Valeria Chetvyorkina review of group speech therapy classes in senior...
The Hittite state was one of the most powerful kingdoms of the Ancient World, stretching from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean Sea in the west and from the Black Sea in the north almost to the Levant. The Hittite Empire absorbed the kingdom of Mitanni, took possession of northern Syria, colonized the western edge of Asia Minor and competed for dominion with Egypt itself.
The colonial and aggressive policy of the Hittites was characterized by the fact that they sought to resolve territorial conflicts not through military victories, but through diplomacy. It was through the conclusion of treaties between the Hittites and representatives of the elite of neighboring states that Alalakh and Khalpa, Tarhuntassa and Karkemish were annexed to the state.
The German historian Frank Starke wrote about the Hittites: “If no peace demands helped, the Hittite king warned his opponent: “The gods will take my side and decide the matter in my favor.”
The Hittites did not take unaffordable tribute from the conquered lands and even often left the former ruler in power of the annexed territory, depriving him, however, of the right to pursue an independent policy.
The most powerful enemy of the Hittite Empire was Egypt. In 1275 BC, a battle took place near the Syrian city of Kadesh between the troops of Ramses II and the Hittite army of Muwatalli II. This battle was the first in history, whose description we can find in the sources of both warring parties, and the last battle in the history of the Bronze Age - the Hittites already used iron weapons.
The long battle did not lead to anyone's victory. Muwatalli proposed a truce to the Egyptian pharaoh, Ramses agreed. Hittite sources ultimately attributed the victory to the Hittites, and Egyptian sources attributed the victory to the Egyptians.
The Hittites conquered Artsawa, Ahhiyawa, Misa, Wilusa and other states in western Anatolia. But the conquered rebelled and entered into an anti-Hittite coalition with the “peoples of the sea” who lived on the islands of the Aegean Sea. Between 1200 and 1190 BC. they reached the Hittite capital Hattusa. The city was taken by storm.
First constitution
The Hittites were very sensitive to legal issues, because they believed that contracts were concluded not only between people, but also before the gods. Breaking the law was equivalent to insulting the gods. The Hittite laws were sacred, they were carved on tablets of iron, silver and gold, and kept in temples. Only clay copies of laws were sent to the royal palaces, by which we can today judge the legal system of the Hittites.
There are many interesting things in the Hittite laws. Thus, the ruler of the captured territory entered into an agreement with the “country of the Hittites.” It is with the country, and not with the ruler of the state. The Hittites revered the state more than a ruler who does not rule the country, but only serves it. This is the fundamental difference between the Hittite state and the eastern despotisms of the Ancient World.
The first constitution known to history was created by the Hittites - a decree of King Telepinu (about 1500 BC), he reformed the system of transfer of power in the country and described the existing governing bodies, clearly delimiting their powers. The king was a symbol of the unity of the country, the tulia - the council of elders - was the council of ministers and generals, the pankus was the name of the military council, which included clan members, high dignitaries and warriors.
According to the principles of its work, Pankus can be compared to the German Thing. The division of rights that King Telepinu approved remained in the Hittite state for three centuries, until its fall.
Without calendar
Serious research into the history of the Hittite state began only in the 20th century. In 1906, the Boğazköy archive of the Hatti kings was discovered, and in 1915-1916, the Czech linguist Bedrich the Terrible deciphered the Hittite writing.
The problem for historians was that the Hittites never reported exact dates. In their “tables of the courageous deeds” of the kings there are many notes “for the next year,” but the year of the report is unknown. The Hittites did not count their history from a specific point and did not mark the reign of their rulers. We know the chronology of the Hittite state from the sources of its neighbors.
Religion
The Hittite religion was a mixture of local and state cults. The thunder god Teshibu was considered the supreme god. He was depicted with lightning and an ax in his hands, in the form of a charioteer drawn by oxen.
The pantheon of Hittite gods was extensive and could change depending on the dominance of one or another cult. The Hittites also revered images of animals. Thus, the well-known double-headed eagle came from the Hittites.
The Hittites held services both in open-air sanctuaries (the rock sanctuary in Yazilikaya) and in temples. The cyclopean masonry of one of the Hittite temples was discovered by Boğazköy.
Language
Eight languages were spoken in the Hittite Empire. Hittite and Akkadian were spoken by kings during official ceremonies, and texts were usually written in Hurrian. The dictionaries used by the scribes were compiled on the basis of Sumerian characters.
The already mentioned Czech linguist Bedrich Grozny in 1915 proved the Indo-European origin of the Hittite and Luwian languages. Further research revealed that Lycian, Carian, Lydian, Sidetian and a number of other languages of Asia Minor in the 1st millennium BC originated from these languages.
Where did the Hittites disappear to?
The question remains: where did the Hittites disappear? Johann Lehmann in his book “The Hittites. People of a Thousand Gods” gives a version that the Hittites went to the north, where they assimilated with the Germanic tribes. Tacitus mentioned the Hittites in his description of the Germanic tribes. He wrote: “Compared to other Germans, the Hutts are extremely prudent and prudent... And what is quite amazing and accepted only among the Romans with their military discipline, they rely more on the leader than on the army.”
This version remains just a version for now.
Until the 20th century, scientists did not know about this state. The history of the Hittite kingdom became known to researchers relatively recently. Although traces of civilization were still visible in ancient writings. In particular, the Bible mentions the “Hetheans,” and Assyrian sources mention the country “Hatti.” Egyptian writings also spoke about the country of Kheta, from which as early as 1300 BC. warlike people fought with the ancient Egyptians, trying to defend their right to the territories of Palestine and Syria. Sources say that the war then ended in a draw, which means that the rivals turned out to be worthy.
Excavations
At the end of the 19th century, archaeologists began excavating the central regions of Asia (the territory of modern Turkey). It was there that the center of the Hittite kingdom turned out to be, and here was the capital - Hattusa.
About the language
Clay tiles covered with writing were found at the excavation site. Researchers have established that this is Akkadian cuneiform, which the Hittites adopted from the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia.
Despite the fact that it was Akkadian cuneiform, the inscriptions were in the Hittite language, making them difficult to read. Deciphering was possible only in 1915, as a result of which it was revealed that the Hittite language is related to the Germanic and Slavic languages, and therefore constituted an Indo-European language family. This was an unusual phenomenon, because the entire Ancient East spoke the languages of the Afro-Asiatic family (the progenitors of the Arabic and Hebrew languages).
Where are you from?
Where exactly the Hittites came from, historians find it difficult to say. Perhaps they appeared in Asia Minor from the west, coming from the Balkan Peninsula. Although they could have appeared from the mountain passes of the Caucasus.
The Hittites not only had a different language compared to their contemporaries, but also the area they inhabited. While their neighbors lived in the river valleys of the Tigris, Nile and Euphrates, the Hittites lived on small plains, foothills and mountains. Such plains were separated from each other by gorges and ridges, as well as small rivers.
Such natural conditions allowed the Hittites to succeed in raising livestock, which they did much better than agriculture. They were known throughout the world as excellent horse breeders, and an army of chariots posed a serious threat to their opponents.
Rulers
Considering the isolated location of individual regions and districts of the Hittite state, the rulers of Hattusa sent their nobles to rule in different places. This is how small independent principalities were formed. Some went too far, trying to break away, but not many succeeded and most returned “home”, conquered by the formidable rulers.
Military power
Most historians give us an idea of the Hittite state as flimsy and weak compared to other states of that time, but the Hittites were able to repel their opponents and did so with all their greatness.
The Hittite kingdom lasted from 1650 to 1200. BC, and during this time they never lost a battle. Only in the final stages, when the state weakened and dried up, the formidable Assyria was able to take away part of the territories from the Hittites (1265 - 1200 BC). But until then, the Hittites frightened their opponents.
Chronology of military victories
1595 BC – captured and destroyed led by King Mursili I.
1400 BC – the kingdom of Mitanni was defeated and control was established in the territories of the Upper Euphrates and Northern Syria. The army was led by King Suppiluliuma.
1312 BC – A 30,000-strong army led by King Muwatali captured the army of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II into a trap. The latter then managed to miraculously escape, having lost most of his squad.
The Hittites performed well in battles with semi-savage peoples - the Kaskas, who constantly attacked foreign borders.
The Secret of Military Greatness
The military power of the Hittites was not accidental. They inhabited territories with rich ore deposits. There was a lot of timber and metal, which the states in the river valleys were deprived of. The Hittites did not seek help and mediation from the merchants of Assyria and Babylon; they preferred to engage in their own production, taking advantage of the natural benefits of their home. They had no claims to trade junctions and cities, like the same rulers of Egypt and Assyria, since their own was quite enough. They were interested in the territories as such and, accordingly, they planned their campaigns differently from what was typical for neighboring states.
