Akhenaten, LOL). By not marching out in force early on to maintain the status quo, the stage was set for the losses they encountered.

Akhenaten would not have had to take new territory, but just show that she was a staunch ally to her partners and the kingdon likely could have been preserved for another decade or two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Akhenaten would not have had to take new territory, but just show that she was a staunch ally to her partners and the kingdon likely could have been preserved for another decade or two.


It would have taken the approach of Tuthmosis III to achieve that I think. He would actually send an expedition very regularly: some 16 in 25 years. Sometimes there was fighting, but the inscriptions suggest that in other years (15th and 16th campaign f.i.) the expeditions were more to collect taxes and such.

And then there's the expedition in which they described the plants that grow in the occupied land (3rd campaign) "Plants which his majesty found in the land of the Retenu".
LOL Always made me wonder just what went on. Botanical expedition?
But TIII was showing his face, even if it may have been to pick flowers to dedicate to Amun Wink
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
VBadJuJu wrote:
Akhenaten would not have had to take new territory, but just show that she was a staunch ally to her partners and the kingdon likely could have been preserved for another decade or two.


It would have taken the approach of Tuthmosis III to achieve that I think. He would actually send an expedition very regularly: some 16 in 25 years. And then there's the expedition in which they described the plants that grow in the occupied land (3rd campaign)

LOL Always made me wonder just what went on. Botanical expedition?
But TIII was showing his face, even if it may have been to pick flowers to dedicate to Amun Wink


I agree that T3 showing the flag (sts) was as critical as conquering new territory. In showing that he was not afraid of conflict - even if it was just to enforce royal edicts, collect tribute, hunt lions or pick flowers - sent a powerful message. Of course, part of his motivation had to be that he was not a milksop who had been overshadowed by Aunt Hattie.

I do not necessarily agree that Akhenaten would have had to mount repeated campaigns to maintain the empire. The longer it was delayed, the more numerous and vigorous the expeditions may have had to have been, though.

The Hatti (Hittite) expansion, while immensely successful, was a bit of a all or nothing gamble. In conquering the Mitanni, they necessarily also engaged Mitanni vassals such as the Assyrians. All the while however, a rival kingdom deeper in Asia Minor, the Arzawa, were attempting to expand into Hittite territory. The Hittites were in a 2 front war.

Because of this, the Hatti (Hittites) were very, very careful not to draw the Egyptians into the conflict brewing. However, the longer Egypt remained dormant, the more agressive (and confident) the Hatti became. For instance, the Hatti were very careful not to cross the Orontes river into Egyptian territory except once when they did so with the approval of the Amorrite king.

When that did not draw a response, they started to be more agressive with the Mitanni. Perhaps as a diversion, they also helped the Amurru forment rebellion and choas in the northernmost reaches of Egyptian territory. When even that drew no response, they could be pretty sure that if Egypt is not going to protect her OWN territory, they surely wont come to the aid of someone else. They were right.

Had Egypt (Akhenaten) acted firmly, decisively and promptly, it
not clear that Supp. would have maintained his attempts. This need not mean Akhenaten going to war, but just marching out troops to show that Egypt would defend what's hers and defend her long time allies.

In a full out war, it is unlikely that the Hatti could have prevailed against the combined forces of the Egyptians, Mitanni, some Assyrian forces and Egypt's northern Syrian vassals AND at the same time fight off Arzawa expansion in the West. Had the Hittite expansion been checked, other states in the region, like the Mitanni may have been able to maintain the status quo as they had for the previous 100+ years.

It may not have taken 1 expedition, but I think that is closer to accurate than the 17 or so of T3.


I think Akhenaten and Egypt were lulled into a sense that they could retain everything thru diplomatic marriages and agreements and no longer needed to field an army. It had worked well for A3 and T4, so why bother with the expense? Besides, it would be much more fun to build Atenville (Akhenaten's fixations and distractions cant be discarded).

Perhaps Akhenaten was lulled into a treaty of some sort with the Hatti (early on, the king of Cyprus warns him not to, which implies it was being considered). Or maybe he thought that they could come to a long term understanding with the Hittites as they had the Mitanni.

Akhenaten made the classic mistake of underestimating an opponent. He also failed to appreciate how utterly favorable the status quo was to Egypt, particularly in having a longterm staunch ally in Northern Syria/Southern Turkey (who by the way had kept the Hittites in check for 100+ years). It is clear he had great on scene intelligence, but in the end, he was unable to rouse himself from the galas and 'adoration' in Atenvile and let the devil he didnt know replace the devil he did know and the rest is history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case it might be of help, here is a map of the area before it fell to pieces under Akhenaten:



Here is a link to a larger version
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're right about the frequency of campaigns needed.

I brought up Tuthmosis III as the other extreme on the spectrum.
I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that a good campaign every couple of years (for a total of maybe 4 or 5 or so) would have been sufficient. It would also have been a good training opportunity for the army as well.

Quote:
I think Akhenaten and Egypt were lulled into a sense that they could retain everything thru diplomatic marriages and agreements and no longer needed to field an army. It had worked well for A3 and T4, so why bother with the expense?

I think so too. The 20-20 vision of hind-sight tells us there was a need for much greater military involvement. But that would not necessarily have been obvious to them at that time. And when it became clear that they needed to act decisively it was either too late or at least they failed rather royally.

Even if some of the egyptologists are right and the talatats from karnak, luxor and Melamud depict an early confrontation, then clearly this was not anywhere near enough to contain the Hittites.
If they are wrong and there was not even an early conflict the situation only looks worse.

Makes one wonder what would have happened if the conflict had gone the other way. Would Atenism have lasted a little longer? What would have happend during the Ramesside period or would we even have had one?
If the Hittites had been contained sooner, then Ramses II wouldn't have had quite the conflicts he had to deal with. Imagine he could have built even more monuments exalting his own greatness Laughing
Ramses the Really, Really Great?

Oh well, it happened as it did...
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Even if some of the egyptologists are right and the talatats from karnak, luxor and Melamud depict an early confrontation, then clearly this was not anywhere near enough to contain the Hittites.


My sole problem accepting talatats as proof of some Hittite conflict is that nothing seesm to be recorded in 'Deeds'.

In part, Egypt was prone to gross exaggeration. Some minor skirmish is not out of the question as things progressed or even as an intentional feeler; nor is it unlikely Egypt would portray that as a "war". I just dunno how you distinguish between a skirmish and battle on a talatat which by definition are fragmentary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group