Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

HITTITES

(Heb. ḥittî)

Faience tile of a Hittite captive; mortuary temple of Rameses III (12th century b.c.e.). He wears a short kilt under a bright (perhaps Libyan) mantle (Service de Musées, Cairo)

One of the great political powers of antiquity who during the 2nd millennium b.c. controlled much of the area comprising modern Turkey. During their heyday the Hittites built a powerful empire with its capital at ³attuša (ca. 200 km. [124 mi.] W of Ankara at modern Boghazköy) and stretching from the Aegean Sea as far east as the Euphrates River and into the northern Levant.

History

Though presumed to have been part of an Indo-european migration that arrived in Anatolia ca. 2300, the exact origins of the Hittites and their route into Anatolia are still disputed. While some believe they entered from the east or crossed the Black Sea, they most likely followed the traditional migration route through Thrace, across the Bosporus, and into northwestern Turkey. These immigrants, perhaps pushed by succeeding Luwian tribes, reached as far east as the Euphrates where their first influential kingdom was formed around the city of Kuššar. Pressure from the already established Hurrians in the east, however, seems to have pushed the Indo-european newcomers back into central Anatolia where they ultimately founded ³attuša on the site of a previously destroyed settlement.

The native culture of central Anatolia upon the arrival of the Indo-europeans was ³attic and the country was known as “the Land of ³atti.” The newcomers were rapidly integrated into the native culture and by adopting the designation “men of ³atti” eventually came to be known as “Hittites,” a name familiar from the biblical narratives and, ultimately, through their own records. Thousands of cuneiform tablets have been found in archives at ³attuša as well as smaller regional centers such as Tapikka, Šapinuwa, and Šarissa. These texts are supplemented by thousands of Old Assyrian tablets found principally at Kaneš (modern Kültepe); although the Old Assyrian texts predate the Hittite state by several centuries, they illuminate the socio-political context from which the Hittites eventually emerged.

Hittite names found in the Old Assyrian records indicate that native Anatolians were heavily involved in the Old Assyrian trade network which flourished ca. 2000-1750. Economic and political competition between the Anatolian cities led to the demise of that commercial network by ca. 1750, and after a period of intense regional competition and slow consolidation the Old Hittite Kingdom (ca. 1650-1400) emerged with its center at ³attuša. While the record of this integration process remains largely unclear, evidence suggests that the Hittite state arose as the result of increasingly sophisticated interaction, first between the newly arrived Indo-europeans and the indigenous ³attians, and later between this mixed Anatolian population and the Assyrian traders. The lack of any evidence outside of the Hittite language indicates the full extent to which the newcomers were integrated into the native Anatolian way of life.

The first known Hittite kings, Labarna and ³attušili I, were tireless conquerors who integrated much of the Anatolian peninsula into a widespread political kingdom. This initial period of brilliance was capped by Muršili I’s capture of Babylon (ca. 1595), but when internal factionalism led to Muršili’s assassination the Old Kingdom went into decline. Other powers such as Arzawa and the Hurrians sought to capitalize on this internal discord by expanding into Hittite territory, but after a period of weakness that brought the kingdom to near extinction, the Hittites’ sagging fortunes revived under Middle Hittite rulers such as Tudḫaliya II just prior to 1400.

The Hittite Empire (1400-1175) evolved from the exploits of Šuppiluliuma I and continued to develop under charismatic rulers such as Muršili II, ³attušili III, and Tudḫaliya IV. The empire attained its greatest influence during this period and shared the international spotlight with other major powers such as Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria. The sudden collapse of the Hittite state just after 1200 seems to have resulted from a combination of internal and external forces during the reign of Šuppiluliuma II. Neo-Hittite states that survived along the Syro-Anatolian borderland apparently maintained a degree of continuity with their Anatolian predecessor until their final incorporation into the Neo-Assyrian state.

Myths of Origin

Various myths have been associated with the Hittites, and the name itself conjures up some long-held misconceptions. One of the most common myths is that of a warrior society whose rise to power was orchestrated through a monopoly on ironworking techniques, an idea that has been rejected on numerous occasions. It has been suggested also that the rise of the Hittites was associated with mastery of the chariot, a crucial aspect of military technology thought to have been borrowed from the Hurrians. Still others visualize the invasion of Anatolia by a nomadic hoard of Indo-european invaders who “Hittitized” the native ³attic population soon after their arrival in Anatolia.

Such mythologies, though containing an element of truth, generally reflect beliefs based on imprecise knowledge of Hittite history and culture that date back to the early days of the discipline. Despite a rich assortment of evidence from Anatolia, both archaeological and literary sources still remain silent on many aspects of Hittite civilization, including what it actually means to be a Hittite. The general trend is to view “Hittite” in its widest sense, as a cultural term defining the material remains left by those who inhabited central Anatolia from the late 3rd millennium through the end of the Late Bronze Age.