The structure of the kingdom
The Hittites also differed from their contemporaries in terms of the structure of their state. Monarchs did not have absolute power, as was the case in Babylon and Egypt. The king relied only on his nobility, and everyone else remained free “pure” inhabitants, uniting in “pankus” - meetings of warriors who had already chosen their leader from the royal family. Only those who performed their duties were something like slaves.
Disappearance
As we wrote above, the history of the Hittite kingdom ends in 1200. BC, when small tribes made spontaneous invasions from the Balkan Peninsula. When Hattusa fell, the Hetish kingdom ceased to exist.
1. DISCOVERY OF THE HITTES
The Hittites were known until the middle of the last century only from the Bible. In the Russian translation of the Bible, one of the pre-European peoples of Palestine and Syria is called “sons of the Hittites”, “sons of Heth”, “Hittites”, “Hittites”. That is why scientists at first considered Palestine or Syria to be the homeland of the Hittites, which was not confirmed by further research. As for the ancient authors, they had no idea about the Hittites at all.
The existence of the Hittites as one of the major peoples of the ancient East was confirmed in the last century by the successful decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Akkadian cuneiform.
Since the end of the last century, the Hittites have also become known from the cuneiform texts of the archive from Tell Amarna in Egypt, which contained diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian pharaohs (in particular, Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten) with various kings of the states of the Middle East (in Akkadian). Judging by this correspondence, the Hittite kingdom could be considered as a strong state, the center of which was located somewhere in Asia Minor, and its political influence extended to areas of Northern Syria, where the interests of the Egyptians, the Hittites and Mitanni clashed. It was clear that the Hittite kingdom (in Egyptian, conventionally read, Heta; in Akkadian, Hatti) was the largest power of the ancient East, competing with both Egypt and Assyria.
The assumption of the dominance of the Hittites in Asia Minor was fully confirmed only from the beginning of our century, when in 1906-1912. under the leadership of the German orientalist G. Winkler, the first archaeological excavations were carried out in the Turkish village of Bogazkoy (150 km east of Ankara). Archaeologists discovered thousands of cuneiform tablets here, some of which were written in the Akkadian language, and the vast majority were written in the well-known Akkadian cuneiform script, but in some then unknown ancient language, which scientists immediately began to decipher. Already in 1915, the Czech researcher B. Grozny managed to determine the nature of this language and conclude that it belonged to the Indo-European language family. Scientists called it "Hittite cuneiform" (as opposed to "Hittite hieroglyphic" - or rather, Luwian - examples of which were also discovered in Northern Syria and Asia Minor before the beginning of the last century). The ancient population of Asia Minor itself called the “Hittite cuneiform” language “Nesith” (named after the city of Nes). In the same archive, texts were found in other ancient languages of Asia Minor.
The decipherment of the tablets found in Boğazköy showed that a cuneiform archive containing texts of a different nature had been discovered. On the site of Boghazkoy was the capital of the Hittites - Hattusa, or Hattusha. The Hittites designated their country (and the kingdom as a whole) with the term “Hatti”. The main territory of distribution of the Hittites themselves (Nesites) included not Palestine and Syria, as previously assumed, but the central part of Asia Minor. Most of Anatolia and areas of Northern Syria (and sometimes Northern Mesopotamia) were only subject to the Hittites.
The deciphering of Hittite cuneiform texts from Boğazköy laid the foundation for a new science - Hittology, which studies the history, languages and culture of the population of Asia Minor (from ancient times to the middle of the 1st millennium BC). Archaeological excavations, which are still ongoing in different places of Asia Minor, have revealed not only new cuneiform texts, but also valuable monuments of material culture, indicating that the roots of the historical development of Asia Minor go back to the 2nd millennium BC. e. far back into the mists of time.
The Asian part of modern Turkey - the Anatolia Peninsula, - since ancient times called Asia Minor, is one of the most ancient centers of civilization. Recently, in Çatalhöyük, in central Asia Minor, archaeologists discovered a Neolithic urban settlement with paintings in sanctuaries and small religious sculpture, which dates back to the 7th-5th millennia BC. e. It had lively connections with remote areas.
The early historical development of Asia Minor continued in subsequent eras, when separate cultural and economic regions were finally formed in the western and eastern, northern and southern, as well as in the central region of Anatolia. During the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages, significant successes in economic and cultural development were achieved in the central and eastern parts of Asia Minor, as evidenced by those dating back to the 4th-3rd millennia BC. e. archaeological materials obtained from the settlements of Aladzha-Hyuk, Alishchar-Hyuk, Khoroz-Tepe. It was in Central Anatolia that the Hittite kingdom was later created, which existed throughout almost the entire 2nd millennium BC. e.
Asia Minor was a connecting link, a kind of bridge connecting the Middle East with the Aegean world and the Balkan Peninsula. A particularly important role in these connections was played by the city of Troy, which stood on the Asian coast near the Hellespont, or Dardanelles Strait, which leads from the Aegean Sea (part of the Mediterranean) to the Black Sea. Here the mutual influence of the tribes of the Balkan and Asia Minor peninsulas was clearly felt. However, not only its favorable geographical location distinguished Asia Minor in ancient times. A decisive role in the economic and cultural development of Anatolia was played by its natural resources, especially metals (copper, silver, lead, gold), which have long attracted the attention of the neighboring countries of Asia Minor in the ancient Near East.
Already by the 3rd millennium BC. e. fortified points located on the hills of the eastern part of the Asia Minor peninsula were the centers of economic, political and cultural life of the Asia Minor tribes. However, these most ancient tribes were not the Nesite Hittites (Indo-Europeans), who appeared in Asia Minor, according to written sources, only later, probably from the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Scientists call the ancient indigenous tribes “proto-Hittites” (that is, those who lived in the indicated parts of Anatolia before the formation of the Hittite state) or Hattians, since their language is named in the Hittite cuneiform texts compiled in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. e., Hutt. This term comes from the name of the central part of the Hatti country - Hatti (this name was only later borrowed by the Nesit Hittites to designate their country). The center of their political, cultural and economic life was the city of Hattusa.
Natural resources brought merchants from different countries of the ancient Near East to Anatolia. According to one late Hittite legend, for example, Akkadian merchants appeared in Asia Minor supposedly back in the 24th century. BC, i.e. during the reign of Sargon the Ancient, king of Akkad.
By the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. in Asia Minor, traders from different countries lived among the local population - mainly from Ashur and Northern Syria. We learn this from the so-called Cappadocian (after the later name of the eastern part of Asia Minor) cuneiform tablets discovered at the site of Kul-tepe (near modern Kayseri), on the site of which the city of Kanish (aka Nesa) was located in ancient times, in Bogazkoy (Hattusa) and Alishar Huyuk (possibly the ancient city of Amkuva).
According to the “Cappadocia” tablets, foreign merchants, in order to better organize trade in Asia Minor, created two types of trading settlements - karum (lit. “harbour” - a colony of foreign traders that had the rights of autonomous self-government under the local city-state) and vabartum - trading mill. The organized center of all foreign trading communities was located in the Kanisha karum.
Among the merchants of the trading colonies near the cities of Asia Minor there were local natives, but especially many were citizens of the city of Ashur; They also brought the first writing and written language to Asia Minor - the Old Assyrian dialect of Akkadian. Through them, Ashur had a great influence on the activities of trading communities. But Karum Kanisha could independently conclude agreements with local rulers. The task of the trading colonies was to organize trade in silver-lead ores and wool.
Apparently, the ore was refined in Ashur, where a lot of lead gradually accumulated, which even became a measure of prices. There was a lively trade in copper and bronze, mainly within Asia Minor itself. Iron was also known in it (apparently, not only meteorite), but the places of its extraction were kept by local residents in the greatest secret, and its export from Asia Minor until the end of the 2nd millennium BC. e. was strictly prohibited, although foreign merchants tried to engage in smuggling.
To make full-fledged bronze, a lot of tin was needed, but for Asia Minor its origin is still controversial.
Transportation of goods took place using caravans of donkeys. The route went through many small city-states, and each king had to be paid off with a duty in the form of a share of the goods. Nevertheless, upon arrival at the place, the merchants received enormous profits, because all nations were vitally interested in the production of bronze. The technological properties of bronze are much higher than those of copper or, especially, stone, and are second only to steel. Simple iron subsequently had over bronze only the advantage of cheapness and the abundance of its deposits.
Due to the poor development of the commercial economy at that time and the danger of transporting precious metals, intermediate payments were carried out by merchant societies (or large families) mainly on credit. Bills of exchange were written in cuneiform on clay tablets.
Local residents quickly became involved in trading operations. They used the accumulation of funds to lend to the local free peasantry on enslaving terms, when crop failure or other natural and social circumstances put the farmer in a difficult position and he could not cope from harvest to harvest.
