Even the most cursory discussion of the Hittite civilization that developed in late Bronze Age Anatolia between 1900 and 1200 BC must involve a prior look at the indigenous culture with which the invading peoples intermingled, and which lent their very name to the capital, Hattusas (Bogazkoy), of the Hittite Empire—the Hattis.
This entails retracing our steps to the early Bronze Age, to the latter part of the third millennium BC, and to the region centering on Kultepe (Hattian Kanesh; N of Kayseri) in central Anatolia. Kultepe was the capital of one of the numerous independent city-states, the Haitian kingdom of Kanesh, prominent and prosperous by virtue of its position at the center of the Assyrian trading network in Anatolia of that era, known as the Assyrian Colonial Trade period and controlled, as its name implies, from Assur (Assyria) rather than by any local state. Significantly, it was through the mainly Haiti trade connections with the literate Assyrian merchants that Anatolia entered the written historical records and thus began the short passage from prehistory to history, a process completed by the Hittites rapid adoption of a new cuneiform script, to become the first known literate civilization of Anatolia. Thenceforth, our knowledge rests not on the interpretation of material culture alone, but is complemented by written records. For at Kultepe, and to a lesser extent at Alisar and Bogazkoy, thousands of clay tablets inscribed in Assyrian cuneiform bear witness to the commercial activities of the Assyrian merchants in the Hatti and neighboring kingdoms. Yet despite the mutual cultural, and particularly artistic, influences arising out of these prolonged trade relations, the Hatti language seems to have remained intact, unaffected by the presence of the Assyrian merchant network with its settlements and economic domi nation of the region. For as soon as the merchant settlements broke up and disappeared their language faded away, never having been adopted by the local populace.
The Hattis' lack of a native written tradition cannot diminish the richness and sophistication of their own Anatolian culture. In pottery, for example, the Hattis are credited with the development of the so-called Cappadocian ware—whose origin was long in doubt—into true polychrome pottery; evidence of all phases in its development are present at the Kultepe site. And architecture became monumental, with 60 rooms being counted on the ground level of a palace at Kultepe. But perhaps most important, the complexity of the Hatti cosmic views—of the relationships between the solar and lunar systems and the planets—may be cited as an example of the high level reached by an indigenous Anatolian civilization. The bronze Hatti sun-disc, with its radial lobes representing the planets, seems to have been an important temporal and religious symbol, and figurines of bulls and stags—sacred symbols of the Hatti religion—attest the strong line of continuity from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Ages which was to extend through the Hittite period. Particularly significant is the worship of the goddess Kubabat, Mistress of Beasts, so often referred to in the letters of the Assyrian merchants—the Mother Goddess of prehistoric Anatolia who was worshipped under variations of this name until she was transformed into the Hellenistic Artemis throughout Anatolia. Indeed, many elements of Hatti civilization persisted through the succeeding Hittites, as the Hattis gave way to superior Hittite strength but absorbed their conquerors into their own culture.
Nowhere is this more immediately apparent than in the Hittite label 'Land of the Hatti' for their own state, even though they spoke not the indigenous Hatti tongue but an inflective language of the Indo-European group which they called 'the language of Nesha' or Neshian, after their first capital city, Kanesh or Nesha (Kultepe). I would argue here that such adoptions—and they were numerous in all aspects of culture as well as in terminology—are not to be explained in terms of any great tolerance by the conquering Hittites, but more logically in terms of their meeting a much higher level of civilization than their own; and over the 600 years of their empire the Hittites continued this habit of borrowing from wherever it suited them.
The outbreak of destruction and conflagration across Anatolia c 2000 BC, referred to at the end of Section I, marked the arrival of the Hittite peoples on the Anatolian scene, although it took another 200 years for them to establish themselves as a fully-fledged empire. Whence the Hittites came is still not universally agreed. But in view of the general displacement of population from eastern and central Anatolia west wards about the turn of the third/second millennia, as indicated by the archaeological evidence and the known arrival of the Hittites in Hatti central Anatolia at about the same time, the argument in favor of Hittite immigration from the east or north-east, probably eastern Caucasia (Derbent Kapilari), is to my mind wholly convincing.
