The Hittites and Their Ascent to Power

Armando Perez-Segura

04922 Hittites

Research Paper

The Hittites and Their Ascent to Power.

It has been a long way since the days when few people knew of the Hittites. The few who did know about the Hittites were either scholars or Bible readers. Even though they conquered Babylon and put the Egyptian Pharaoh Rameses to flight, nothing was known of them a century ago except their name (Lehman.9). In fact, to this day we still don't know where exactly the Hittites came from. What we do know is that before the end of the third millennium, there were three known groups of people in Anatolia who spoke the Indo-European language. These were the Luwians to the west, Palaians in the north, and in central or eastern Anatolia the speakers of a language called Nesite (Bryce.10).

But even the origins of these Indo-Europeans are disputed. In fact, a good percentage of Hittite history is still up for debate. Some say that there are indications of an Indo-European invasion, such as the Turkish archeologist named.Ekrem Akurgal. Based on the burial methods used at Alaca Hoyuk, he concludes that the while the style of the objects shows that they were executed by native Anatolians, or Hittite artists, the solar discs and theriomorphic standards represent non-Hattian, Indo-European concepts (Bryce.12). But the fact still remains that there is still no firm evidence an Indo-European invasion of Anatolia.

Whether these Indo-Europeans invaded or peacefully settled in the region slowly through the centuries, they most likely mixed freely with the local population and adopted many elements of their culture. From this we can gather that they were a multi-cultural people that had somewhat different customs and beliefs that through time started to blend together. It is probable that since they were multi-cultural, they had better tolerances of differences. If this is true, we can then propose this as a possible reason as to why the Hittites freely adapted other customs, Gods and rituals from the people that they conquered. This of course would have given the Hittites an edge when it came to dealing with conquered lands. And as ancient clay tablets and texts have taught us, the Hittites were masters of diplomacy. The use of "possibly" in this paragraph is the speculation of the author of this work alone. Speculations that come through other evidence that we do have, and pieced together to make probable assumptions.

Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite kingdom, was founded in the early or middle years of the seventeen-century. The beginnings of this kingdom started out with peaceful trading, and networks of trade routes were established. But at this early point in its history it was not by any means a kingdom, or anything that should be noted as special or of importance. At this point it was just a trading city just like the rest of its neighbors. The main focus of importance at this point in time is Anatolia, the main region that they resided and traded in.

Early in the second millennium, the Assyrians established a number of merchant colonies in Anatolia. The appearance of these colonies was to be the main catapulting force that drove the Hittites into power, as it marked the beginning of a major new era in Anatolian history, the era of written record. Of the twenty-one such settlements the Assyrians have attested in their texts, archeologists have been able to locate only three of these; Hattusa being one of them (Bryce.21).

The colonizing of Anatolia by the Assyrians is of great significance for the Hittite's ascent to power. Before the colonizing by the Assyrians, Anatolia was a group of independent city-states that traded with one another on a "small" scale. The colonizing of Anatolia greatly opened up the horizons for these independent city-states. Consequently, now the peoples of Anatolia not only traded with one another, but it now opened up its borders and traded with foreign kingdoms. Through time, this greatly expanded their economic position, along with the skills of negotiating, which would later help them in the field of international diplomacy. But the greatest thing the Assyrians brought with them to Anatolia was the art of writing. The colonizing by Assyrians in a way was a form of schooling for the city-states. Ultimately, the main goal of the Assyrians "was to translate the emerging economic unity of the Near East into political unity" (http://www.livingcog.org/files/magazines/mayjun1999/article_9905_01.htm).

The period of the Assyrian colonies was arguably by far one of the most enlightened in the history of the ancient Near East. As the clay tablets of transactions would reveal, the merchant system was one of considerable complexity and sophistication. The relationship between these colonies seems to have been remarkably harmonious, promoting constructive and mutually beneficial interactions between the peoples of the ancient Near Eastern world. This would greatly advanced the peoples of Anatolia. But with the standard dogma that all good things come to an end, so too did the Assyrian domination of Anatolia end. The greatly reduced number of tablets that have come to light from this phase may well reflect this (Bryce.42-3).

This new phase the colonies faced was marked by an increasingly turbulent political landscape. This in turn had a great effect on merchants' decision to trade in that area. This started with Pithana, ruler of the city of Kussara, along with his son Anitta. They began the process of military conquest and ambitiously pushed all the way from Zalpa to the far north, to Ullamma in the south (Bryce.39). These were turbulent political times for the peoples of the Anatolian