The “Cappadocia” tablets preserved many proper names and individual words of Indo-European origin, but the appearance of Indo-European tribes in Asia Minor should be attributed to an earlier period. The question of the exact time and route of advance of the Indo-European tribes into Asia Minor has not yet been resolved. There are hypotheses about their migration to Anatolia in ancient times through the Balkans, through the Caucasus, through the eastern regions, but none of them has yet been conclusively confirmed. There is even an assumption that Indo-European tribes could have originally lived in Asia Minor itself. What is now indisputable is that by the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Indo-European tribes were already divided into the Nesiths, who occupied the territory, apparently, to the south or southeast of Central Asia Minor, from where they gradually spread to the north, where the Hutts ("proto-Hittites") lived, to the Palayans who lived in the country of Pala in the north of Asia Minor Asia, where they were also in contact with the Hutts, and, finally, with the Luwians, whose country - Luvia - extended to the south and southwest of Asia Minor. The Luwians also spread to the southeast of Anatolia, where the Hurrian ethnic element appeared almost simultaneously.
Significant changes that took place in the economy and technology of the eastern part of Asia Minor from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. (in particular, in the 19th-18th centuries BC), caused corresponding changes in the sphere of social relations. The process of social and property differentiation has gone far among the local population. In the territory of the eastern part of Asia Minor there was, apparently, back in the 3rd millennium BC. e. Several political entities such as city-states were created, headed by rubau (kings) or rubatum (queens). At the royal court there were many “great ones” who occupied various government positions (“chief of the stairs”, “chief of the blacksmiths”, “chief cupbearer”, “chief of the gardeners” and many others). The city-states of Asia Minor used writing and a written language borrowed from Ashur merchants. There was a struggle for political hegemony among city-states; At first, Puruskhanda gained the upper hand, whose ruler was considered the “great king” among the other rulers of the city-states of Asia Minor. Later, the situation changed in favor of the city-state of Qussary, located somewhere in the south or southeast of Central Anatolia.
Of the first rulers of Kussara, we know Pithana and his son Anitta (circa 1790-1750 BC). Even when Anitta was the “chief of the ladder”, the expansion of Kussara’s possessions began. From the text compiled by Anitta and which has come down to us in the Hittite (Nesite) language only in a later edition, we learn that “the king of Kussara (i.e., Anitta’s father) with a whole multitude (of troops) descended from the city and attacked the city of Nesu at night took it. He captured King Nesa, and (of) the sons (i.e. citizens) Nesa did not harm anyone. And he made them his own mothers and fathers.” Anitta continued his father’s policy of conquest, conquering a number of nearby regions of Central Asia Minor. He twice defeated Piusti, the king of the country of Hatti, and razed Hattusa to the ground. Anitta went on a campaign against Puruskhanda, the king who submitted without a fight, handing over to him the signs of royal power (an iron throne and a scepter). Anitta made the city of Nesa his royal residence, where he built fortresses and temples, and already styled himself the “great king.” In his city, deities of Indo-European and original Hutt origin were venerated.
The Kussar kingdom created under Anitta was the most powerful political union that existed in Central Asia Minor before the formation of the Hittite state. With Anitta's conquests, foreign trading colonies (factories) throughout Anatolia apparently disappeared.
It is also assumed that during the reign of Anitta there was a gradual spread of Indo-European Nesith tribes throughout the central part of Anatolia, where the Hutts still lived. During the period of this Hittite-Hattian contact, which lasted several centuries, during which the newcomer Indo-Europeans merged with the indigenous population, the Hattian language was absorbed by the Hittite-Nesi language, which at the same time itself underwent certain changes (in phonetics, vocabulary, morphology). As a result of the merger of Indo-Europeans with the aboriginal Hattian tribes in Central Asia Minor, the Hittite ethnic group was formed, which created approximately by the middle of the 18th century. BC e. the powerful Hittite state, which fully adopted the rich cultural traditions of the Hutts. Scientists conventionally divide the history of this state into three main periods: the Ancient, Middle and New Kingdoms.
3. ANCIENT HITTIAN KINGDOM (CIRCA 1650-1500 BC)
The Hittite historical tradition connected the most ancient period of the history of the Hittites with Kussara, which was the capital at the beginning of the existence of the Hittite state. However, after Anitta, some social and cultural changes occurred, which were expressed, among other things, in the fact that the Hittites replaced the official Old Assyrian Akkadian dialect and writing with their native language and another version of cuneiform, borrowed from Northern Syria through the Hurrian tribes living there. The historical tradition considered the founder of the Hittite state proper not to be the first rulers of Kussara known to us, i.e. Pithana or Anitta, but Labarna, also the king of Kussara, but of a later time. At the beginning of his reign, when “the country was small,” Labarna conquered the neighboring regions by force of arms. He transferred the struggle to the regions located in the south and north of Asia Minor, spreading the Hittite possessions “from sea to sea” (i.e. from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea).
The next ruler of the Hittites, Hattusili I (aka Labarna II), also reigned in Kussar; He was named Hattusili (“Hattusian”) because, for strategic reasons, he moved the center of his kingdom from Kussara to the north, to Hattusa. From that time on, Hattusa, which, apparently, after its conquest by Anitta was subordinate to Kussara, became the capital of the Hittites and remained so until the fall of the Hittite state. The name of the country “Hatti” began to be used to designate the Hittite state as a whole.
After conquering a number of regions located in Asia Minor, Hattusili went on a campaign to Northern Syria. Having subjugated Alalakh (the modern settlement of Tell Atchan), one of the strong Hurri-Semitic states of Northern Syria, Hattusili defeated two large cities of the same region - Ursha (Warsuwa) and Hashsha (Hassuwa) - and began a long struggle against the third - Aleb, but from - due to illness I was unable to complete the task; this fell to the lot of his successor Mursili I.
Having conquered Aleppo, Mursili went to distant Babylon, which was ruled by Samsuditana from the Hammurabi dynasty, captured the city and in 1595 BC. e. destroyed it, taking large booty. During his campaigns in Aleppo and Babylon, Mursili also defeated the Hurrians who lived along the left bank of the Euphrates and Northern Mesopotamia; their vast country was then called Hurri.
The military operations of Hattusili I and Mursili I in Northern Syria and Mesopotamia had a certain influence on the course of events throughout the Middle East. The Hittite victories over Alalakh, Aleppo, etc. laid the foundations for Hittite rule in Northern Syria. Since then, the issue of Syria has always been one of the most important in Hatti’s foreign policy. The victory over Babylon put an end to the kingdom of the First Babylonian Dynasty. These major victories were of great significance for the Hittites: from that time on, their state became one of the great powers of the Middle East, turning into a militarily powerful power that neither the “great kingdom” of Aleppo nor Babylon could cope with.
During the reign of Hattusili I and Mursili I, military clashes began between the Hittites and Hurrians. Hurrians from the Armenian Highlands and Northern Syria began raiding Hatti, devastating the eastern provinces of the Hittites. At the very beginning of the reign of Hattusili I, the Hurrians from Hanigalbat (Northern Mesopotamia) invaded the country of the Hittites, as a result of which many eastern regions subject to the Hittites were temporarily abandoned. Only the city of Hattusa remained unharmed. Sometimes the Hurrians attacked the Hittite possessions from Northern Syria, as happened, for example, during the reign of the next Hittite king, Hantili, when the Hurrians, having ravaged the Hittite territories, captured the queen and then executed her along with her sons. Hantili repelled the invasion of the Hurrians, but the struggle against them continued in subsequent times.
Towards the end of the Old Kingdom, the Hittites made advances in Kizzuwatna, an important strategic area located at the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. The last ruler of the Ancient Hittite kingdom, Telepinu, concluded a friendly treaty with the king of Kizzuwatna. From now on, Kizzuwatna took a political orientation towards Hatti, gradually freeing itself from the influence of Aleppo and Hurri.
Throughout the Ancient Hittite kingdom, there was a fierce struggle to strengthen royal power, which was greatly limited by the popular assembly - panku. At first it united all men capable of carrying weapons, but later the circle of people included in the panka was significantly reduced, limited to representatives of the upper strata of the nobility. The assembly had the right to determine the heir to the throne, conduct court cases, etc. The king, who bore the high title of Hutt origin - tabarna, could only nominate the future ruler of the country, whom the panku approved or rejected. The range of candidates for the royal throne was quite wide, since not only the prince could become king, but in his absence, the grandson of the ruler of Hatti, the son or husband of the king’s sister, etc. Starting from Khantili, there were frequent cases of usurpation of the throne by pretenders.