Anitta, king of Kushara (possibly Alisar?) in the 18C BC, is now generally taken as being the founder of the Hittite state. He, according to eight cuneiform tablets containing, in three languages, what is known as the Anitta Text and found among a collection of nearly 30,000 tablets at Bogazkoy (Hattusas), transferred his capital to Nesha (Kanesh; Kultepe) which had been conquered by his father, and from there captured and overran a succession of neighboring kingdoms. Of particular interest is his destruction of the city of Hattusas and cursing of any future king who might attempt to rebuild the city. For ironically, the 17C BC, one of his own successors, Labarna, moved the capital back from Nesha to Hattusas, which he rebuilt and refortified; and it remained the capital throughout the Hittite period—the Old Kingdom, up to c 1450 BC, and the subsequent Empire period, up to c 1200 BC. Indeed, the later Hittites, according to the major inscription on which our scanty knowledge of the early Hittites is based—the constitutional decree of Telepinu (Telipinu; c 1525 BC) counted Labarna and his queen, Tawannanna, as the true founders of the dynasty, to the extent that a special sanctity seems to have been accorded to their very names which were assumed, like titles, by every reigning couple from Telepinu on and held for life.
Hattusas was most probably selected and maintained as the Hittite capital for strategic reasons, as forming an easily defendable (and strongly fortified) mountain stronghold on the northern periphery of the empire, poised against external danger which tended to threaten most from the Kashka state to the north and east. But such a site could not have proved the best choice administratively as from the earliest days the Hittite state established a policy of expansion southwards over the more prosperous regions of central and south east Anatolia and northern Syria—chiefly, we assume, in order to increase its economic power.
The peak of the Hittite Empire lay in the period from about 13 BC when Suppiluliumas succeeded to the throne and founded a new Hittite state after a long period of disruption and oblivion in the 16 and 15C BC, with migrations of new tribes and displacement peoples all over the Near East. But even at its zenith, the Hittite Empire was never a single, cohesive, political unit—imperial in it sense that we understand it today. Central Anatolia continued to consist, as in the previous period, of numerous largely self-contained communities, but with the difference that local rulers were generally eliminated, local government to varying extents in the hands of groups of Elders, and overall suzerainty possessed by their Hittite overlords. Such a loose confederation of different peoples, with their own customs, traditions and even languages (of which there are thought to have been over 20 in Anatolia during this period) proved durable, and enabled the ruling dynasty to incorporate and absorb elements from their subject peoples that served to strengthen and enrich the civilization of Hittite Anatolia.
As an example of this Hittite characteristic, I would cite the evidence of Hurrian influence. This derived from the Human state o Mitanni (also known as Hanigalbat) on the W bank of the river Firat (Euphrates) and its north-western neighbor, the Hurrian Kizzuwatna. The independent Mitanni state tended to maintain its position in the regional balance of power by marriage treaties with the Hittite and Egyptian empires, between which it formed a buffer-state, from time to time falling under the domination of one or the other, or of Assyria. Kizzuwatna likewise—a buffer kingdom between Mitanni and the Hittites, with its capital at Adaniya (Adana)—was culturally dominated by the Mitanni but tended to fall periodically under Hittite political domination. The Hurrians, with their distinctive language—its agglutinative character so different from both the Hatti and the Indo-European Hittite—were throughout to play a leading part in Hittite cultural history. The geographical location of the two Hurrian states established them as a natural channel not only for Hittite military expansion towards northern Syria and Mesopotamia but, more importantly, for the cultural communication of the Mesopotamian civilizations, themselves pos sessing large Hurrian populations, to the Hittite. Indeed, Hurrian culture, which extended in a broad swathe from Erzurum and Lake Urmia in the north to as far south-west as Palestine, paved the way for the passage of certain mythical and religious elements through the Hittite and into the Hellenistic civilizations. It is known that when ever the Hittites returned from successful campaigns against neighboring states they carried back with them the effigies and standards of the indigenous deities and incorporated them into their own pantheon. In the early stages of the empire, the names of the Hittite gods were nearly all Hatti (with only one known Hittite). But as time passed we find an increasing number of Hurrian names among the Hittite pantheon, and Hurrian cults seem to have abounded. Sim ilarly, while the royal names of the Hittites are almost all Hatti, the personal names of later kings, queens and princes have been found often to be Hurrian, replaced on their accession to the throne by Hittite (that is to say, Hatti) throne names. Indeed, scribes and officials of all ranks bore Hurrian names. On a more practical level, it has been argued that the proficiency of Hittite chariot-warfare lay in the rigorous training of their horses—following the regulations of one Kikkuli, a Hurrian.