Identity

While this may be the easiest way of treating the question of Hittite origins, it is not without its own problems. Many of the cultural traits so closely identified with the Hittites actually existed long before they came to power and survived even after their fall. Called Hittite because of their presence in the classic Hittite culture of Boghazköy/³attuša, these elements result, as much as anything else, from syncretisms based on spatial proximity and the demands of the physical environment. This is particularly true of architecture, though other elements such as ceramic styles and religious iconography may well have been spread as the result of incorporation, emulation, and exchange. In all probability, a great deal of cultural borrowing must have taken place between the distinct, but closely situated, ethnic groups on the Anatolian plateau. Furthermore, the perception of cultural unity derived from this commonalty led some scholars to speculate on the presence of a strong ethnic entity in 2nd-millennium Anatolia. when in fact it was inhabited by a mixed ethnic population. Perhaps this wider cultural setting should be known more properly as “Anatolian” or “central Anatolian,” reserving “Hittite” for a more specific usage.

The ethnic diversity that characterized 2nd-millennium Anatolia, however, may provide a clue as to the actual composition of the Hittite state and help clarify a number of issues. For example,

1. A Hittite is called a “man of ³atti” and lives in the “land of ³atti” but does not speak the language of ³atti (³attili).

2. A Hittite is generally considered to be the speaker of an Indo-european language now called Hittite, but which the Hittites called Nešite or a language of Kaneš (Nešumnili).

3. Outside of their language, little of what we now call Hittite can be said to be Indo-european in character.

The irony in all this is that, whoever the Hittites were, they seem to have passed their language on to their Anatolian neighbors while they themselves were assimilated into the cultural milieu of the central plateau, leaving no other evidence of their Indo-european background.

In contrast to the widely accepted cultural definition, the term Hittite may be understood also as a political adjective modifying the coalition of cities and lands whose political imperatives had been subsumed under the rule of ³attuša. Expanding from this core, the Hittites incorporated numerous lands and ethnic entities into their political system. Support was solidified through political persuasion in the form of military coercion, iconographic propaganda, marriage arrangements, the reconfiguration of religious systems, and architectural and bureaucratic expansion into the hinterland. The goal seems to have been to build a cohesive national consciousness that transcended the multiplicity of ethnic identities dotting the plateau.

One clue that the Hittite Empire was fundamentally political stems from the fact that from ca. 1400 onward Hittite culture moved away from its early ³attic roots and became increasingly Hurrianized. While pressures from beyond its borders left the Hittite state vulnerable at the end of the Old Hittite period, the Hittites managed to avoid disintegration. Instead they experienced a cultural metamorphosis marked by increasing Hurrian acculturation of the state. The relative ease with which this change seems to have occurred, whether through dynastic change or simply the incorporation of new values, suggests that the cultural base was modified without affecting the political superstructure to any great degree. This implies a political continuity that was not built solely along ethnic lines. Compromise and syncretism played a key role during this period as new cultural traits were incorporated into Hittite culture from conquered lands as well as influential countries such as Egypt.

While many issues remain unresolved, it appears that Hittite society was primarily a political synthesis derived from the union of migrating Indo-europeans and the indigenous ³attians. The system was secured by the various forms of incorporative persuasion emanating from the political center at ³attuša, but was not immune to change from beyond its borders. On the most basic level, Hittite leadership was always familial in nature, but their texts make clear that the realities of power led to many concessions on the local level, and this affected the formal structure of Hittite power. This was especially true with the incorporation of appendage states such as Carchemish, Aleppo, Tarḫuntašša, µakpiš, Tammanna, and Išuwa in the Empire period. The Hittites can be understood, therefore, as the product of an artificial political arrangement brought together, not as the result of an orderly planned expansion, but through military necessity or political opportunism and by the most efficient integrative means possible.

Bibliography. R. H. Beal, The Organization of the Hittite Military (Heidelberg, 1992); K. Bittel, Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites (New York, 1970); R. L. Gorny, “Environment, Archaeology, and History in Hittite Anatolia,” BA 52 (1989): 78-96; O. R. Gurney, “Anatolia, c. 4000-2300 b.c.,” CAH² 1/2:363-416; J. D. Hawkins, “The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia,” CAH³ 3/1:372-441; J. G. MacQueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor, rev. ed. (London, 1986); G. Steiner, “The Immigration of the First Indo-Europeans into Anatolia Reconsidered,” JIES 18 (1990): 185-214.

Ronald L. Gorny

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

HITTITES

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)