The issue of inheriting royal power was finally resolved by Telepin, who issued “legislation on succession to the throne,” according to which the right to ascend the throne from now on was given only to the king’s sons by seniority. In the absence of such, only the husband of the king’s daughter could ascend the throne. All others were excluded from the list of possible contenders for the throne, and the punk had to enforce the law. This order of succession, which greatly strengthened royal power, operated throughout the existence of the Hittite state.
However, the king did not become the sole absolute monarch of the country even during the time of Telepinu, under whom, apparently, other Hittite laws were also edited for the first time. The royal power was still limited to the assembly, although now it stood above the king only if he arbitrarily violated the law of succession to the throne or arbitrarily executed the royal relatives. Punku did not interfere in other government affairs. During the period of the New Hittite kingdom, the assembly ceased to function altogether.
4. NEW HITTIAN KINGDOM (Around 1400-1200 BC)
Due to insufficient knowledge of the history of the Middle Hittite state, which covered approximately 1500-1400. BC e. , we will next touch on the main moments in the history of the Hittites during the New Kingdom, when Hatti was considered an equal power with Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria.
The policy of conquest was started by Tuthalia III at the end of the 15th century. BC e. and continued successfully until the middle of the 13th century. BC e. Almost throughout the entire New Kingdom, the Hittites undertook campaigns in the southwestern regions of Asia Minor, where the countries united under the common name Arzawa were located, as well as to the south. The entire southern territory was inhabited by the Luwians, closely related to the Hittites, and was generally called Luwia. The countries of Arzawa also included Wilusa (many scientists believe that this was the name of the region of Troy, or Ilion). In an earlier era, Artsawa maintained contact with distant Egypt, as can be clearly seen from one letter from Pharaoh Amenhotep III, written in the Hittite-Nesite language and addressed to the king of Artsawa (the pharaoh asks the king to send his daughter to his harem).
After the military operations of Tuthalia's son, Suppiluliuma I, and the latter's son, Mursili II, the countries of Arzawa were conquered and peace treaties were concluded with almost each. The rulers of the Artsawa countries pledged to regularly send military auxiliary detachments to Hatti along with war chariots, systematically send tribute to the Hittite ruler, promptly hand over fugitives from Hatti, etc. The Hittites promised to help Artsawa in the event of an enemy appearance. Peace treaties were sealed with an oath of allegiance, but it was fragile, because the rulers of the Arzawa countries, seizing the moment, immediately abandoned the Hittites.
Hittite historical documents from the New Kingdom period are full of descriptions of the struggle of the Hittites with the Kaska tribes who lived to the north and northeast of Hatti, in the mountains along the southern coast of the Black Sea. The information about helmets is especially numerous in the Annals of Suppiluliuma I and the Annals of Mursili II. Hittite texts tell us that in the country of the Kaskas, “rule by one (man) was not accepted,” that is, they did not have a king, and they were still at the primitive communal stage of social development. However, since the reign of Mursili II, some rulers of the Kask country (for example, Pikhuniya from the Kask region of Tipia) begin to rule the country “not in the Kask way,” but “in the royal way.”
The fight against the Kaskas had been systematic since the reign of Tuthalia III, which was caused both by the frequent raids of the Kaskas into the territory of the Hittites, and by the aggressive aspirations of the Hittite rulers. The Kaskis ravaged not only the regions bordering Hatti, but sometimes invaded the interior of the country, threatening the very capital of the Hittites. None of the Hittite rulers could finally resolve the Kask issue, although they sometimes concluded peace treaties with the Kasks. The military campaigns of the Hittites against the Kaskas only temporarily stopped their destructive raids.
On the eastern periphery of Asia Minor, the Hittites subjugated Azzi-Hayasa, with the people and with whose ruler Hukkana Suppiluliuma concluded a peace treaty, according to which Hukkana received a Hittite princess as his wife, but forbade him, among other things, to lay claim to other women of the Hittite royal house, which shows the presence in Hayas there are remnants of very ancient marriage relations (the right to cohabit with the wife's sisters and cousins).
The Hittites achieved great results at this time in the struggle for Northern Syria. Taking advantage of the temporary weakening of Hatti after the fall of the Old Kingdom, as well as the city of Ashur, which had until then dominated Northern Mesopotamia, the Mitannians achieved major successes west of the Euphrates, especially in Northern Syria: Aleppo, Alalakh, Karchemish and other kingdoms were under their political control. hegemony. Under the Mitannian king Saussadattar, the Mitannians defeated and destroyed the city of Ashur and took possession of the lands east of the Tigris. The rulers of Mitanni (Suttarna II and Dushratta) maintained friendly relations with the pharaohs Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton), which were consolidated by the marriages of Egyptian kings with the daughters of Mitanni rulers. Mitanni, like the Hittite kingdom, consisted of a whole system of semi-independent kingdoms and city-states that owed tribute and military assistance to the supreme king of the entire Mitanni union.
Suppiluliuma I put an end to Mitanni's power. Having crossed the upper Euphrates, Hittite troops invaded the small Hurrian kingdoms in the river valley and advanced from the north to Vashshukanni, the capital of Mitani. The Hittites defeated the capital, but the contender for the throne of Mitanni retreated without accepting the battle. Suppiluliuma placed his supporter Shattivazza on the throne of Mitanni, marrying his daughter to him. After Suppiluliuma's successful campaigns in Northern Syria, the kingdom of Mitanni lost all its possessions west of the Euphrates. Then Mitanni was unable to repel the attacks of the Assyrians and by the end of the 13th century. BC e. became an integral part of the Assyrian state. Suppiluliuma I not only defeated Mitanni, but also managed to overthrow almost all the rulers of the Syrian principalities that depended on him, extending to the Lebanese mountains. From this period the long reign of the Hittites in Northern Syria began. After conquering Aleppo, as well as Karkemish, an important city at the crossing of the Euphrates, Suppiluliuma placed his sons Piyassili and Telepina on the throne of these cities, thus laying the foundation of the Hittite dynasties in Karkemish and Aleppo, which lasted for a very long time. Suppiluliuma was also conquered by Alalakh, which was also owned by the Hurrians. And here the Hittites maintained dominance until the end of their kingdom. During the period of the New Hittite state, other principalities of Syria were also under strong influence of the Hittites. The dominance of the formidable northern neighbor was strengthened in Syria by the periodic appearance of the Hittite army here.
Under Suppilulium, there were no tensions between Hatti and Egypt. Proof of this is Suppiluliuma's congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Akhenaten on the occasion of his accession to the throne. But the Hittite policy pursued in Syria brought them into conflict with Egypt.
Since the 19th Dynasty, Egypt has been faced with the task of restoring its former influence in Palestine, Phenicia and Syria, lost in the first half of the 14th century. BC e. Egypt's main rival in Asia was now Hatti, against whom Pharaoh Ramesses II began to fight. In the fifth year of his reign (about 1312 BC), Ramesses II gathered an army of twenty thousand and went to Syria, where the Hittite king Muwatalli with his army of 30 thousand soldiers was preparing to meet him. Near the city of Kadesh (Kinza), detachments of the Hittite army, which included militias from various subordinate countries, including the Dardanians, that is, the Trojans, ambushed the pharaoh, suddenly attacked him and defeated the Egyptian detachments that were with him. Although Ramesses managed to escape from the encirclement and repel the enemy, he was never able to defeat the Hittites and take possession of Kadesh. However, the Hittites were unable to advance to the south; the fight against the Egyptians continued.
After a long struggle, in the 21st year of the reign of Ramesses II, that is, presumably in 1296 BC. e. , when Hattusili III was already the king of the Hittites, a peace treaty was concluded between Egypt and Hatti, which provided for mutual immunity, assistance to each other in the event of a common enemy, mutual surrender of fugitives, etc. The agreement was sealed by the marriage of Ramesses II with the daughter of Hattusili III, after which the Egyptians and the Hittites never fought with each other.
Hittite cuneiform texts from the New Kingdom period contain a lot of information about the contacts of the Hittites with the state of Ahhiyawa (apparently the same as the “Akaivasha” of Egyptian hieroglyphs). Akhhiyawa is mentioned in connection with areas located in the west and southwest of Asia Minor. The name itself is identified by some scientists with the term “Achaeans,” which in Homer denoted a union of ancient Greek tribes, although other scientists, on linguistic grounds, resolutely reject this identification. Ahkhiyava is still not completely localized; researchers assumed the possibility of looking for it in Rhodes or Cyprus, Crete or somewhere in Anatolia (in the southwest, west or northwest). Recently, the initial assumption about the identification of Ahhiyava with Mycenaean Greece has been gaining more and more supporters.