Before embarking on an examination of the various aspects of Hittite statecraft and culture, it is useful to note the actual records on which, apart from archaeological evidence, our entire knowledge of the Hittites rests. This material is composed of a vast array of baked-clay cuneiform tablets, surviving in a number of sites across Hittite Anatolia, but chiefly in the important sites of Kultepe and Alisar and, most prominently, Bogazkoy (the capital, Hattusas), where a 'state archive' of over 25,000 tablets has been discovered. The Kultepe archives, relating largely to the Assyrian Trade Colony period, were found mainly in tradesmen's houses, often on wooden shelves in rooms set aside for their collection. But where they were kept in the living quarters, they appear to have been held in chests, baskets or clay containers modeled like decorative dolls' houses, about 20 to 30cm high.
The cuneiform adopted by the Hittites was not that used by the Assyrian traders but an Old Babylonian cuneiform, possibly already existing in parts of Anatolia or else developed by Babylonian scribes taken in the northern Syrian campaigns who were directed to write down the Hittite language. The dimensions of the early tablets —flat-faced, sometimes waxed, and convex behind— ranged from hand-sized to over 30cm in height, and contained up to three columns of inscription. An incised line separated the text from the colophon which recorded a description of the contents, the number in the series—if the document extended over more than one tablet—and the name of the scribe. Tablet catalogues—some by author, others by subject—provided information on the contents of the tablets, the number making up the series and sections that were missing, lost or transferred. There were also tiny tablets, no more than about 5cm by 7cm, kept on each shelf and giving in brief the contents of the tablets on that shelf, thus saving time and effort in searching for material.
These highly advanced libraries of the Hittite capital were evidently under the supervision of the Chief Scribe, the head of what must have been the most learned and intellectual section of society. In addition to their archival work, the scribes were prom inent in diplomatic affairs, writing correspondence and preparing and transcribing treaty agreements. They were trained in special schools to become proficient not just in Hittite, but also in the major Hittite languages of Pala, Luwian, Human and some Haiti, and especially in Sumerian and Akkadian—the diplomatic lan guages of the time. They must have been heavy users of the three-language Sumerian/Akkadian/Hittite tablet dictionaries that have so often come to light!
A class apart from these palace, cuneiform scribes were the hieroglyph scribes who appear to have been less intensely educated and were available for more popular work. This can be inferred from the existence of hieroglyph inscriptions, usually in the more gener ally-known Luwian language, on most rock reliefs, some seals and some ceramic cups. It is likely that these were public scribes employed in work relating to or for the general population and in people s transactions, mostly on perishable materials such as wooden tablets which have not survived.
This, then, accounts for a large proportion of our knowledge of the Hittite Empire and the Hittite way of life. Documents of state or of public concern have survived in large quantities, probably the most famous being the bilingual Treaty of Kadesh between the Hittite and Egyptian Empires c 1270 BC—the first recorded international treaty we know of. But of the populace at large, their concerns and business affairs, almost nothing can be gleaned. Yet in the complexity and organization of its archives, the Hittite state reveals itself as singularly advanced and sophisticated.