Friendly relations existed between Ahhiyawa and Hatti since the reign of Suppiluliuma I. However, these relations subsequently deteriorated, as Ahhiyawa sought to strengthen himself in the south and southwest of Asia Minor, especially in the city of Milavaida (possibly the later Miletus), as well as in Alasiya (Island of Cyprus), where the interests of both powers collided. By the second half of the 13th century. BC e. “the man (from) Akhiya (you),” that is, the ruler of this country, increasingly devastated the territories of countries dependent on the Hittites and located in the far west of Anatolia.
From this time on, the gradual decline of the power of the Hittite state began. The Kask tribes continued to attack the northern border regions of their weakened neighbor, as some scientists believe - under pressure from the Abkhaz and Georgian tribes who began moving from the Caucasus to the southwest; in the east of Asia Minor, various political associations of the upper Euphrates valley (Pakhkhuva, Tsukhma, etc.) became more active. An unfavorable situation was created for the Hittites in the countries of Arzawa, who sought to gain political independence, which was facilitated by the strengthening of the cultural and religious influence of the Luwian world in Hatti itself.
By the end of the 13th century. BC e. The Hittite kingdom was experiencing an internal crisis. Continuous military campaigns greatly weakened the country's economy, ruining various sectors of the economy. From one letter addressed by the Hittite king to the ruler of Ugarit, it turns out that at this time Hatti experienced a great shortage of food. Added to this was the invasion of Asia Minor by tribes of the Aegean world, called “peoples of the sea” in Egyptian sources. “Not a single country, starting from Hatti, could resist their troops,” notes one of the Egyptian inscriptions. The Hittite sources that have come down to us do not contain information about this catastrophe, which apparently broke out under the last king of the Hittites, Suppilulium II.
Around 1200 BC. e. or somewhat later, the once formidable kingdom of Hatti fell forever along with its capital Hattusa. Eastern Asia Minor was deserted for three to four hundred years. In those same years, the famous Troy, which connected the civilizations of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula, also perished in the war with the Achaeans. The legends about the fall of Troy subsequently provided material for the great Greek epic poems that were attributed to the legendary poet Homer - the Iliad and the Odyssey.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN HATTI
The main occupation of the population of Hittite society was agriculture and cattle breeding, reflected in many paragraphs of Hittite laws. The Hittites were engaged in breeding sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. Horse breeding is spreading in Asia Minor. Subsequently, the Hittites learned the most advanced methods of training war horses from Hurrian manuals translated into Hittite from the textbook of the Hurrian horse breeder Kikkuli. Hittite laws preserved for us the prices for various livestock: a horse or mule cost from 15 to 40 shekels of silver (shekel = 8.4 g), an ox - 4-12 shekels, a sheep - 1 shekel, etc. The Hittites had developed poultry farming, beekeeping and other sectors of the economy.
Agriculture occupied a large place in the economic activity of the Hittites. Land plots of direct producers usually consisted of arable land or vineyard gardens. Compared to livestock, a plot of land was cheap: 1 iku (0.35 hectares) of uncultivated land cost 1 shekel of silver, cultivated - 2-3 shekels. Vineyard gardens were more valuable: 1 vineyard was worth 40 shekels of silver.
Along with cattle breeding and agriculture, crafts were highly developed in Hittite society: bronze metallurgy, the manufacture of tools from it, as well as pottery. Thanks to archaeological excavations, excellent examples of agricultural and craft tools, weapons, and highly artistic utensils have survived to this day. A significant level of agriculture and crafts led to the development of trade among the Hittites.
Forms of land ownership and land use were different. In the Hittite state there were royal (palace), temple and private (community) lands. The royal and temple lands were at the direct disposal of the supreme state power, for the king was already considered not only the supreme ruler of the country, but also the high priest, therefore, the main owner of the palace and temple lands. However, he was not the owner of all the lands in the country. A certain part of the land was outside the state economy (sector). Such lands were freely alienated (by purchase and sale, donation, etc.).
State lands could be transferred - usually in the form of entire settlements - to various royal (palace) and temple households. The royal economy covered different “houses”-farms: “house of the king” (sometimes called “house of the Sun”), “house of the queen”, “house of the palace”, etc., in which various categories of direct producers worked. A certain part of them was attached to the “house”. Among the temple households were the “houses of god” (i.e. temples), the so-called stone houses, bone houses, printing houses, tablet houses, etc. They had their own contingents of direct producers, often also attached to the lands of these temples ( as well as generally cultic, for example funeral) farms. “Houses” were handed over for use to various royal or temple employees, as a rule, together with working personnel attached to the land of a particular settlement. Plots were given out even without personnel.
Large “houses” of the public sector ultimately disintegrated into small farms - individual “houses”, which served as the main production cells in Hittite society. Ownership and use of state land were associated with the performance of two types of state duties - sakhkhan and luzzi. Sakhan is a duty in kind; it obligated individual direct producers or large farms to supply finished products of all kinds (dairy or other food products, wool, etc.), as well as livestock in favor of the king and large government officials (“Mr. country", head of the district, mayor, etc.). Luzzi - labor service, it consisted of performing work in the fields or vineyards, plowing the land, repairing fortresses, construction or other state and public works in favor of the ruler of the country (palace) or state dignitaries. These duties included the duties of a royal employee or a large state enterprise to supply the state with auxiliary units from which the Hittite army was formed.
Sakhan and luzzi were exempted from performing sakhana only by special decree of the king. Usually, temples and various religious institutions, the direct producers of which worked only in favor of “God,” were exempt from state duties. However, there were cases of double exploitation, when the direct producer was forced to work both for the king or his dignitaries, and for the temple.
In the process of agricultural production in the public sector, economic relations of two types took shape and developed: the slave-owning nature itself and the serf-owning type (which implied labor service). The methods of exploitation were mainly slave-owning, with which forms of exploitation of the serf type were combined. Therefore, the direct producers of the public sector can be called “dependent people of the slave-serf type.” It should be borne in mind that the Hittite “serfs” did not constitute a class separate from the slaves, and the Hittites themselves, although they distinguished them from private slaves of the usual type, still designated the serfs as “the heads of male and female slaves.” Therefore, they are now often seen as a subdivision of the same class of unfree.
Hittite laws divide Hittite society into free people and the unfree (“slaves”) opposed to them. From the very beginning, “free” were people who were exempted by the king (palace) from state duties sakhhan and luzzi, not only in favor of the king (palace) or major government officials, but also in favor of the temple, as well as other religious institutions. Free from all duties, people gradually became “noble, honorable, noble,” that is, socially free. From them formed the upper, dominant layer of society (royal employees, military leaders, various representatives of the administration, temple employees, etc., who owned large plots of land), for whom labor activity became a shameful occupation or a form of punishment.
“Unfree” were persons who were not exempt from work - from performing at least one of the state duties - and as a result were considered as socially unfree. If such a person was released from duties, for example, in favor of the king and large government officials, then he had to work for the benefit of the temple, that is, he still remained unfree, dependent. “Unfree” covered a wide range of direct producers (plowmen, shepherds, artisans, gardeners and many others) who made up the lower social stratum of Hatti. They included slaves themselves, serfs, mercenaries, etc., that is, people who were in various forms of dependence.
The war provided Hittite society with auxiliary labor and material goods. During their campaigns, the Hittites captured many prisoners. Mursili II alone brought 66 thousand captives from the Artsawa countries, named in the “Annals of Mursili II” by the Sumerian term nam-ra (in Hittite read as arnuwala), i.e. “deported” (the population of the conquered territory taken captive). Some of these deportees were turned into slaves of various categories, others were settled on the land as obligated subjects of the Hittite king (sometimes they were enlisted in the army). After a certain time, they found themselves equal to the working population of the country of Hatti.
There were various categories of direct producers of material goods. Some of them were completely deprived of the rights of ownership or ownership of the means of production and were forced to work for the owner by direct force. These were slaves, usually acting only as objects of law. They were used as servants, to cultivate the land "at home" or care for livestock, etc. Others had the means of production, but only with a conditional right of possession, but not property. Economically (but, apparently, not classally) different from them were those who, usually acting as subjects of law, had their own “houses” (farms), which included a family, a plot of land (as a rule, only on the basis of ownership rights), a certain number own livestock and working personnel - their slaves. With all this, an economic opportunity was created for a certain material interest and economic initiative of small producers of material goods. From a legal point of view, all categories of direct producers constituted a single exploited class-estate of “dependent, unfree, bonded people” of Hittite society.
The Hittite state had a loose structure. In this respect, it did not differ from Mitania and other relatively short-lived state associations of Asia Minor, Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. In addition to the cities and regions subordinate directly to the king or queen, there were small semi-dependent kingdoms (for princes), as well as regions allocated for the management of major dignitaries. At the head of the entire state were the king (xaccy), who (unlike lesser kings) also bore the title of tabarna, and the queen, who could bear the title of tavananna, if she was the mother of the heir to the throne or the king himself. The king had important military, religious, legal, diplomatic and economic functions. The tavananna queen, along with the king, occupied a high position in the Hittite social organization: she was a high priestess with a wide range of cult and political rights and responsibilities, and received independent income.
At the royal court there were many officials and servants: “sons of the palace”, “squires of the golden spear”, “men of the rod”, “overseers of a thousand”, “butlers”, “stewards”, “cooks”, “cup makers”, “barbers” ”, “bread bakers”, “milkers”, etc. The king was served by “tanners”, “shoemakers”, “makers of royal war chariots”, etc. They were called “slaves (servants) of the king”, although they were not slaves in the literal sense words. All of them received a plot of land for food for their service.
The temples were large farms, similar in structure to the royal farm. Various categories of people worked in the temple. These were ministers of the cult (“great priests”, “small priests”, “anointed ones”, “musicians”, “singers”), servants of the “kitchen” (“kravchie”, “stewards”, “cooks”, “bread bakers”, “ winemakers"), direct producers (plowmen, shepherds, sheep breeders, gardeners). All of them are designated as “God’s male and female servants.” In reality, they were not actually slaves.
6. LAW AND LAW
The laws of the Hittites were attributed to divine origin, although this is not reflected in their text. The collection of laws that has come down to us consists of two main tables, the first of which was compiled at the beginning of the ancient Hittite period (there is also a later version of the laws, dating back to the 13th century BC). Hittite laws, being of a class nature, paid great attention to the protection of property, especially the property rights of a “free” person. They established a fixed price tariff - proof of the well-known development of the commodity-money system (prices are also given for slave artisans: potters, blacksmiths, carpenters, tanners, tailors, weavers, bird catchers - from 10 to 20 shekels of silver). A number of paragraphs are devoted to family law, as well as the law of inheritance. The Hittite family was patriarchal in nature: it was headed by the father. His power extended not only to family property, but also to his wife and children, although the rights of the head of the family in relation to its members were not unlimited. There were various forms of marriage: marriage, which implied the payment of a certain amount by the groom's family; Errebu marriage, in which the son-in-law was part of the bride's family who paid the ransom; marriage-kidnapping. Marriages between various representatives of free and unfree were allowed.
7. HITTIC CULTURE
If the Hittite ethnos was formed as a result of the merger and crossing of Hattic and Indo-European tribes, then in the process of merging the cultural achievements of these two ethnic groups, the Hittite culture was created, which from the very beginning was characterized by an abundance of local, Hattic traditions. Hurrian and Luwian cultural elements played a significant role in the formation of the Hittite culture. It was also influenced by the North Syrian and Sumerian-Akkadian cultural worlds.
The Boghazkey archive has preserved for us rich Hittite literature, containing official texts (decrees of kings, annals), as well as myths and legends. Thanks to this archive, we became acquainted with one of the earliest autobiographies in world literature - “The Autobiography of Hattusili III.” During the New Hittite period, a significant number of works of literature of the peoples of the Middle East were translated into the Hittite language (the Epic of Gilgamesh, Hurrian myths). Of greatest importance are the Hurrian epic tale of the kingdom in heaven, which tells of the transfer of power from one dynasty of gods to another, and the Hurrian epic poem about the god Kumarbi - “The Song of Ullikummi”. These works serve as a link connecting the ancient literatures of the Middle East with the ancient Greek mythological and poetic tradition, in particular with Hesiod's Theogony. The plot of the poem about the succession of four generations of gods in heaven is similar to Hesiod's story about the transfer of power from Uranus to Kronos and from Kronos to Zeus. The plot of the "Song of Ullikummi" is very similar to Hesiod's myth of Typhon.
Hittite mythological literature is quite rich, including myths of Hattian origin. One of them is a mythological story of the proto-Hittite New Year ritual - “The Myth of Illuyanka”. The ritual conveyed the battle between the divine hero and his opponent - the dragon Illuyanka, which took place in connection with the approach of the New Year. This fight is compared to the ritual battles that took place during the later New Year holidays in different countries of the world. The myth of a temporarily disappearing and resurrecting deity - the “Myth of Telepinu” - dates back to the Hutt tradition. One of the attributes of the cult of this deity was an evergreen tree.
Monuments of Hittite art attract attention with the variety and originality of forms and types (silver and bronze figurines of animals, bowls and jugs made of gold, gold ornaments, so-called standards, sometimes with the image of a deer). The stone idols from Kul-Tepe and ceramic samples (dishes, rhytons, vases) are unique. From the period of the New Hittite kingdom in Central Asia Minor, a monumental style appeared in various fields of art (reliefs on stone, images of animals - sphinxes, lions), as well as in architecture. Stone processing reached a high level in Hatti, an excellent example of which is the sculpture gallery carved into the rock at Yazilikaya. Original examples of Hittite glyptics have been preserved: the royal seals contain inscriptions made in “Hittite” (actually Luwian) hieroglyphics and Hittite cuneiform.
The Hittite religion played a colossal role in the ideological and economic life of society. As the Hittites themselves believed, there were “a thousand gods of Hatti,” including deities of Hittite, Indo-European (Nesite, Luwian, Palai), Hurrian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Aryan and other origins. The main deity was the thunder god, called “the king of the sky, the lord of the country of Hatti,” whose wife was considered the sun goddess from the city of Arinna - “the mistress of the country of Hatti, heaven and earth, the mistress of the kings and queens of Hatti.”
The traditions of Hittite culture did not disappear even after the fall of the Hittite state.
Until the beginning of the 20th century. scientists knew almost nothing about Hittites. "Heteans" (in Russian translation) were mentioned briefly in the Bible. In Egyptian inscriptions there is a mention of the “country of Hittite” or “Hatti”. From Egyptian sources it can be understood that in 1300. BC. The Hittites fought with Egypt for dominance over and. This fight ended, so to speak, in a “draw” - which means that the Hittites turned out to be worthy opponents and did not yield to the powerful Egyptian power either on the battlefield or in the art of diplomacy.
Began at the end of the 19th century. excavations in the central regions of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) showed that the center of the Hittite kingdom was located here. Archaeologists have found hundreds of clay tiles covered with writing.
The icons on many of the tiles turned out to be familiar to scientists - it was cuneiform, and the Hittites adopted its inhabitants. However, it was not possible to read them - the inscriptions were written in an unknown (Hittite) language. I was able to decipher them in 1915. Czech linguist Bedřich Grozny. He proved that the Hittite language is related to the Slavic, Germanic, and Romance languages that make up the Indo-European language family. It is enough to compare the Hittite words “vatar”, “dalugashti”, “nebish” with their Russian analogues “water”, “longitude”, “sky”. This discovery became a scientific sensation. It turned out that the Hittites stood apart in the Ancient East, because they spoke languages of the Afro-Asian family, similar to modern Arabic and Hebrew. From the depths of centuries, the peculiar outlines of the world in which the Hittites lived began to emerge. The Hittites combined the customs and institutions characteristic of the Indo-European peoples with those borrowed from their neighboring rivals - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Hurrians.
It remains unclear where the Hittites came to Asia Minor from the west, from the Balkan Peninsula, or from the east, through the mountain passes of the Caucasus.
History of the Hittite Kingdom
The lands inhabited by the Hittites were very different from the vast river valleys of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates. These were small plains in the mountains and foothills of Asia Minor, separated from each other by mountain ranges and gorges, stormy but low-water rivers.
In many areas of the Hittite kingdom, raising livestock turned out to be more profitable than farming. It was not for nothing that the Hittites were known in the East as excellent horse breeders; their chariot army was a formidable force.
The kings trusted their relatives or nobles to look after the numerous remote mountain valleys. Thus, the Hittite kingdom consisted of small semi-independent principalities. From time to time some of them fell away, but the formidable rulers Hattus found ways to once again subjugate them to their power.
At first glance, the Hittite kingdom seemed weaker than its neighbors; historians even write that it was “loose” and poorly organized. However, the Hittite state perfectly withstood military clashes with strong rivals.
Over four and a half centuries of its history (1650 - 1200 BC) it did not lose a single confrontation; only in the last period of the existence of the power (1265 - 1200 BC) did the Hittites cede part of their territory to powerful Assyria. But this is not a complete list of the military-political successes of the Hittites.
- In 1595 BC. tsar Mursili I captures and destroys Babylon, acquiring enormous booty.
- Around 1400 BC. another Hittite king Suppiluliuma I Having defeated a strong kingdom, he established his control over the upper Euphrates and Northern Syria.
- Finally, in 1312 BC. (according to other sources in 1286 BC) Hittite king Muwatalli, who led an army of thirty thousand, lured the Egyptian pharaoh into a trap near the Syrian city of Kadesh Ramesses II with a large military detachment. Almost all the Egyptians were destroyed; Only the pharaoh and a small guard escaped.