The development of the role of the Hittite royalty can be traced as it progressed from that of a petty local princedom through the stage of what may be termed a 'constitutional' monarchy to become, like other contemporary rulers of the Near East, an absolute monarchy supported by the gods. But although the Hittite kings were deified after their death, they were never god-kings during their lifetime and were never incorporated into the pantheon. As the vice-gerent of the gods, the king had a dual role as head of state, with all the temporal duties and responsibilities arising out of this, and as High Priest, with his possibly even more important duties, for the entire state craft of the empire was imbued with a deeply religious hue. Indeed, the Hittite rock reliefs always depict the king in priestly garb, with a tall cap (akin to the terlik worn in south-east Anatolian traditional costume and known in archaeology as the 'Phrygian cap'), long robes, a curved staff and curling, pointed shoes (similar to what are known in Anatolia today as cariks). The duty of the king to conduct ceremonies in the capital—Hattusas—on the holy days of particular deities was one that was taken extremely ser iously—to the extent that the travels of the royal family were care fully arranged around these days and the king would even leave a campaign in order to attend them. But generally the summer months were reserved for military campaigns and the winter given over to ceremonies and religious functions. Neglect of his religious duties was so serious as to draw down the wrath of the gods on the entire populace.
One of the most striking aspects of the king's position as High Priest was the requirement that he be protected at all times from defilement and impurity, for the purpose of showing respect to the gods and, at the same time, defending him from sorcery. The care with which the purity of the king was maintained can be judged, for example, from the existence of regulations requiring those employed in the palace kitchen to swear every month that the water they gave to the king was pure—if even a single hair was found in the royal bath-water, the penalty was death—and requiring royal shoemakers and leatherworkers to use only leather provided by the palace. To the enquiring mind, these might suggest protective measures against disease, an all-too-common cause of death and one to be deflected at all costs from the person on whom the stability of the state depended.
Yet for all the personification of royal authority, the early Hittite king was not a despot. He ruled in accordance with recognized laws and with the assistance and advice of a council, or panku—although the influence of this institution varied, as is natural, in inverse proportion with the strength of the king; and the panku was even tually abolished. During the early stages, in the Old Kingdom, the panku (meaning 'all' or 'whole') was theoretically open to all citizens who could bear arms but seems in practice to have been composed of prominent civil and military personnel, a tendency that grew more pronounced as the size and population of the state increased, and the number of eligible candidates necessarily decreased.
At the capital, the influence of the king's mother (normally, although by no means always, the widowed queen of his predeces sor) and his wife was considerable. The queen herself had a promi nent religious function, as can be understood, for example, from the Fraktin (SE of Kayseri) rock reliefs depicting Queen Puda-Hepa as offering sacrifice to a deity. It was the queens Puda-Hepa and Ashmunika who left the greatest number of documents, and we know of the existence of a 'queen's palace'—probably a separate building in the palace complex at Hattusas to which widowed queens withdrew.
In the patriarchal social organization of the Hittites, the king had numerous wives in addition to his queen, and his children all played their part in the administration of the state—sons becoming priests, army commanders, even rulers of dependent princedoms, and daughters acting as instruments of policy through marriage alliances with foreign powers. The patriarchal system appears to have been in strong contrast with the matriarchal tendencies of earlier Anatolian culture in which, through her symbolizing of fecundity and produc tivity, the place of woman was higher. But we can understand the increasing importance of the man in the Hittite period, with the value placed on the bearing of arms for Hittite expansionist policies. Indeed, at the highest level, patrilineal succession was the norm from the earliest days of the Hittite state, the king choosing his successor from among his own sons. But the confusion in the kingdom arising out of the frequent fratricidal strife led to the regulation by Telepinu of the succession to the first-born son. Whole history reveals that this law was by no means adhered to throughout the Hittite period, deviation from it seems to hare been held always as a great crime.
Of the administrative organization clearly required to run such an extensive and complex empire as the Hittite, very little of substance is yet known- The state was evidently based on a kind of fief-system, whereby newly-conquered lands were administered by princes who then owed certain obligations to the central authority, obligations of which the most important would have been military service through the provision of foot-soldiers and chariots on request. Vassal king doms, judging from the evidence of signed treaties, also pledged similar obligations in return for a Hittite guarantee of their sov ereignty. Apart from these, there were a number of provinces, such as Pala and Kizzuwatna. But it is impossible, on the basis of the still scanty evidence, to be certain of the division of labor of the closely inter-related military, religious and administrative duties of the large bureaucracy.
According to Hittite laws, society was divided into two levels—the free people and the slaves. But the distinction is not altogether clear in the case of every social group, and it is certain that the institution of slavery by no means resembled the modern understanding of it. Free citizens included, in theory, farmers, artisans, tradesmen and petty officials. But farmers, in an empire heavily dependent on agricultural produce, were closely bound to the state and burdened with the heaviest taxes; while artisans, although possessing property rights and able to sell their produce, were probably in many cases employed by the state (for example in religious sanctuaries). In contrast, slaves could be bought and sold, but they had rights, such as of property and marriage, which were protected and regulated by the state; for example, the value of a slave was half that of a freeman, but so was his punishment. Once again, the archives of the Hittites have so far revealed little on the origin of slavery or who became slaves. Prisoners of war, brought back as booty, formed an entirely separate group known by their Sumerian name as nam.ra, and were put to work on the land, much as prisoners of war this century, and used to repopulate deserted regions. They had no freedom of movement, but probably as time passed they mixed and merged with the local populace. Thus, we can confidently admit nam.ras as another group of people who contributed to the cultural synthesis that was created in Anatolia, even though not recognized in Hittite law as a separate class, as were freemen and slaves.
We do know, however, of the existence of a shadowy group of people, neither free nor slave, who could own land and could not legally be bought or sold but by marrying whom women lost their free status. Were these an early form of 'untouchable' class, so low racially that they were kept apart? We just don't know.
An all-important pillar of the Hittite state was the military. That the Hittites were possessed of a strong and well-organized military structure is evinced by their achievement in extending their territories in the face of constant attacks by the Kashkas from the north and incessant attempts at secession from the Empire by vassal states in the west and by Kizzuwatna in the south-east. At the same time, foreign policy dictated the maintenance of buffer kingdoms between themselves, the Mitanni, Egyptian and Assyrian states. As summers were taken up with campaigns and winters with the preparation for campaigns, we can infer that there was a standing army. The king, as Commander-in-Chief, had his personal troops. In addition, troops were forthcoming under the various treaty obligations of vassal states, under the command of their respective local rulers, and some mercenary troops were also available. The basic strength of the armies consisted in their foot-soldiers, but mobility was provided by the charioteers, depicted in Egyptian reliefs. The three-man chariot of the Hittites, providing full protection for the driver, must have given a distinct advantage over the Egyptian two-man chariot. Chariot-fighting required long and careful training, and horses were imported from Babylon to improve the stock, according to a surviving letter of Hattusilis III. As for the numerical strength of the Hittite forces, this increased from a mere 1400 loot-soldiers and 40 chariots in the 18C BC to 17.000 foot-solders and 3500 chariots on the Hittite side at the battle of Kadesh in 1285 BC. Tactically, surprise or night attacks were preferred and, if these failed, siege warfare. It is clear from archaeological and philological evidence that the Hittites attached great importance to their own frontier defenses—their massive fortifications being best observed at Hattusas.
On the other hand, the Hittites were not generally a sea-faring people and were cut off from the coast until the conquest of Kizzuwatna with its Mediterranean shore, when maritime relations were established with Ugarit and Alashiya (Cyprus). But there is documentary evidence of a naval battle off Cyprus during the reign of Suppiluliumas II (c 1210-1200 BC) in about 1200 BC.
Of the economic basis of the state, again available documentation offers scanty information. The land belonged primarily to the gods, and after them to the king who could dispose of land at will in return for obligations and services. As in previous eras, agriculture and animal husbandry formed the mainstay of the state economy, with a variety of grains—among them chiefly wheat and barley—from which different kinds of bread were made. Beer and wine were produced, pulses and fruits cultivated and, in some areas, olives and olive oil. Yet harvests varied and periods of famine have been recorded, particularly in later years, with references to wheat imported from abroad to meet the needs of the people. There was an abundance of animals, from which meat, milk, wool and leather were obtained; and the place of honey in the economy may be gauged from the numerous regulations on bee-keeping. Metals included copper and bronze, as well as silver and gold. However, what characterizes the Hittite in comparison with earlier periods is the development of the iron-smelting industry—in an area where iron-ore was plentiful. The military successes of the Hittites have been attributed largely to their use of iron weapons and to their control of the production and the export of iron implements. Silver was used as a form of currency, in bar or disc shape, and the originally Babylon ian weights, though varying according to time and country, were strictly regulated.