The Hittites successfully fought off neighboring semi-savage peoples, like the Kasques, who were pressing on their borders.
What is the secret of the strength of the Hittite kingdom? You can find out the “military secret” by taking a closer look at the structure of the Hittite society and state.
Conquest and internal policy of the Hittite kingdom
Thanks to the presence of ore deposits and forests in Asia Minor, the ancient Hittites had plenty of metals and wood, unlike the states located in the valleys of large rivers. The Hittites abandoned the mediation of Assyrian and Babylonian merchants and enjoyed the benefits of nature independently.
Therefore, the Hittite kings did not seek to capture key trade routes and cities, as did the rulers of Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. The Hittites had everything their own. They planned military campaigns more freely, without wasting time on taking possession of a seaport, a customs outpost, or an important ford across a river. The Hittite kings launched carefully prepared attacks over vast territories, covering from all sides the points that offered the greatest resistance. This is how most of Syria was conquered under Suppilulium I.
An important role was also played by the fact that the Hittite kingdom did not have natural boundaries - large rivers, mountain ranges, and impassable deserts. Surrounded to one degree or another by principalities dependent on it, it felt securely behind this rather wide “loose” belt.
The Hittites, no worse than their neighbors, knew how to gather forces into a fist when they intended to strike an enemy; only the fingers in this fist were folded differently, not like in Egypt or Babylon. This is how the Hittite king Mursili instructed his successor:
“Communicate only with courtiers! The tsar has nothing to expect from townspeople and peasants. They cannot be trusted, and communication with insignificant ones only creates danger.”
In a similar address by the Egyptian pharaoh Akhtoy, the meaning is different:
“Make no distinction between the son of a nobleman and a commoner. Bring a man close to you because of his deeds...”
Of course, Akhtoy was not a “democrat”. He just knew that the main threat to the throne came from the rebellious Egyptian nobles. Mursili firmly counted on the loyalty of the Hittite nobility. Why?
The fact is that the relationship between the king and the “noble” people among the Hittites was of a different nature than in Egypt or Babylon. Unlike other countries of the Ancient East, the noble Hittites were not considered slaves of the king, like the rest of the population; it seems that the Hittites retained the idea of “nobility” as an innate quality inherent in the Indo-European peoples; it did not depend either on the degree of closeness to the king or on the position held.
« Clean", i.e. free, the Hittites were recognized if they did not carry out labor ( Luzzi) or grocery ( sakhkhan) duties. They united into a collection of warriors - “ Pancus“, on whose opinion the choice of a new monarch from among the representatives of the royal family depended. In a word, the king did not put pressure on the nobility, who were the reliable support of the throne. It is no coincidence that another king, Hattusili I, when he needed to change the decision on the appointment of an heir to the throne, turned to Pankus.
Thus, the Hittite method of “folding fingers into a fist” was more effective than that of other peoples. The clear, simple structure of society, the unity of interests of the royal family and the free Hittites made this fist very formidable. The Hittites did not always exert long-term pressure on their neighbors, but on occasion they were able to deliver short blows with crushing force.
The peculiarities of the organization of Hittite society distinguish it from its contemporary states. Some historians even consider it "feudal". This is probably an exaggeration. The Hittites adopted a lot from the cultures of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia: writing, religious beliefs and myths, laws, customs. They even borrowed their name from Hutts- a more ancient people who inhabited the central regions of the Asia Minor peninsula before the emergence of the Hittite kingdom here. In ancient Eastern history, the Hittites played a significant role, managing to win their place in the sun. It seemed that the world had already been divided between the powers of antiquity, but the Hittites, who were late to the division, did not yield to any of them.
Country and ancient population of the Hittite kingdom
The area that was the core Hittite power, is located in the eastern part of the central plateau of Asia Minor. It is mainly located along the middle reaches of the Galis River (now Kyzyl-Irmak, in Turkey). Subsequently, from about the VI-V centuries. BC e., this country began to be called.
The country of Cappadocia is a plateau surrounded by mountains that separate it from the Black and Mediterranean seas. As a result, despite the proximity of the seas, the climate here is continental and there is little precipitation. Agriculture here, for the most part, requires artificial irrigation; but the rivers carry little water and, due to the narrowness of the river valleys, it is difficult to use them for artificial irrigation. The surrounding mountains are rich in stone, timber, and ores; The local population mastered metal smelting early.
The oldest known population of this country called themselves hatti. Study of its language led researchers to the conclusion that it was not an Indo-European language; It is most often suggested that this language was related to the languages of the modern Caucasus and Transcaucasia. The Hatti were a group of disparate, mostly pastoral tribes who lived in a primitive communal system at the end of the 3rd millennium, although this system was already in the stage of decay. Even by the beginning of the 2nd millennium, the Hattis were seriously lagging behind the slave societies that had developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt in terms of their level of socio-economic development.
The country of Hatti was an important center for the mining of metals (especially silver), and was famous for its livestock products (especially wool). In addition, it was on the routes from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and from the Aegean Sea to Mesopotamia. Therefore, very early the country of Hatti was drawn into the trade and exchange that took place over the vast territory of Western Asia. The oldest facts of the history of this country known to us are connected with its role in the development of exchange, although it, of course, did not determine the economic life of its population.
Probably already around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Akkadian merchants appeared in Asia Minor, who may have created settlements here, something like trading colonies. At the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Akkadian merchants are replaced by Assyrian ones; the earliest known facts of the conversion of local residents into slavery are associated with the usurious activities of Assyrian merchants in the country. Such an activity could not be successful if it were not to some extent supported by the local tribal nobility, who derived considerable benefits from the intermediary trading activities of Assyrian merchants; By this time, the tribal nobility itself was already turning into a slave-owning nobility.
In the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. e. The trading colonies of Assyrian merchants, in particular due to the strengthening of Mitanni, begin to wither. During this period, Assyria temporarily weakens and can no longer continue to support its trading colonies in Asia Minor, and the trade of Mesopotamia moves south, to cities on the Mediterranean coast; in addition, the growing local tribal nobility may have already been able in some cases to do without the mediation of the Assyrians.
No later than the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. The eastern part of Asia Minor is flooded by tribes who, as was proven by the Czech scientist B. the Terrible, spoke the language of the Indo-European family and, therefore, are ethnically heterogeneous with the local population. Where they came from to Asia Minor - from the Balkans or from the Northern Black Sea region (via the Caucasus) - this has not yet been clarified. Based on written documents, it can be established that their language was called Nesian, but they still called the country they conquered the country of Hatti, and the surrounding peoples continued to call them Hittites. In scientific literature, the population speaking the Nesian language is usually called Hittites; the most ancient population of the country of Hatti (i.e., in essence, the real Hittites) are usually called proto-Hittites. The Nesian language, when crossed with Proto-Hittite, emerged victorious wherever speakers of this language settled. But the Nesian language itself greatly enriched its vocabulary at the expense of the Proto-Hittite language.
Together with the Hittites - speakers of the Nesyan language - other tribes also moved into Asia Minor, speaking languages of the Indo-European family, but somewhat different from the Nesyan language. Among these tribes, the most significant were the Luwian tribes, who settled in the area to the south and southwest of the main territory of the Hittites.
Conquests of the Hittites
At the turn of the 18th and 17th centuries. before i. e. in the country of the Hittites there were several powerful tribes fighting among themselves for hegemony. The centers of social life and administration of these tribes were well-fortified settlements, which can already be called cities. The most important of these cities were Nesa, Kussar And Tsalpa. Obviously, the dialect of the region of the city of Nesa formed the basis of the Hittite language.
These cities were headed by leaders who had already stood out significantly from the mass of ordinary community members, which is why some scientists consider them kings. In the struggle of the Hittite kings for hegemony, success accompanied Anitto-the ruler of Kussar. He destroyed the city of Hattusa, a stronghold of the proto-Hittite tribes, subjugated Nesa and made it his capital.
An even more successful conqueror was one of Anitta’s successors - Tabarna(Tlabarna), whose name became a household name as the title of the head of the Hittite state. The Hittite texts begin the history of the country with his reign.
Tabarna (Tlabarna), relying on the forces of a tribal union, subjugated various territories of the eastern part of Asia Minor. His son Hattusili continued his conquests and directed his campaigns into Syria, against the city of Khalna (Aleppo), but after his death, according to a later source dating back to the time of King Telepinu, “ the slaves of the princes rebelled, they began to destroy their houses (?), sell their masters (?) and shed their blood.”.
We must assume that we are talking here about an uprising of the enslaved population of the conquered regions, who took advantage of the discord among the nobility of the Hittite tribal union. It should be noted that the text emphasizes the cohesion of the tribal union that took place under both Tabarna and Hattusili: “...then his sons, his brothers, his relatives, his relatives and his warriors (around the king) were united.” Since the source notes the revolt of “slaves” against the “princes”, and not against the “king,” then, apparently, we are talking about the period after the death of Hattusili, when the question of his successor had not yet been resolved, which led to unrest among Hittite tribes.
The danger caused by the uprising in the conquered areas led to a further strengthening of the emerging royal power. One of the sons of Hattusili, named Mursili, ascended the royal throne. The source notes that his sons, brothers, relatives, relatives and his warriors were gathered around him. The revolt of the conquered regions seems to have encouraged the Hittite nobility to become more united. Under Mursili, the capital was transferred to Hattusa, the ancient center of the proto-Hittite tribes, destroyed at one time by Anitta. By transferring the capital to Hattusa, Mursili obviously wanted to emphasize that the unification of the Nesi language-speaking tribes and the proto-Hittite tribes - the indigenous population of the country - had now been completed.
In full accordance with the interests of the nobility, who thirsted for robbery and profit, relying on the forces of an even more united association, Mursili decided to undertake long campaigns in areas that lay outside Asia Minor - to Northern Syria and down the Euphrates - to Babylonia.
At this time, in Western Asia there still existed an extensive, but internally fragile association of the Hyksos, who in the middle of the 18th century. BC e. conquered the northern part of Egypt. But at the end of the 17th century. BC e. Southern Egypt has already achieved significant success in the fight against the Hyksos. Apparently, under the influence of precisely these successes of Egyptian weapons, Hattusili, and then his son Mursili, were able to direct their campaigns to the area of the city of Halpa, which is believed to have been a stronghold of the Hyksos in the north. On the other hand, the campaigns of the Hittite kings against Halpa undoubtedly should have made it easier for the pharaohs of Egypt of the 17th and 18th dynasties to finally expel the Hyksos from the Nile Valley.
The Hittite source tells about Mursili’s campaign against the named city in the following brief words: “He (i.e. Mursili) went to Khalpa and destroyed Khalpa and brought prisoners from Khalpa and their property to Hattusa.” The capture of Khalpa should be dated to approximately 1600 BC. e. Soon after this, as a result of the victory of the Hittite king and the victories of the Egyptian pharaoh Ahmose I, the founder of the XVIII dynasty, the fragile military association created by the Hyksos disintegrated.
After their victory in Northern Syria, the Hittites launched a campaign against the Babylonian state, which at that time could no longer provide serious resistance, being weakened by internal unrest and continuous external wars. The Hittite king secured an alliance with the Hurrian state of Mitanni, which apparently took possession of it at the end of the 18th century. BC e. - Northern Mesopotamia. Relying on the help of his ally, Mursili reached Babylon unhindered and, having plundered the famous city, returned with rich booty to Hattusa. Subsequently, probably in connection with the issue of succession to the throne, Mursili. became a victim of a palace conspiracy, and after this, for a number of years, Hittite society was rocked by unrest and uprisings.
Society of the Hittite State
Sources indicate a significant development of productive forces in the country of the Hittites by the 16th century. BC e. By that time, bronze tools had already decisively predominated. Although cattle breeding may have continued to predominate in the economic life of the country, agriculture also became relatively developed, and, despite unfavorable natural conditions, irrigation agriculture was also emerging. Various crafts emerged and trade reached significant proportions.
The Hittite nobility, which became extremely rich during successful campaigns of conquest, acquired in the form of slaves captured in the war the necessary labor force to organize large private farms on lands that had previously been tribal property. The process of the slave-owning class adapting the old tribal organization to their needs and forming a state was a long one. After its completion during the reign of Telepin, in the second half of the 16th century. BC e., and the oldest Hittite historical source we mentioned was compiled, describing events from the time of Tabarna (Tlabarna) to the time of Telepinu.
For the study of social relations among the Hittites, several tens of thousands of cuneiform documents discovered in the state archive of the Hittite kings, discovered during excavations in Boğazköy (in modern Turkey, near Ankara), where the capital of the Hittite state, Hattusa, was located, are of great importance. This archive contains annals, legal codes, treaties with other states, diplomatic correspondence, business documents, etc.
The characteristic features of the slave-holding Hittite state are clearly reflected in the agreements between the Hittite kings and the kings of other states. Thus, the largest of the rulers of the Hittite state, Suppiluliuma, who significantly expanded the borders of his state at the turn of the 15th and 14th centuries with victorious campaigns. BC e., demanded help from the allies in the event that “the king of the country of Hatti goes on a campaign to seize booty.”
It was necessary to avoid clashes between the allies when dividing the spoils, and therefore the question of what part of the spoils of war each of the allied forces was entitled to was carefully dealt with in written agreements. So, for example, a city that belonged to one of the allied states was transferred after the suppression of the uprising to the one of the contracting parties that previously owned it. In joint military operations against enemies politically independent of both allied states, the agreement established for each party the share of the movable property production due to it, and the question of ownership of the captured territory remained temporarily open.
Such a detailed development of the question of the division of military spoils cannot be surprising, since the wars of the Hittite state were caused by a persistent desire to capture people and livestock. Numerous evidence from Hittite texts confirms this. Thus, King Mursili II (circa 1340 BC) proudly reported in his annals about the predatory campaigns of his father Suppiluliuma: “When my father was in the country of Carchemish, he sent Lupakki and Tesubtsalm to the country of Amka (the region adjacent to the Lower Orontes), and they went on a campaign, attacked the country of Amka and brought the spoils of the people, cattle and flocks to my father.”.
Mursili II himself did not lag behind his father in the greedy pursuit of “prey by people.” He reports in the section of his annals devoted to the war in the country of Arzawa (south of the country of the Hittites), about the enormous number of people captured here by his army: “When I conquered the entire country of Artsawa, which I, the Sun (the title of the Hittite king), brought booty from people to the king’s house, it was only 66,000 booty people. What the rulers (i.e., nobility), troops, and charioteers from Hattusa brought as booty of people, large and small livestock, could not be counted.”. The annals of Mursili II are replete with reports about the number of captured people and their deportation to Hattusa. Hunting for people remained the main incentive for war until the end of the Hittite Empire.
Immediately after the victory over the enemies, the hunt for people began. The remnants of the defeated army, as well as the population of the enemy country, were driven into the mountains in order to force them, due to lack of food and drink, to surrender to the mercy of the winner. The enemies, other slaveholding states, of course, paid in kind and, in case of victory, drove the inhabitants of the Hittite country to a foreign land. The Hittite kings forced their defeated enemies to hand over captive Hittites to them, whom they then returned to their old ashes. The treaties between the Hittite kings and neighboring states always provided for the mutual surrender of fugitive prisoners.
Slavery in the Hittite Kingdom
As for the tribes that invaded from the coasts of Western Asia Minor (the Egyptians called them “peoples of the sea”), they were not limited to Asia Minor, but devastated part of Northern Syria and Phenicia. Only Egypt, and even then with great difficulty, was able to stop their further advance to the south.
Egyptian sources twice mention the “peoples of the sea” - the first time under Pharaoh Merenptah at the end of the 13th century. BC e., when they acted in alliance with the Libyans. Among them were the Sherdan, Shakalasha, Tursha and Akayvasha tribes. It is believed that the Sherdans originated from the area of the city of Sardis in the western part of Asia Minor and subsequently settled on the island of Sardinia; that the jackalasha came from the area of the city of Sagalassa in the south of Asia Minor; that the Tursha were Tyrsenians, a tribe believed to have lived in the west of Asia Minor, the ancestors of the Etruscans, who later inhabited part of Italy; and that the Akaiwasha are the Achaeans, or rather the inhabitants of the kingdom of Ahhiyawa. However, these identifications are not completely proven, and we cannot yet accurately determine the origin of the “Sea Peoples.”
The second clash between the Egyptians and the “peoples of the sea” occurred under Ramesses III (IV), already at the beginning of the 12th century. In addition to the previous tribes, the Philistines (Pulasti), Chakkal and some others now participated in the alliance. Instead of Akaiwash, we apparently meet here the Danans, identical with the Danuns also mentioned in other Egyptian texts. The Danaans in the Greek epic are another name for the Achaeans. Judging by their clothing, the Philistines and Chakkal came from the southwestern regions of Asia Minor.
The alliance of the “Sea Peoples” soon fell apart; some of the participants in the campaigns returned home with the stolen goods; some settled in the places of campaigns and then mixed with the indigenous population. So, the Philistines settled in the southern part of the coast of Palestine, the Chakkal - in the northern, near the city of Dora; the Danuns gave the name to the region on the coast of the southeastern part of Asia Minor, near its junction with the Syrian coast; Perhaps the Assyrian name for the island of Cyprus, “Ya-Danana, Yadnana,” also comes from them.
Key dates in the history of Ancient Egypt