An intriguing aspect of land trade lies in its general reduction after the Assyrian Trade Colony era, in conjunction with the growth of state monopolies excluding foreign traders, and the less experienced native entrepreneurs tending to utilize members of conquered popu lations as agents for the import of desired materials. Frequent foreign campaigns also ensured the acquisition of goods from abroad, while the increase in domestic manufacture and craftsmanship to serve the growing state restricted the availability of raw materials for export. Maritime trade also began to develop along the northern Syrian coast and in the Aegean, likewise under the detailed jurisdiction of the central authority.
In the field of art, Hittite craftsmanship may be characterized as an amalgamation of contributions by the various ethnic groups of the Empire, an amalgamation in which it is impossible to determine the specific elements. From the artifacts found in the royal tombs of Alacahoyuk and Horoztepe, we know of the sophistication of late Bronze Age art; and in architecture, with the growing Mesopotamian influence of the Assyrian Trade Colony period, the Kultepe site may be cited as an example of urban civilization comparable with the best of Mesopotamia and Syria. Moreover, the close cultural relations of Anatolia this time with northern Syria and beyond to Egypt is shown in all the archaeological evidence.
All this, then, was available for the Hittites to draw on and develop. We see in Hittite pottery monochrome and geometrical polychrome ware both showing great skill in shape and proportion, particularly in their animal designs. Ceramic rhytons in the form of stylized lions, antelopes, birds and snails were used in religious ceremonies to pour libations to the gods. Stylized animal motifs recur on seals and as cups shaped in the form of animal-heads, whereas cups shaped as complete animals and small clay bull figures (about 70cm high) are beautifully modeled in a lively, naturalistic way. It could be argued that ceramic art was the most developed of the Hittite arts, but if that is so then stonemasonry was not far behind. It has been said that all imperial Hittite sculpture was subservient to architecture. Yet although the massive and spectacular monumental rock reliefs to be found as far as the empire extended and the free-standing reliefs (orthostats) along the exterior walls of the Hattusas palaces did not reach the level of fully-dimensional statuary, they are fine examples of stone-carving as a craft in its maturity; and the tiny but delicately-carved stone figurines, probably worn as amulets, and seals—both pictorial and inscribed—give us an idea of how the reliefs must have looked in their prime.
As far as other art forms are concerned, of the documented statues of deities in precious metals unfortunately nothing remains, but bronze figurines of the early period have been found. An extant example of incised bone from Kultepe, depicting the Tree of Life, dates from the first half of the second millennium BC. One interesting development in ceramic art which deserves mention is that o narrative art—which appears on pottery reliefs and on seals.
Architectural design was not rigidly uniform. The foundations of the normally detached houses were of stone, with mud-brick walls and flat roofs—the like of which may be seen throughout rural Anatolia today. The size of the houses and the internal division and size of rooms seem to have varied, with extra rooms added as required. The houses were separated from one another by paved alleys through which ran a regular, and clearly communal, sewage system. Monumental architecture, such as the temples, palaces and massive fortresses of the later, imperial, period rather than the more humble dwellings of the populace, has often been preserved intact or excavated—notably at Bogazkoy, Alacahoyuk and Yazilikaya.
As for the regulation of people's lives, two tablets providing part of a codex of laws offer some insight into the complexities of men's actions and transactions in the Hittite period. Of these two tablets, one regulates individuals' rights and proprietorship and the other relates to ownership of property and agricultural implements, includ ing prices of goods, and to crimes of morality. That the laws were not immutable but could be altered as the society developed can be deduced from four clear stages in the style of writing, the syntax and the grammar of the inscriptions between the reigns of Mursilis I (c 1620-1590 BC) and Tudhaliyas IV (c 1250-1220 BC). These reveal a clear progression from the simple compilation of traditions and customs, through the gradual replacement of torture to the forfeiture of animals as punishment, the restricting of the death penalty alongside the increase of material penalties to reductions in fines. These quite advanced laws, with the extensive use of indemnities or compensation payments, are evidently based on the principles of rectification and retribution rather than revenge. By its peak, the Hittite state seems to have exacted the death penalty only for sexual offences, sorcery and treason. The lack of a preamble to the codex prevents proper understanding of the ethical foundation of the legal system, but it is clearly religious in essence—the justice of the gods encompassing the entire human and animal kingdom and dispensed by their vice-gerent on earth, who was Chief Justice as well as High Priest.
The religion of the Hittites, like most of their culture, reveals multiple origins and, in the face of complete inability to force its own cultural traits on the natives of Anatolia, an astonishing capacity for cultural absorption. Indeed, the expansion of the empire was matched by an expansion in number, in function and in ethnicity of its pantheon, which seems to have reflected the mixed composition of the Hittite population. The deities are readily identifiable since their names are listed in treaties, and other documents describe religious ceremonies, indicating the languages of hymns sung by the priests and giving the names of the deities in their own languages. What is significant here is that the Hittites accepted foreign influences without altering them beyond recognition, as if they followed a deliberate policy of integration based on respect for the character or ethnicity of their subject peoples.
The pantheon of the Hittites illustrates their deification of aspects of nature, with certain deities holding a special place, notably the Storm-God (whose Hatti name was Taru) and his wife, the Sun-Goddess of the city of Arinna (Hatti name, Vurushemu). Much information can be gleaned from rock reliefs such as that of the religious sanctuary at Yazilikaya ('Inscribed Rock', near Bogazkoy) which depicts what is thought to be the full assemblage of gods and goddesses, although their precise identification has not been easy as the inscribed names have worn away. Apart from these monumental reliefs, very few statues have survived, the metal ones—like other metal artifacts—having been lost through re-cycling.
On the Hittite views of death and burial customs, we find crema tion and inhumation practiced, both side by side and separately, with different styles of inhumation in different cemeteries. It appears that cremation was more common for monarchs, but which was the real Hittite tradition cannot yet be determined. What is particularly interesting is the evidence that people were buried with their animals, most notably with their horses—in striking parallel with the well-known later kurgan tradition of the horse-dominated Turkish and Mongolian autochthonous societies that originated and spread in all directions from their Central Asian heartlands.
As in religion, so Hittite literature reflects the multiplicity of languages and cultures of the Empire. Of the wide corpus of its literature—including historical texts, prayers and hymns, fortune-telling and predictions, as well as the purely creative and artistic poetry—what is perhaps of particular interest here is Hittite myth and epic. The Hittites seem to have been as lacking in originality in this area as in so many others, and to have incorporated wholesale from existing Anatolian societies with their well-developed religious, philosophical and cosmological speculations. Indeed, the majority of Hittite myths tend to be of ancient Sumerian or Old Babylonian origin, acquired via Hurrian influences, while a number of others reveal northern Syria strains, via Kizzuwatna. For example, the epics and myths originating from northern Syria include many Luwian words, which indicates their entry into the Hittite corpus through the cosmopolitan Kizzuwatna, with its predominant Human and Luwian languages and its geographical suitability as a channel or communication with northern Syria. Yet the Hittite lack of orig inality did not extend to lack of creativity and spontaneity. They never adopted foreign epic or mythical traditions in their entirety but simply reduced or omitted irrelevant or uninteresting parts, ex panded those more to their taste, and altered the names of heroes to suit their own linguistic preference. Often, as in the case of the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh, the Akkadian version would be used as a set text in the scribes’ schools while abridged Hittite and Hurrian versions circulated among the people.
What can, however, be stated with some certainty, is that the myths and epics borrowed by the Hittites from outside, particularly Babylon, also traveled through other cultures all over the ancient Near East, from the Sumerians in Mesopotamia right up to the Hellenistic period of western Anatolia and the Aegean. This is perhaps sufficient to show that the various civilizations cannot really be treated as entirely separate entities but together formed inter related parts of a single whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment