Informacije

Hetitski relief Boga Sharruma in kralja Tudhaliya

Hetitski relief Boga Sharruma in kralja Tudhaliya


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Tempelj Nayan Tara v Siriji s skrivnostnimi odtisi stopal! (Poštna številka 3799)

Najnovejša knjiga o hetitski civilizaciji vsebuje nove informacije o bogovih hetitov. Obvladovali so dele sodobne Sirije in Turčije.

Ime države SIRIJA izvira iz sanskrtske besede Surya. Čaščenje boga sonca je najbolj priljubljeno v starodavni Siriji. Hetiti, ki so vladali 400 let med letoma 1600 pr.

V panteonu sem identificiral vsaj tri hindujske bogove.

Lev iz templja (slika na wikipediji)

Moje raziskave kažejo, da so častili

(1). Dvanajst Adityas (12 oblik Surya)

(2). Boginja Nayanatara (Ayn Dara v hetitskem jeziku)

(3) .Varuna (Tarunhas)

Jezikoslovje kaže, da nekaj časa začetne črke izpadejo (Nayn Dara = Ayn Dara) in se začetne črke spremenijo (T = V tarunhas = Varuna)

Najstarejša verska knjiga Rig Veda ima vse tri bogove in boginje.

Nayanatara = Ayn Dara

Nayan Tara pomeni Zvezda oči (šarenica). To je priljubljeno hindujsko ime za dekleta. Nayantara saghal, pisatelj, povezan z Jawaharlalom Nehrujem (prvim indijskim premierjem) je en primer. Nayan Tara se je poškodovala in postala Ayn Dara v Siriji. Hindujci častijo boginjo v različnih oblikah. Eno od njih je Oko boginje. Še danes ga častijo v templju Naina Devi v Himachal Pradeshu v Indiji (Naina = Nayana = Oko). Je zelo priljubljen tempelj, ki privablja na tisoče bhaktov z OČEM boginje kot glavnim simbolom. Je ena od 51 Shakti Kendras (51 centrov boginje Parvati).

Tempelj Ayn Dara pri Alepu v Siriji

Tempelj Ain Dara v Siriji pripada 1300 pr. Omenjena je v hebrejski Bibliji. Podoben je Salomonovemu templju (Beseda Solomon je tudi sanskrtska beseda, ki v arabščini pomeni Surya Solar = Surya = Solomon = Sulaiman).

Kipi Nayantara so na voljo v Nepalu.

Medtem ko hindujci častijo isto boginjo Durgo s 51 različnimi imeni v 51 templjih boginj na indijski podcelini, so ljudje na Bližnjem vzhodu častili boginjo kot Ishtar, Ashtarte (za Babilonce), Ashtoreth (za Hebrejce), Douga/Durga (v Tunisu) , Kathayee (v Kartagini) in številna druga imena. Če kdo prebere lastnosti bogov, bi ugotovil, da je to eno in isto. (Douga in Kartagina sta krajevna imena - poimenovana po boginji).

Na Bližnjem vzhodu je 3000 bogov in boginj, kakršne najdemo v hinduizmu. Za hindujca je to enostavno razumeti. Isti Bog Shiva ima tisoč imen po Indiji in enako je z Lordom Vishnujem. Vsak ima v teh krajih eno posebno zgodbo. Za laika je vse videti drugače. Za učenjaka je to isti Bog z različnimi imeni. Enako je v zahodni Aziji.

Tempelj Nayana Devi (nainadevi) v Himachal Pradeshu.

Obstaja nekaj dokazov za zaključek, da je bila Ayn Dara hindujski tempelj.

1. Veliki kipi leva so izkopani lev je vahana (hrib) hindujske boginje Durga še danes vsi templji nosijo boginjo na kipu leva med hindujskimi festivali v Indiji.

  1. Drugi dokaz je odkritje masivnih odtisov stopal pred templjem. Čaščenje odtisov stopal in sandalov sem že razložil v svojih dveh raziskovalnih člankih (za povezave glej spodaj).

3. Z enim korakom stopite v tempelj, ki je desna noga Hindujci naj bi najprej postavili desno nogo v hišo, novopečene hindujske neveste morajo uporabiti desno nogo, ko pride v hišo.

4. Hindujci še danes uporabljajo odtise stopal, da pokažejo, da bog prihaja v hišo. Vsi hindujci narišejo odtise stopal Gospoda Krišne na rojstni dan Krišne (Janmashtami) od vrat do molitvene sobe v hiši.

5. Celotna regija Sirije in Turčije je bila 1000 let pod hindujsko oblastjo pod Kasiti, Hetiti in Mitanni. Svet je mitonsko civilizacijo priznal kot hindujsko civilizacijo zaradi glinenih plošč, na katerih so prikazani Rig vedski bogovi in ​​sanskrtsko število ter sanskrtska imena Dasaratha (tushratta), Pratardhana, Sathya Sila = hattusa = hattusili

(Preberite moj članek o Bogazkoyu, na voljo je v vseh enciklopedijah.)

6. Hindujska dekleta so bila poročena z egipčanskimi faraoni (preberite Amarnine črke, Dasaratha črke Kikkulijevega konja, ki je na voljo v vseh enciklopedijah in v mojih člankih)

7. Hindujci imajo tisoč imen/Sahasranama za vse bogove. Najbolj znani so Vishnu, Lalita in Shiva. Hetiti so uporabljali tudi besedo TISUČ BOGOV HATTI. Hetiti so bili politeisti. (hatti = Hetit = Kshatri/ya).

Hetitska vera je amalgam prepričanj, kultov in tradicij, ki izvirajo iz različnih regij in kultur.

12 Adityas z lokacije Wikipedia Yazilikaya, Turčija

Glavno božanstvo hetitskega kraljestva je bil bog nevihte TARHUNA. To je vedski Bog Varuna, spremenjen kot Taruna. Veljal je za kralja vseh bogov. Bil je nebeški Bog, ki je prinesel nevihte, zato sta bila njegova lastnost grom in strela. Izgleda podobno kot vedski Bog INDRA. Toda tudi v Indiji, ko potrebujejo dež, delajo Varuna Japa (Molitve k Varuni) in ne Indri. Njegova žena je bila boginja sonca Arinna. Podobno je Gayatri (boginji sonca). Poleg teh bogov so se hetitskemu panteonu pridružila lokalna in regionalna božanstva in nastala so nova imena in nove zgodbe.

Tako kot hindujci so Hetiti sonce, luno in zvezde imeli za bogove. Verjeli so v astrologijo, napovedi in napovedi.

Dwadasa (12) Adityas na Yazilikaya

Dwadasa pomeni Dvanajst Aditya pomeni Sonce. Dvanajst Adityj predstavlja 12 mesecev Sončeve orbite. So vedska božanstva. 12 Adityjev je bilo izklesanih na ogromnih skalah templja Yazilikaya (prosim poglejte sliko).

Moji stari članki:

Hindujska čudesa v muslimanski državi!

Sandale- objavljeno 24. aprila 2013

Objavil Tamil in Vede 8. aprila 2017


PORTFOLIO

Pregled zbornice A. Komora A, skalni relief, ki prikazuje procesijo moških božanstev. Komora A, dva moška bika stojita med moškimi bogovi na hieroglifskem simbolu zemlje in podpirata nebo. Leva stena komore A z upodobitvijo moških bogov. Komora A, glavni prizor sredi komore, kjer se srečata Teshup in Hepat, in boginje v procesiji na desni steni. Komora A, boginje v procesiji. Komora A, glavni prizor, ki prikazuje (od leve proti desni) Boga Kumarbija (glavnega boga Hurrijev), boga vremena in nevihte Teshubo, boginjo zemlje Hepat, Sharumma (sin Teshuba & amp Hepat) in Alanzu (hči Teshup Hepat) . Dvorana A, relief, ki prikazuje ustanovitelja svetišča, kralja Tudhaliya IV., Ki stoji na dveh gorah.

Vstop v dvorano B z reliefom krilatega demona z glavo leva. Komora B. Ozka galerija naj bi bila spominska kapelica Tudhaliya IV., Ki jo je posvetil njegov sin Suppiluliuma II. Komora B, niše so bile verjetno uporabljene za daritve. Zahodna stena komore B, ki prikazuje dvanajst bogov podzemlja. Vzhodna stena komore B z upodobitvijo Negala, Boga meča in Boga podzemlja. Dvorana B, kartuša z imenom in naslovom kralja Tudhaliya IV. Vzhodna stena komore B v niši prikazuje Boga Sharrumo (sina Boga groma Teshuba), ki objema kralja Tudhaliya IV. Bog ima levo roko nad kraljevimi rameni, medtem ko drži kraljevo desno zapestje. Bog nosi kratko tuniko in ima zašiljene čevlje. Kralj nosi dolg plašč, nosi meč in lituus. Zahodna stena komore B, ki prikazuje dvanajst bogov podzemlja.


Hetiti in Egejski svet

Prva stvar, ki se je treba zavedati o Hetitih, je, da niso Hetiti. Žalostno dejstvo je, da smo obtičali z napačno terminologijo, vendar je zdaj prepozno, da bi kaj naredili glede tega. Do te nesrečne situacije je prišlo kot posledica številnih odbitkov prejšnjih učenjakov, ki so se takrat, čeprav povsem razumni, izkazali za napačne. Bronasta doba civilizacije Srednje Anatolije (ali Turčije), ki jo danes imenujemo Hetitska, je popolnoma izginila nekje okoli leta 1200 pr. Še vedno ne vemo natančno, kaj se je zgodilo, čeprav sodobnih teorij ne manjka, a da je bila uničena, o tem ni dvoma. Glavno mesto je bilo požgano in je več sto let ostalo nenaseljeno. Iz razbitin bronaste dobe je nastala skupina majhnih neodvisnih držav, ki so ohranile nekatere značilnosti in enega od jezikov svojih pozabljenih prednikov, vendar so na tem območju prevladovale nove etnične skupine, predvsem Aramejci. Največ teh držav je bilo v gorovju Taurus in Amanus na jugovzhodu Turčije in v severni Siriji. To je območje asirskih kraljev znano kot “HattiLand, ” in to terminologijo najdemo tudi v Stari zavezi, kjer srečujemo takšne Hetite, kot sta nesrečni Urija in njegova lepa žena, Bathsheba.

Bronastodobna civilizacija Srednje Anatolije je brez sledu izginila s strani zgodovine, vendar so po zaslugi Asircev in njihovih hebrejskih sodobnikov Hetiti iz železne dobe preživeli, da bi vstopili v zahodno zgodovinsko tradicijo. Ko so začeli raziskovati najdišča v severni Siriji in na jugu Turčije, je bilo za njih povsem naravno uporabiti ime Hetit, kar pomeni prebivalce dežele Hatti. Takšna terminologija je pravilna: ti ljudje so pravi Hetiti, Hittimi Stare zaveze.

Splošen pogled na območje Boghazköy, gledano proti severovzhodu skozi Levja vrata.

Leta 1906 sta asiriolog Hugo Winckler, ki je predstavljal Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, in Theodore Macridy Bey iz Osmanskega muzeja v Istanbulu odprla izkopavanja na mestu v bližini turškega vasi Boghazkoy (“Gorge Village ”), danes sodobnega Boghazkaleja. Leta 1907 se jim je pridružil arhitekt Otto Puchstein, ki je delal v imenu Nemškega arheološkega inštituta, izkopavanja pa so se nadaljevala v letih 1911 in 1912, dokler jih ni prekinila prva svetovna vojna. Nemci so se na to mesto vrnili leta 1931 in z dolgo prekinitvijo, ki jo je povzročila druga svetovna vojna, so tam že od nekdaj in bodo še nekaj časa. Nedavna izkopavanja so potekala pod splošnim vodstvom Kurta Bittela.

Mesto Boghazkoy je bilo evropskim učenjakom znano že od leta 1834, ko ga je obiskal Charles Texier in objavil svoj opis in risbe obstoječih vidnih ruševin, tako v Boghazkoyu kot v bližnji Yazilikaya (“Inscribed Rock ”). Načrt mesta je pripravil Carl Humann leta 1883. Leta 1893-1894 je francoski arheolog Ernest Chantre raziskal mesto in našel celo nekaj glinenih plošč, napisanih s klinastimi črkami. To je pritegnilo pozornost Wincklerja, ki je takrat delal na podobnih besedilih Amarna Letters, najdenih v Egiptu leta 1887. Winckler je upal, da bo podobne tablice našel v Boghazkoyu, zato ga v prvi sezoni leta 1906, ko sta delala na zahodnem pobočju citadele ali Buyukkale, sta z Macridy Beyom izkopala približno 2500 tablet ali drobcev plošč. Izraz “ izkopan ” uporabljam v zelo splošnem pomenu, saj so ga z lopato vlekli iz tal in ga odpeljali v košare. Na srečo so bile hetitske tablice pečene za sodobno uporabo, sicer bi jih malo preživelo. Do leta 1912 je grof dosegel približno 10.000 kosov in skoraj vsi so bili poslani v Staatliche Museen v Berlinu, kjer še vedno ostajajo.

Naključje je povedano, da so bile mnoge prve tablice, ki so bile najdene, napisane v akadskem jeziku, takratnem lingua franca, jeziku, s katerim je bil Winckler doma. Odkrili so kraljestvo, ki se nahaja na območju, imenovanem “Hatti-Land, ” z istim imenom kot poznejša asirska besedila, v tem kraljestvu vladajo kralji z imeni, kot so Hattushili, Tudhaliya in Shuppiluliuma, kralji, ki so stali na enakovredni in bili v diplomatskih odnosih s kraljestvi Asirije, Babilonije in Egipta sredi drugega tisočletja pr. Winckler je napovedal odkritje glavnega mesta Hetitov, zato ga poznamo še danes. Starodavno ime mesta se je izkazalo za Hattusha. Winckler je v teh besedilih našel tudi skupino ljudi, imenovano Hur-ri ali Har-ri (znake je bilo mogoče brati tako ali drugače), ki jih vodijo kralji z indo-arijskimi zvenečimi imeni, kot je Tushratta. Winckler se je za svojo in našo veliko nesrečo odločil za slednje branje, saj so Harije seveda kmalu identificirali z arijsko moško raso, kar je zmeda, ki obstaja še danes, čeprav je že dolgo očitno, da Hurri nimajo ničesar storiti s katero koli indoevropsko jezikovno skupino.

Mikenska keramika iz Efeza (štirinajsto stoletje pr. N. Št.), Razstavljena v Efeškem muzeju v mestu Seldžuk. Lončarstvo izvira iz groba, ki so ga po naključju našli pri izravnavi za parkirišče na hribu Ayasoluk, v bližini bazilike svetega Janeza.

Večina plošč, najdenih v teh zgodnjih izkopavanjih in v vseh naslednjih, ni bila napisana v akadijščini, ampak v nekem doslej neznanem jeziku. Prepisana besedila so bila objavljena, vendar jih ni bilo mogoče prebrati. Razmere so bile podobne tistim, ki danes obstajajo med Linearnim B in Linearnim A. Leta 1915 je češki učenjak Bedrich Hrozny objavil članek, v katerem je trdil, da ta jezik bere kot zgodnjo obliko indoevropskega jezika. Njegovo dešifriranje je bilo sprejeto z velikim skepticizmom, vendar se je izkazalo za pravilno. Zdaj vemo, da so bili ti ljudje, ki jih imenujemo Hetiti, Indoevropejci, ki so pripadali tako imenovani anatolski veji indoevropske jezikovne družine. Podobnost med hetitskimi in drugimi indoevropskimi jeziki je bila hitro ugotovljena.

Zdaj se domneva, da so Hetiti prišli v Anatolijo nekje v zadnjem delu tretjega tisočletja pred našim štetjem, čeprav natančno, kdaj in od kod so vprašanja, na katera še vedno ne moremo odgovoriti. Domnevno je prihod Hetitov povezan s tisto splošno selitvijo, ki sega v leta okoli c. 2200 pr.n.št., ki je na balkanski polotok pripeljala tudi prva grško govoreča ljudstva (ali protogrke), vendar povezava ostaja zgolj hipotetična in na celotnem vprašanju zgodnje indoevropske zgodovine je treba še veliko delati. Trenutno je zgodovinsko jezikoslovje edino preostalo področje, v katerem še vedno prevladujejo difuzionistične teorije devetnajstega stoletja.

Dešifriranje in prevod samih hetetskih besedil sta potrdili zgodovinsko sliko, ki izhaja iz akadskih pisem in pogodb. Hetiti so bili v obdobju 1700-1200 pr. N. Št. Res velika svetovna sila, vendar niso bili Hetiti. To pomeni, da se niso imenovali Hetiti. Sami sebe imenujejo Nešijci, “ prebivalci mesta Nesha, ” in njihov jezik nešijan. Toda toliko za to, da jih je znanstveni svet že označil za Hetite, in hočeš ali ne, Hetiti bodo za vedno ostali. Prav tako je dobro, ker izraz Neshian opozarja le na naše nepoznavanje tega zgodnjega obdobja, za katerega sploh ne vemo, kje naj se nahaja Neša.

Z dešifriranjem hetitskega jezika so znanstveniki končno lahko cenili dokaze enega od amarnskih pisem, besedila, ki je bilo dolgo znano, a nikomur ni koristilo, ker ga nihče ni mogel prebrati. Izkazalo se je, da je to pismo eno od dveh Amarninih pisem, ki dejansko nista napisana v akadščini, ampak v hetejščini. Predstavljajo korespondenco s kraljestvom Arzawa, deželo, tako oddaljeno, da njeni pisarji niso mogli brati in pisati akadsko. V zadevnem pismu je pisar iz Arzawe nagovoril svojega egiptovskega kolega:

Naj bog Nabu, bog modrosti ” in bog sonca hilamare prijazno zaščitijo pisarja, ki naj prebere to tablico (kralju), naj vas zaščitno držijo za roke. Prosim, pišite mi, 0 pisar. Na koncu (črke) vnesite tudi svoje ime. Napiši vse tablice, ki mi jih bodo prinesli v Neshian!

Dokazi so bili ves čas: tisto, čemur pravimo Hetiti, bi morali imenovati Neshian, dokazi za to pa so bili na voljo od leta 1887.

Relief v Karabelu, narejen s strani Charlesa Texierja, iz opisa de l ’ Asie Mineure, 2 zv., Pariz 1839, 1849, letn. 2, pl. 132. Fotografija iz knjižnice Marquand, Univerza Princeton.

Isti spomenik, kot je videti danes. To je skalni relief, ki je zdaj znan kot Karabel A.

Ob tem se postavlja vprašanje: kaj pomeni ime “Hatti-Land, ” od kod prihaja? Na srečo lahko zdaj odgovorimo na to vprašanje. Pred prihodom Hetitov je območje osrednje Anatolije nadzorovala neindoevropska skupina, ki je svoj jezik imenovala Hattic, njihovo deželo Hatti-Land in njihovo glavno mesto Hattush. Domnevno naj bi te ljudi identificirali s kraljevimi grobovi na mestu Alaca Huyuk, severno od Boghazkoya, vendar to ni gotovo. Vse, kar lahko rečemo, je, da so močno vplivali na poznejše hetitske prebivalce tega območja, ki so si od njih veliko izposodili, vključno z imenom dežele in njihovega glavnega mesta in ki so na našo veliko srečo ohranili Hattska besedila v svojih arhivi. V času stare asirske trgovske kolonije ali karuma v Boghazkoyu smo ugotovili, da je to mesto že znano kot Hattush, saj se tam najdene stare asirske plošče nanašajo na karum Hattush. Nekje okoli c. 1650 pr. mesto so zavzeli Hetiti. Vzeli so ime Hattush in dodali hetitski nominativni konec, zaradi česar je postal Hattushas. Hetitski kralj, ki mu je bilo domače ime Labarnash, je prevzel prestolno ime Hattushili, in to ime Hattusha. ” Ime Labarnash je preživelo in postalo kraljevski naslov vseh kasnejših vladarjev, prav tako ime Cezar.

Hatti, Akadianci in Hetiti so šele začetek. Leta 1919 je švicarski učenjak Emil Forrer objavil, da je v hetitskem arhivu opredelil najmanj osem jezikov. Zdaj vidite, zakaj so pri proučevanju Hetitov prevladovali filologi, kajti z nadaljnjimi raziskavami se je izkazalo, da je povsem pravilen. Leta 1924 je Forrer poskušal dodati deveto, ahejsko grščino. V liku Alakshanduša, princa Wilushe, je Forrer poskušal najti Alexandra iz (W) iliosa, sina Prijama in ugrabitelja Helene. Moški Ahhiyawe v hetitskih besedilih so bili seveda Homerjevi Ahajci, Achaioi (*Achaiwoi), ki so na nek način povezani z deželo Aheja (*Achaiwia). V Attarsiyi, možu Ahhiya (wa), je Forrer našel Atreja, v Tawagalawi iz Ahhiyawe pa je Forrerju uspelo identificirati *Etewoklewe, bolj znano kot Eteokles.

Hetitski skalni relief na gori Sipylos, blizu Manise, iz Umetnosti Hetitov, ki ga je izdal Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Prepričan sem, da so vsi seznanjeni s tem prvim poglavjem zgodovine Denys Page ’s in homerski Iliada, v katerem Page predstavlja šport Forrerjevega dela. Kot bo razvidno iz naslednjega, tudi sam ne morem sprejeti osnove Forrerjeve teorije, vendar za razliko od Page -a Forrerja spoštujem kot učenjaka. Forrer je več kot Ahhiyawa, v anatolijskih študijah skorajda ni naslednjega razvoja, ki se ne bi vrnil k nečemu, kar je prvič predlagal.

Tukaj želim poudariti paradoks, da je Forrer v resnici le deloval po ustaljeni tradiciji, saj so od časa starih Grkov dalje na hetitsko zgodovino in na hetejske spomenike gledali kot na nekaj drugega kot na Hetite. Znanstveniki so le redko bili zadovoljni, če so stvari gledali izključno v anatolijskem smislu. To seveda velja tudi za Trojo ali, natančneje, za tisto, kar so našli pri Hissarliku. Poskusi, da bi hetitska besedila in izkopavanja v Hissarliku dokazovali zgodovinsko resničnost Homerjeve trojanske vojne, so se izkazali za še bolj iluzijo kot za Forrerjeve#Ahajce.

Ko so se Grki začeli zanimati za notranjost Anatolije, so Hetiti že zdavnaj izginili. Herodot nam pripoveduje čudovite zgodbe o Lidijcih in Frigijcih. Prišel je iz karijskega mesta Halicarnassus in nam pove o zgodnjem karijskem prebivalstvu Mileta, skupine, ki jo je že omenil Homer. Toda o Hetitih niti besede. Pausanias je prišel tudi iz Male Azije, verjetno iz Smirne, in tudi on je rudnik informacij o Joniji in njeni okolici, za Hetite pa je sladka nevednost.

Kako je to mogoče, bi se lahko vprašali, kaj je s tisto mikensko keramiko v Miletu in Efezu, mesti, ki sta v hetitskih besedilih verjetno omenjeni kot Millawanda in Apasas? Zdaj beremo o množici mikenskega lončarstva v Miletu in celo o mikenskih opečnih strukturah in mikenski tovarni opek, da ne govorimo o mikenskem utrdbenem zidu. Gotovo mora to pomeniti, da so Mikeni prišli v neposreden stik s Hetiti in da bi bilo smiselno pričakovati sklicevanje nanje v hetitskih besedilih. Naj vzamem dva primerno konkretna primera možnega stika: dva hetetska spomenika, omenjena v grški literaturi. Prvi je velik kamninski relief v Karabelu pri sodobni Kemal Pasi, vzhodno od Smirne. Prikazuje hetitskega kralja, ki koraka desno, z lokom v desni roki in z iztegnjeno levo roko, ki drži kopje. Iz skalno izrezanega hieroglifskega napisa lahko to prepoznamo kot upodobitev hetitskega kralja Tudhalije, verjetno Tudhalije IV. Zdaj je Herodot posnel ta spomenik, ki ga je podrobno opisal v 106. poglavju druge knjige, kot del svojega poročila o egipčanskem faraonu Sesostrisu:

Splošni pogled na Yazilikaya, ki ga je narisal Charles Texier leta 1834. Iz njegovega opisa de l ’Asie Mineure, letn. 1, pl. 72. Fotografija iz knjižnice Marquand, Univerza Princeton.

Stebri, ki jih je Sesostris postavil v osvojenih državah, so večinoma izginili, toda v tistem delu Sirije, ki se imenuje Palestina, sem jih videl, da še stojijo. … Tudi v Joniji sta dve upodobitvi tega princa vklesani na skale, ena na cesti iz Efeza v Fokejo, druga med Sardisom in Smirno. V vsakem primeru je to figura moškega, štirih komolcev in razpona visokega, s sulico v desni roki in z lokom v levi, preostanek njegovega kostuma je prav tako napol egiptovski, napol etiopski. Na prsih od rame do rame je napis v egipčanskih hieroglifih, ki pravi: “Z lastnimi rameni sem osvojil to deželo. ” Osvajalec ne pove, kdo je in od kod prihaja, čeprav drugje zapisuje Sesostris ta dejstva. Zato so si nekateri, ki so videli te oblike, predstavljali, da gre za Memnonove figure, ki pa tako zelo mislijo, da zelo odstopajo od resnice. (Prav tako Herodot.)

Čeprav ima Herodot obrnjene roke in predmete, ni dvoma o identifikaciji njegovega opisa z reliefom Karabel. To je Texier že priznal v svoji objavi spomenika leta 1849. Kiepert, ki je leta 1843 obiskal hetetski spomenik, je to identifikacijo tudi sprejel, vendar nihče, od Herodota dalje, ni domneval, da bi to lahko imelo kaj skupnega s Hetiti, o Hetitih niso vedeli nič. Takšni Hetiti, ki so bili omenjeni v ohranjeni zgodovinski literaturi, so se očitno nahajali v povsem drugem delu sveta. Popotniki v devetnajstem stoletju so spoznali, da spomenik ne more biti egipčanski, sumili so, da je perzijski ali morda celo pričevanje o skitski osvojitvi Azije.

Spletno mesto Yazizikaya, kot je videti danes. To je pogled na galerijo A, kot je prikazano v priloženem načrtu. Osrednji prizor prikazuje božanstva št. 42 in 43, Teshub in Hepat.

No, to je samo Herodot, ki je pisal sredi petega stoletja pr. Moj drugi primer prihaja iz Homerja. Zdaj bi moral Homer, če kdo, vedeti nekaj o Hetitih in res je bilo vloženih veliko truda, da bi jih našli v Iliada ali Odiseja, bodisi pod svojim imenom bodisi prikrita kot Amazonke. Konec koncev Homer piše o anatolskih zadevah, gotovo se mora zavedati obstoja velike bronaste dobe v Anatoliji. Homer sicer daje “Trojanski katalog ” s seznamom zaveznikov Priama, vendar ni nobene omembe Hetitov, niti naj nas to ne preseneti, saj v Troji nikdar ni bilo najdenih Hetitov. Homer govori o Frigijcih, a problem, ki je motil Strabona in je še danes v zadrego za večino homerskih učenjakov. Srečanje med Priamom in Ahilom v 24. knjigi Iliada, navdihnila Homerja, da pomisli na Niobe, ki je tako kot Priam utrpela tudi izgubo vseh svojih otrok. Toliko je jokala zaradi njihove izgube, da je postala kamnita:

In zdaj nekje med skalami, na samotnih gorah, na Sipylosu, kjer so, pravijo moški, počepi boginj, tudi nimf, ki se hitro plešejo v plesu o Aheloju, tam pa je, čeprav kamen, zalegla njene težave, ki so jih poslali bogovi. (XXIV: 614-617)

Čeprav so te vrstice zavrnili Aristofan iz Bizanta in Aristarh, je kamnita figura jokajoče Niobe na gori Sipilos dobro znana v grški literaturi in jo omenjajo Sofokle (Antigona, 825f.), Pavzanij (1.21.3 3.22.4 7.2 .7) v fragmentarni Niobi iz Eshila, v Kvintu Smirnejskem (I. 293-306) in celo pri Nonnu (2. 160). Vse to je leta 1882 preučil W. M. Ramsay, ki je prišel do zaključka, da je kamnito podobo jokajoče Niobe mogoče identificirati s kamnitim reljefom na gori Sipylos pri Akpunarju v regiji Manisa. Ramsay je imel dvome:

Splošni načrt Yazilikaye iz Umetnosti Hetitov, ki ga je objavil Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Stavbe, prikazane pred skalnim svetiščem, so skoraj popolnoma izginile.

Poleg tega nikoli nisem mogel videti jokati. Dvakrat sem šel sredi močnega dežja, ki je trajal že nekaj časa, vendar nisem našel niti kapljice vode, ki teče po postavi: voda pade s sprednje strani niše čisto od figure in se ne dotika niti njenih kolen .

To se zgodi, če klasiko vzamete preveč dobesedno. Podoba revnega starega Ramsayja, ki stoji tam v dežju, je dovolj, da me podpre v mesecih brezplodnih raziskav.

Grki so identificirali lik Niobe, zdaj pa vemo, da je to Hetejka, ki predstavlja neko hetetsko boginjo. O reliefu še vedno vemo zelo malo, vendar sta zaradi ikonografije in sloga rezbarjenja nedvomno hetejska.

Prisotnost Grkov v Anadoliji je na sodobne učenjake naredila tak vtis, da je bilo, dokler se ni dokazalo drugače, sprva skoraj vse na nek način povezano z Grki ali z dogodki in ljudmi, o katerih so razpravljali grški avtorji. Skalno svetišče v Yazilikaya je še en dober primer. Charles Texier je spletno mesto obiskal leta 1834, njegov račun in risbe so bile objavljene pet let kasneje. Odločil se je, da dve procesiji številk v Yazilikayi predstavljata Amazonke in Paflagonce. Drugi so se odločili, da celoten prizor predstavlja podpis pogodbe med Alyattesom in Kyaxaresom po sončnem mrku, kot je napovedal Thales, predvidoma po mrku 28. maja 585 pr. Osrednji moški in ženski liki sta bili identificirani kot Astyages, Kyaxaresin sin, in Aryenis, hči Alyattesa, prizor pa je bil njuna kraljeva poroka, kot je opisal Herodot (1,74). Kar se tiče ruševin v samem Boghazkoyu, so jih identificirali s Pterijo, krajem bitke med Krezom in Kirom, Herodot (1.76) pa jih je opisal kot “ najmočnejši položaj v celotni državi. ”

Zdaj vemo, da je Yazilikaya hetetsko versko svetišče, ki ga je okoli sredine 13. stoletja pred našim štetjem zgradil hetetski kralj Tudhaliya IV. Tam je izklesal svojo podobo in se prikazal v obleki hetitskega kralja s kraljevskim osebjem Iituus, ki so ga nosili tudi etruščanski sodniki. Prepoznajo ga po napisu, tako kot vse osrednje figure v Yazilikayi. Osrednja skupina ne prikazuje lidijske princese in medijskega princa, ampak Teshupa, the bog nevihte njegova žena, njihov sin Hepat, Sharruma in njihovi hišni biki, Hurri in Sheri (“night ” in “day ”). Napisi prikazujejo velik vpliv hurijske vere na hetitsko civilizacijo za vse the tukaj prikazana božanstva imajo hurijska imena in so glavna božanstva hurijskega panteona. Natančen namen Yazilikaye še vedno ni povsem jasen, vendar naj bi imel to nekaj opraviti s praznovanjem letnega novoletnega festivala#8217.

Nočem omalovaževati prizadevanj popotnikov iz devetnajstega stoletja, ki jim dolgujemo veliko

njihovo pridno in inteligentno beleženje starodavnih spomenikov. Bistvo je, da so uporabili tisto, kar je bilo pri roki. Že stari Grki so se identificirali na podlagi tega, kar so vedeli iz preživele zgodovine in tradicij, evropski popotniki pa so jim le sledili. Nihče, starodaven ali sodoben, ni sumil na Hetite, ker nihče ni vedel nič o Hetitih. V ohranjenih grških literarnih tradicijah ni sledu ničesar, kar bi lahko kazalo na grško poznavanje hetitske civilizacije iz bronaste dobe Anatolije.

Glede na to zgodovinsko ozadje moramo oceniti možnost, da so bili mikenski Ahejci v hetitski interesni sferi. Obstaja več Hetitov. besedila, ki omenjajo Ahhiyavo, čeprav je večina ohranjenih kot delčki nekoč dolgih skladb, ki se raztezajo na več ploščah. Najbolj podrobno izdajo teh dokumentov je objavil Ferdinand Sommer kot Die Ahhijava-Urkunden v Berlinu, 1932. Sommer je vprašal, kaj je zame najpomembnejše vprašanje: Kaj nam ta besedila povedo o deželi Ahhiyawa? Zlasti obstaja kaj, kar bi nakazovalo obstoj nečesa drugega kot lokalne anatolske sile? Sommerjev odgovor je bil odločen NE in nič napisanega v zadnjih štiridesetih letih ni spremenilo tega stališča. Znanstveniki so izrazili začudenje nad dejstvom, da kralja Ahhiyawe dejansko najdemo na ozemlju Anatolije. Pa bi odgovoril, kje drugje bi moral biti! V tem besedilu ga najdemo tam, kjer mu je mesto: ne stoji ob Levjih vratih v Mikenah, ampak v družbi anatolijskih knezov v zahodni Anatoliji.

V slavnem pismu Tawagalawa (KUB XIV 3) se hetitski kralj sklicuje na pošiljanje visokega veleposlanika, enega Dabala-Dattasha, k kralju Ahhiyawe:

Zdaj Dabala-Dattash ni človek nizkega ranga od moje mladosti, ko je vozil voz (z mano) kot sodni uradnik, tudi z vašim bratom in s Tawagalawo se je vozil [na vozu].

Kot so vsi spoznali, ta odlomek vzpostavlja tesne osebne odnose, ki so morali obstajati med kraljestvom Ahhiyawa in Hetiti.

We are asked to believe that an oral tradition that could remember the extent of the kingdom of Polypoites and Leonteus, that it consisted of the cities of Argissa, Gyrtone, Orthe, Elone and Oloosson (places that no­body in the Classical period had even heard of), and that it contributed 40 ships that this oral tradition remembered not only the names of places, often places whose very location was unknown to later Greek authors, but also their appropriate epithets as well, so that Pyrasos is “flowery,” Arne is “many vined,” that Enispe is “windy,” Orchomenos “rich in sheep,” that Messe (in Laconia) had many doves and Mantinea is “desirable” it could remember all this but somehow managed to forget completely the very existence of the major Bronze Age power in Anatolia, the power that exercised nominal control over most of western Anatolia and whose armies were, throughout the 13th cenutry B.C., con­ducting almost continual military campaigns in the West, against the kingdoms of Arzawa and Assuwa. Yet the king of Ahhiyawa, who engages in diplomatic correspondence with the Hittite king, is supposed to be none other than the ruler of Mycenaean Greece he re­sides at Mycenae, but his brother actually goes chariot riding with Arnuwanda, the king of the Hittites, To quote the Duke of Wellington: “If you believe that, Sir, you can believe any­thing.”

One final question: is there any reason to believe that the Hittites would have, let alone must have, come into contact with Mycenaean civilization. Here we are dealing with what is really a problem in historical perspective. Because we continually see things from the Greek point of view, we tend to assume that Greece was always the center of events and that everyone else knew of and was concerned with Greek affairs. Yet, seen in proper histor­ical perspective, Greece was, in all periods prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great, a remote and peripheral area, on the very fringes of the civilized world,

The Hittites had no interest in Myce­naean Greece. Why should they have con­cerned themselves with a primitive, rather barbaric and mostly illiterate land, far beyond a sea they would never have dreamed of crossing? Mycenaean pottery has indeed been found on the Ionian and Carian coasts, but we must be very careful in assessing the signifi­cance of what are still but a few chance finds, apart from Miletus and now lasos. Much work remains to be done, if only it were possible to do it. The Hittites themselves had very little interest in the west coast. They were not a sea power and seem to have had little or no concern with Aegean or Mediterranean trade. Hittite interests looked to the east and to the south, to Syria and the kingdom of Mitanni, to Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt. Here was to be found the real center of the civilized world in the second millennium B.C. The Mycenaeans were about as much a part of this as England was a part of the world of Pericles. We often tend to view the transmission of ideas as a movement from west to east but, in broad historical terms the actual movement of civil­ization has been, for all periods prior to the Renaissance, a movement from east to west (ex Oriente lux).

This lack of perspective is a sin of mod­ern historiography the ancients knew better. The first great conflict between East and West came at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. For the wars between Greece and Persia we are wholly dependent upon Greek sources, for the Old Persian texts never mention this con­frontation, though they do refer to “the Greeks who dwell beyond the sea.” It took Persia some time to realize that she was now dealing with something other than the usual run of barbarian, to be frightened off with an appro­priate show of force. For me the key passage comes in Herodotus’ description of the re­action of Cyrus, upon learning of the burning of Sardis at the hands of the Ionians and Athenians (V. 106):

It is said that he no sooner understood what had happened than, laying aside all thought concerning the Ionians, who would, he was sure, pay dear for their rebellion, he asked, “Who the Athenians were?”

for Darius had never heard of them and, lest he forget, having once been told, he bade one of his servants every day, when his dinner was spread, three times repeat these words to him—”Master, remember the Athenians.”

The Hittites had no cause to remember the Achaeans they had never even heard of them.


The Kingdom of the Hittites. New Edition

1998 saw the original publication of Trevor Bryce’s (henceforth B) The Kingdom of the Hittites (henceforth κἠ, reviewed by the Hittitologist Gary Beckman for BMCR the next year (BMCR 1999.04.18). KH immediately became indispensable, the only up-to-date narrative history in English of Bronze Age Anatolia’s once-forgotten empire, a great power contemporary with Pharaonic Egypt, Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece, the Hurrians of Mitanni, and the Assyrians and Babylonians of Mesopotamia. Now Oxford University Press has brought out a “New Edition” of this acclaimed and useful book (henceforth κηνἐ, expressly targeting students of the Near East, Classics, and Egyptology scholars of Aegean prehistory should also be among its readers. Completely re-typeset, KHNE retains KH’s division into 14 chapters plus a “Final Comment” and two appendices on chronology and sources. They trace the political and military fortunes of the polyglot Hittites from their first appearance (as Nesites) in the early second millennium BCE and the reigns of early kings Labarna, Hattusili I, and Mursili I, to the breakdown of Hittite hegemony during Tudhaliya IV’s reign in the waning years of the 13th century.

Is KHNE worth buying if you or your institution’s library already own KH? Yes, because archaeological research and textual scholarship are constantly increasing and modifying our knowledge of the Hittites and their world, so that any comprehensive survey more than 20 years old is basically obsolete. KHNE’s back cover states that all the chapters have been “revised and partly rewritten” to include “recent discoveries,” textual and archaeological, and “reassessments and updates” of material already known, producing an expanded bibliography and notes, and that “maps have been redrawn, and a number of illustrations added.” B himself confirms (preface, xvii-xix) the need to revise a text first submitted for publication in June 1996, noting new additions to the written record of Hittite diplomatic and military activity, in particular Hattusili I’s letter to Tuniya (also known as Tunip-Teshub) king of Tikunani, and the Hatip and Karabel inscriptions, new archaeological discoveries at Hattusha, as well as errors and omissions noted in KH.

KHNE is some 90 pages longer than its predecessor because of the numerous changes and expansions in response to criticisms regarding various philological and chronological points. 1 They affect the running text, the notes, and the bibliography (xviii: “almost 300 new items”). Many of the translations of primary sources on which the narrative depends have been improved and updated. The spelling of many proper names has been corrected to reflect current scholarship on Hittite phonology. 2 The orthography of the maps (22, 43, 53, 162) has also been corrected newly added are a map of the Syrian principalities in the 14th century and more place-names. Sprinkled through the text are eight black-and-white plates, of which more anon. The principal innovations of substance are the following. B has introduced a new section (78-81) discussing the letter of Hattusili I to Tuniya mentioned above, evidence that Old Kingdom Hittites advanced further into Mesopotamia than hitherto supposed. The presentation of theories about tin sources has been revised to allow more space for the views of Turkish scholars (9, 82). The potential significance of the word Tawananna — a woman’s proper name, royal title, or both? — has been expanded (88, 90-94, cf. 159). Completely new are the paragraphs about a silver bowl, inscribed with Luwian hieroglyphs referring to king Tudhaliya I/II and Taruisa (Troy?), and Tudhaliya’s campaigns against the Assuwan Confederacy (125-26). King Tudhaliya III’s problems with the Kaska peoples feature in a new section (145-46). The consequences of the murder of Tudhaliya by Suppiluliuma, and the latter’s relations with Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten and eventual fate occupy another new passage (154-56) enlivened by an extra quotation from Mursili II’s First Plague Prayer. B has revised and expanded his account of Suppiluliuma’s dealings with the Egyptians and with Sharrupshi of Nuhashshi (166-67) he also relates the fortunes of Rib-Hadda and Aziru, leaders of the unquiet land of Amurru, a bone of contention between Egyptians and Hatti (172-75) at greater length. Sorting out the documentation for Mursili I and II and Danuhepa/Tanuhepa (one woman, or two?) results in another expansion of the text (211), as does the enlarged discussion of Urhi-Teshub’s exile in Egypt and Phoenicia, to the great annoyance of the new king Hattusili (280-81).

For the last decades of the Hittite empire, KHNE offers new material (313-14) on Tudhaliya IV’s relations with the Assyrian king Shalmaneser, much of it formerly in a chapter dealing with Hattusili III (cf. KH 304). Kurunta’s hypothetical coup against Tudhaliya IV receives more extended treatment (319-20), as does the significance, in the so-called Südburg inscription (329-30), of his campaigns against the kingdom of Tarhuntassa, which B supposes was “lost to the Hittites in Tudhaliya’s reign.” 3 The Sea Peoples’ invasion of Ugarit is rendered more fully and vividly with added direct quotation (334-35). B has rewritten his account of the end of Hittite rule at Hattusha (345-47) to reflect Seeher’s revised view of events, which discards the scenario of a massive conflagration in favor of gradual abandonment and dereliction, with some destruction and squatting, over a period of a few months to a few years in the early 12th century. 4 The aftermath of the Hittite empire is illuminated by an expanded passage (352-53) on the Kizildag inscription, which has affinities to an inscription of Tudhaliya IV at Yalburt and refers to a “Great King” Hartapu, thought by B to be the son of the deposed Urhi-Teshub B relates this text to the conflict with Tarhuntassa and the empire’s successor kingdoms. The last chapter, which offers an Anatolian perspective on the historical quotient of the Trojan War, has been revised to include Korfmann’s views on the location of Bronze Age Troy’s harbor (357), and a new paragraph (360) joins the Tudhaliya-Tarwisa silver bowl mentioned earlier with Hawkins’ recent interpretation of the Karabel Pass inscription, connecting the kingdom of Mira, ruled by Tarkasnawa, with Apasa, capital of the former Arzawa, later known as Ephesus. 5

KHNE unquestionably contains more material than KH. But expansion can be problematic. The editorial decision to change the augmented footnotes into endnotes (endorsed by B: xix) necessitates the use of double bookmarks with constant flipping back and forth to elucidate particular statements, for example about Lukka as a land and a people (54): “Singer’s description of the Lukka people as ‘the Habiru of Anatolia’ is very apt.” Though this allusive remark could use some comment, as it has more resonance for students of Near Eastern or Biblical Studies than for those with a background in European history or Classics — compare ‘Phoenicians,”Bagaudae,’ and ‘Goths’ — its accompanying n. 30 has been displaced to the back of the book (404) while the Habiru reappear 110 pages later (168).

Oxford’s decision to equip KHNE with plates is a sound idea. In principle, visual evidence is a great help, especially to non-specialists grappling with a narrative rich in unfamiliar polysyllables. The images of the Lion Gate at Hattusha (84) and Sharruma protecting Tudhaliya IV at Yazilikaya (326) are quite good, while those of Büyükkale (45) and Suppiluliuma II (330) at Hattusha and the southeastern tower of Troy VI (366) are muddy and lacking in definition. Reproducing black-and-white images on plain paper is often a gamble. What is worrying, though, is that Figures 3, 4, and 7 are inadequately identified. The first (155) is captioned “Double-headed eagle, symbol of imperial power.” No location, no date. It is in fact from Alaca Höyük and dates from the 14th century BCE. The other two figures, one entitled “Hittite charioteers at Kadesh” (B’s own photograph, doing double duty as the cover image), the other “Sherden warriors amongst the Sea Peoples,” are clearly Egyptian. Again, no locations, no dates. This missing information is something non-specialists might want to know. 6

OUP’s claim that KHNE takes account of all advances, textual and archaeological, since the mid-1990s does not hold true in all respects. B’s reference to “recent” excavations at Hattusha (45-46, cf. 325) is in fact a holdover from KH and effectively signifies only Peter Neve’s work at the site through 1991, particularly in discovering numerous temples. 7 The final chapter on the Trojan War suffers from a comparable unfamiliarity with more recent work in Greek archaeology and philology. 8 As well, a few typographical errors and other lapses have persisted despite the efforts that went into recasting KHNE. 9

The frustrating aspect of KHNE is its uneven treatment of different classes of evidence. At the very beginning of the book, B alludes to interesting and valuable new archaeological discoveries at Hattusha (xvii-xviii) yet leaves them out of his revised narrative. The chasm between texts and their material context is rarely bridged. B’s old-style focus on writing and fighting — royal edicts, correspondence, apologies, annals, and treaties — excludes virtually any other disciplinary or methodological consideration. One looks in vain for a sense of Anatolia’s varied landscapes or telling historical parallels from elsewhere in antiquity or relevant anthropological or political comparative material of more recent date. 10 For example, the discussion of the final centuries of the Hittite empire and the probable causes of its downfall, particularly the theory that drought and consequent crop failure may have led to destabilizing famine (322, 340-41) or that the empire was doomed by “systems collapse” (342-44), would be considerably enriched by considering what is already known about the place of water and the storage of agricultural products in the Hittite world.

First, to take water. At Hattusha, basins/reservoirs have been found in and near the palatial area of Büyükkale on the city’s east side, where a cultic function has been imputed to them. More recently (2000-2001) however, excavations in the southwestern area of the city have uncovered the so-called South Ponds ( Südteiche), which are too numerous (five) and large (the four oblong ones are c. 38-70 m long, 14-18 m wide, and c. 6-8 m deep the circular one is c. 16 m across and 5.6 m deep) to be mistaken for Kultteiche (religious ponds). In the estimation of the excavators, the elevated siting (only 20 m below Hattusha’s highest point) of the spring-fed South Ponds and their remarkable depth, intended to minimize evaporation loss, indicate their function as a reservoir complex that could supply the entire city with water. 11 Outside the capital, bodies of water with religious functions are known at several Hittite sites, including the Huwasi sanctuary with its Suppitassu spring in the hills south of the city of Sarissa (mod. Kusakli), near Sivas, 12 and the massive masonry “basin” constructed in the reign of Tudhaliya IV at Yalburt (Ilgin), northwest of Konya. The latter is mentioned simply as “a hieroglyphic inscription” that tells of “military operations conducted by Tudhaliya against the Lukka Lands and Wiyanawanda” (304 and 475 n 47). But more ought to be said. The “rectangular stone basin” of Yalburt is a hydraulic installation. It has distinct structural affinities to Eflatun Pinar near Lake Egridir, a spring sanctuary of extraordinary scale and sculptural embellishment, that suggest the latter may also be attributed to Tudhaliya IV. 13 In the reign of Tudhaliya IV, the region in which Eflatun Pinar is situated was part of the kingdom of Tarhuntassa. Kurunta, a cousin and sometime rival of Tudhaliya, was ruler of Tarhuntassa, and on the strength of some seal impressions from Hattusha and an inscribed relief at Hatip, B hypothesizes (319-21) that Kurunta usurped Tudhaliya’s throne as Great King in 1228-1227, although Tudhaliya then regained and kept the kingship until his death in 1209. Thus, given that the Yalburt basin was patently constructed for Tudhaliya IV, one of two conclusions may be drawn: either Tudhaliya IV had Eflatun Pinar built as well, to symbolize his dominance over Tarhuntassa and its water resources (before or after his difficulties with Kurunta), or Kurunta himself commissioned it as a sign of his kingly power, surpassing Tudhaliya’s commemorative basin in its magnificence and splendor. Either way, these projects demonstrate the importance of water not only for its own sake, in connection with thirst, drought, and crop failure, but also as an instrument by which Hittite rulers expressed their power in the final decades before the collapse of their imperial state.

Likewise, turning to the subject of food supply and the fall of the Hittite empire, it is disappointing that Jurgen Seeher’s work on grain storage, alluded to in KHNE’s preface and included in the bibliography, was not successfully incorporated. 14 While the biochemical factors bearing on the subterranean storage of cereals need not occupy the political historian, Seeher communicates the relevant practical fact that at Hattusha there were at least 11 silos on Büyükkaya alone, some of them used down into the 13th century, plus the complex of 16 massive chambers built next to the Poternenmauer in the 15th/14th century, the storage pithoi of Temple 1, and several other potential granary sites this count does not include the silo between Ponds 3 and 5 on the southwestern heights of Hattusha that was decommissioned sometime before the reservoirs were constructed, probably not later than the 15th century. Any city as large as Hattusha would have needed more grain than its immediate neighborhood could produce, but Seeher’s study shows that Hattusha had the facilities to store quantities of cereals large enough to feed thousands of people for multi-year periods. 15 It is quite possible that some or all of these facilities were allowed to fall into disrepair or were emptied and not replenished as a result of crop failure or mismanagement, but their construction history and probable use should in any case figure in the debate about the factors that contributed to the collapse of Hittite power, for the alimentation of the empire and its capital (cf. 331-32) was an inescapable concern of every king. 16

A lament for indexing. In the English-speaking world, we hope that basic books will possess fairly helpful indices. Since KHNE’s numerous chapter subheadings do not appear in the table of contents, which lists only the main chapter titles, the “Final Comment,” and the appendices, it is dispiriting to turn to the Index (537-54) and find that although some index entries are subdivided (e.g. “Anitta,” “Hattusa,” and “Hattusili I”) many lengthier ones — e.g. “Ahhiyawa” (21 page references), “Assyria” (28), “Egypt” (47), “Kaska (lands and peoples)” (39) — lack any subheadings. 17

All in all, despite reservations arising from the treatment of non-textual evidence, this reviewer must second Beckman’s positive assessment, which exalts the book’s central virtue: “… the real strength of … (sc. the book) is that Bryce looks at the world of the Hittites with the eye of a true historian.” To construct a narrative history of the Hittite empire demands acute discernment, powers of synthesis, and appreciable fortitude, drawing as it does on collections of often fragmentary texts that range from legal and administrative documents and diplomatic communications to self-serving autobiography and intercessory prayers. Thanks to B’s decision to let his sources speak for themselves, KHNE shows that the words of the Hittites turn out to be their empire’s most lasting monument.

1. Cf. Beckman’s footnotes 11, 14, and 15 in BMCR 1999.04.18.

2. E.g., Assur now appears as Ashur, Kanes as Kanesh, Nuhasse as Nuhashshi.

3. What this phrase implies is uncertain, since Kurunta was no less Hittite than his cousin Tudhaliya.

4. B cites Seeher 2001b, the publication of a paper delivered at the October 1999 Würzburg Hittitological congress.

5. Also, the KH typographical error “Alexander Paris” has been corrected to “Alexandros (Paris)” (359).

6. Guesses can be made. The running text adjacent to the first caption (234-235) says five temples record Ramesses II’s version of the Battle of Kadesh — could the charioteers be from the Ramesseum? — while the second, judging from the text in which it is embedded (335-336), ought to be part of Merneptah’s document relief at Karnak.

7. The bibliography (523) lists all of Neve’s AA (Archäologischer Anzeiger) reports of excavations at Bogazköy-Hattusha 1983-1991, but only one ( AA 2001: 333-362) of Seeher’s. Not in KHNE: J. Seeher, AA 1995, 600-625 1996, 335-362 1997, 317-341 1998, 215-241 1999, 317-344 2000, 355-376 2002/1, 59-78 2003/1, 1-24 2004/1, 59-76. See also http://www.dainst.org/index_643_de.html.

8. E.g. at 361-362, in connection with a Luwian seal found in Troy VIIIb1. A basic resource missing from the bibliography: I. Morris and B. Powell, eds. A New Companion to Homer (Leiden-New York-Cologne 1997), specifically J. Bennet, “Homer and the Bronze Age,” 511-534 I. Morris, “Homer and the Iron Age,�-559 S. Morris, “Homer and the Near East,” 599-623.

9. Nemesis is inexplicably still italicized as it was in KH (101). Hattusili’s Apology appears twice as Apol ogy, a relic of KH (246-247). For the section heading “Vale Masturi” (303), ‘Vale’ should be italicized. B’s revised discussion substitutes Tarkasnawa for Atpa as the Milawata letter’s addressee (306), but leaves an otiose “ruler” after “ruler of western Anatolia.” The Teresh contingent of Sea People, identified with the Tyrsenoi, are said to be “perhaps the ancestors of the Etruscan people of southern Italy” (336) “north-central Italy” would be more accurate.

10. E.g., historical/political parallels would be useful at 68-69, where Hattusili I establishes his capital at Hattusha, and at 106-107, where B puzzles about the pros and cons of Telepinu’s clemency towards his would-be assassins. At 88-89 and 90-94, scholarly debates about the modalities of royal succession and the significance of Tawananna as name and/or title are reviewed would benefit from anthropological comparanda. B’s own view of what happened when Urhi-Teshub assumed control of the kingdom only to be deposed by his uncle Hattusili (254-62) is less than clear.

11. J. Seeher, AA 2002/1, 61-70 online.

13. Martin Bachmann and Sirri Özenir, “Das Quellheiligtum Eflatun Pinar,” AA 2004/1, 85-122, with full bibliography. This publication, which completely re-examines the site, appeared too late to be included in KHNE, but Eflatun Pinar has been known to scholars since the mid-19th century.

14. J. Seeher, “Getreidelagerung in unterirdischen Grossspeichern: Zur Methode und ihrer Anwendung im 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. am Beispiel der Befunde in Hattusa,” SMEA 42.2 (2000): 261-301.

15. Cf. Joseph’s advice for the seven lean years presaged in Pharaoh’s dream in Genesis 41.

16. In the Çorum Museum, five bronze sickles from Ortaköy on display are inscribed with the word LU.GAL, i.e. property of the King. The discussion of Rhys Carpenter’s drought theory (341 and nn 65-69) contains no significant archaeological evidence from Hattusha or other Hittite sites supporting or discounting disruptions to agricultural production or food supplies, or water supply, unless one counts Drews (1993) on juniper log rings at Gordion, indicating Anatolian drought c. 1200, Zaccagnini (1995) on famine texts from Emar on the Euphrates, and Klengel (1992) on Syria.

17. Other examples: “Aleppo (Halab, Halap, Halpa)” and “Arzawa (gen)” (30 references each), “Muwattalli II (34), and “Ugarit” (25). The plethora of proper names is paralleled by a lack of general concepts there are entries such as “collapse of Hittite kingdom,” “drought,” and “grain shipments,” but not “officials,” “water supply,” or “agriculture.”


Hattusas Tour

This shrine, formed by two natural ravines, is the largest known Hittite rock sanctuary. The purpose of the shrine remains a mystery, although we can speculate that it was used for annual cult celebrations or even as a royal funerary site. There was probably a processional road leading down from the royal residence at Hattusas, and the presence of a nearby spring may have played a part in the selection of the site as a sacred spot.

In the large rock-enclosed court of Chamber A are some of the most incredible treasures of the Hittite architectural legacy. Hewn from one end of the rock enclosure to the other is a representation of a sacred procession of deities, all of which are of Hurrian origin. Hurrian gods were given prominence by the Hittite Queen Putuhepa, wife of Hattusilis III, who was herself of noble Hurrian or Eastern origin. The cylindrical domed headdress is a symbol of divinity of Mesopotamian influence. The deities are oriented to the main scene on the back wall where the Storm God Tesup and the Sun Goddess Hepatu meet. The Storm God Tesup and Sun Goddess Hepatu, also of Hurrian origin, became the two most important deities in the Hittite pantheon, the accepted counterparts of the Hittite Storm God and the Sun Goddess of Arinna. Towering above the main scene and standing over 3.5m (12 ft.) high is a large relief of King Tudhaliya IV, son of Hattusilis III and Puduhepa. The existence of three depictions of Tudhaliya (there are two others in Chamber B) at the exclusion of all other Hittite kings leads scholars to believe that the sanctuary dates to his reign (1250-1220 B.C.), although the sanctuary's construction was probably begun by his father.

To the right passing through a narrow rock crevice is Chamber B, probably a memorial chapel to King Tudhaliya IV, son of Hattusilis III and Putuhepa. The reliefs in this chamber were buried until the end of the 19th century, so they are better preserved than the ones in Chamber A. The largest relief is of King Tudhaliya IV, on the main wall next to a puzzling depiction of a large sword formed by two extended lions with a divine human head for a handle. This possibly represents the God of Swords, or Nergal of the underworld. The relief on the right wall depicts a row of 12 gods bearing sickles similar to the ones in the other chamber. The number 12 as a sacred number is first seen here and repeated many times in subsequent civilizations -- there were 12 gods of Olympus, 12 apostles, 12 imams of Islamic mysticism, 12 months in a year, 12 days of Christmas, and 12 to a dozen. The three niches carved into the far end of the chamber are believed to have contained the cremated remains of Hittite royalty.


Bursa – First Capital of the Ottoman Empire

The city of Bursa, southeast of the Sea of Marmara, lies on the lower slopes of Mount Uludağ (Mt. Olympos of Mysia, 2543m), with the city deriving its name from its founder King Prusias of Bithynia.

It subsequently came under Roman, then Byzantine rule before it became the first capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1326 under the command of Orhan Gazi. Many important Ottoman buildings still remain in Bursa.

Poznan kot “Green Bursa”, the city is filled with gardens and parks and overlooks a verdant plain. It is situated at the centre of an important fruit-growing region. Bursa was, and still is, famous for its peaches, silk, towels and thermal springs. Make a point to try the locally invented İskender Kebab, a dish of bread, tomato sauce, strips of grilled meat, melted butter and yogurt! Candied chestnuts are another regional specialty. The tour of the city begins on the east of the city at the Yeşil Türbe (Green Mausoleum). Set in a garden and distinguished by its exterior panelling of tiles, the mausoleum holds the cenotaph of Sultan Mehmet I. Across the street, the Yeşil Mosque of 1424 reflects the new Ottoman, as opposed to Seljuk, aestheticism. A madrasah nearby completes the complex and is also home to the Ethnography Museum. Before exploring this area, stop for a glass of tea in one of the traditional tea houses. Going uphill to the east, you pass the Emir Sultan Mosque in its delightful setting and, after walking through a district of old houses, you reach the Yıldırım Beyazıt Mosque (1391).

Cumalikizik Village

Bursa, one of the early capitals of the Ottoman Empire, reflects the early period of Ottoman Culture. Cumalıkızık is a village from that period, a place where time seems to have stopped. The village is notable both for its houses, which are excellent examples of the civil architecture of the Ottoman period, also for its friendly inhabitants that revel in the traditional setting. It is a “living Ottoman village” with an unspoiled historical ambiance everyday living, cultural values and natural surroindings where you are sure to step into a time capsule of wooden houses, narrow streets and monumental trees.

Uludag Ski Center

Thirty-six kilometres from Bursa is Uludağ, is one of the largest centres for winter sports in Turkey, offering a variety of activities, accommodation and entertainment. The ski slopes are easily accessible by car or cable car (teleferik). Although December to May is the best time for skiing, Uludağ National Park is well worth a visit at any time of the year for the lovely views and wonderful fresh air.

Mudanya

A seaside resort town 25km from Bursa, Mudanya has fine fish restaurants and nightclubs which are popular with the residents of the city. The Armistice Museum is also worth a visit. Just 12km from Mudanya, Zeytinbağı (Tirilye) exemplifies the architecture and layout of a typical Turkish town.

The Gulf of Gemlik, 29km from Bursa, has wide sandy beaches, of which Kumla is the favourite.

İznik has contributed greatly to the decoration of mosques.

Iznik / Nicaea

Located 87km from Bursa is İznik, formerly known as Nicaea, which lies at the eastern tip of Lake İznik. The city was founded in 316BC by Antigonas, one of Alexander the Great’s generals. İznik was then taken by another general, Lysimachus, who named the city Nicaea after his wife. After playing a role as an important Roman, and then Byzantine city, it fell to the Seljuks in 1078 and later to the Ottomans in 1331. The Roman theatre was built by Trajan (249-251) and on the shores of Lake İznik stands the Roman senate, where the first Council of Nicaea took place in 325. At the centre of town is the Church of St Sophia, used for one of the most important councils held in 787 over iconoclasm. The church served as a mosque under the rule of the Ottomans. İznik co-equals Jerusalem and the Vatican in its importance to the Christian world. Among the important Islamic buildings in town, make sure to visit the turquoise-tiled Yeşil Mosque and the Nilüfer Hatun İmarethanesi. İznik is still a small town whose 114 towers have not exceeded its original 4227m of Roman walls. The four gates which allowed access to the city still stand. In the 16th and 17th centuries, İznik was the centre of exquisite ceramic ware production which made important contributions to the decorations of mosques and palaces throughout Turkey. A museum displays the finds of nearby excavations. After exploring the sights, the lakeside fish restaurants provide delicious food and a relaxing atmosphere. Five kilometres from İznik, in Elbeyli Village, you can come across a 5th century catacomb and an obelisk 15.5m high built by Cassius Philiscus.


Water Cultu in Hittites and Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monument

The Hittites, which left their mark on the Bronze Age period in Anatolia, is a society that draws attention with the importance they give to water resources.

Water and water resources were of vital importance for the Hittites, who were an agricultural society. The vital value of water was not only related to agriculture. In the Hittites, which was a society strictly adhering to belief values, water and water cleaning were very important. The water used as a cleansing tool in rituals against Gods and Goddesses should definitely be far of dirt. So much so that the person responsible for cleaning the water could pay for his slightest carelessness with his life. In addition, the frequent occurrence of plague in the territory of the country increased the value given to water even more. For these reasons, the Hittites gave utmost importance to water resources within the borders of the state.

In many cuneiform tablets obtained, water monuments belonging to the Hittites and libations made there, as well as springs and dams are mentioned.

The Hittites considered the water coming out of the mountain or underground as sacred due to the connection between the holes opened in the earth and the underground world. The places where the water flows were used as sacred places where rituals were held. There are many rituals performed with water in the Hittites. These differ, such as purification, death, birth, prayer, magic, and divination rituals.

The Hittites used water in their religious rituals and libations during holidays. In even, washing the mouth was one of the first steps to be taken during bodily purification. Because the mouth was the place where God’s word came out and it should have been clean.

We read the use of water in the tablets where the ceremonies called “itkalzi” of Hurri origin are written.

12-17 “… As soon as they finish (this), the victim owner comes to bathe and is washed. As soon as he finishes the washing process, the Priest holds the cleansing water. And he leads her to the bathing tent. And as soon as the victim owner has finished the washing process… ” 18-23 “… Pours the same [water] into an empty bathtub of copper or bronze, the other (priest) also comes, holding nothing. And he puts (the bath bowl) next to other cult items… ” 24-28 “… Then he pours it (water) on his head. Besides, he does not pour other water on his head. It puts it down. As soon as he threw the shirt into it and sat on a stool, the priest speak / prayed in Hurri… ”

As an agricultural society, the Hittites built water monuments in many water springs, both because of their religious beliefs and because they were aware that all diseases, especially plague, were caused by not being clean.

Hittite King IV. The Eflatunpınar Monument, built in the time of Tudhaliya, is a rare architectural water system that has survived until today without losing its function.

Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monument

More water cult structures were built’s during Tuthaliya IV. (1250-1220 BC). Especially in Konya Region, these cult structures are seen more. In addition to the water systems that can be described as small dams established in the capital Hattusa, with the water monuments around the water springs built in various regions of Anatolia, water springs were kept under control and measures were taken against the water problems in the future. One of these monuments is the Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monument, which is located within the borders of the Beyşehir District’s Sadıkhacı Town of Konya.

Hittite King IV. The Eflatunpınar Monument, built in the time of Tudhaliya (there is controversy on this issue), is the rare architectural water system that has survived until today without losing its function. B.C. The Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monument, dated to the 13th century, is a workmanship’s product of the stone specific of the Hittites. The monument was built on solid one piece rock. It was built by meticulously combining andesite blocks cut in appropriate with each other.

Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monument was not built only to control the spring where it was established. The compositions drawn on the stones are also considered as an open-air temple with god and goddess figures. With this feature, Eflatunpınar Hittite Water Monuments Are separated from other rock monuments.

The Water Monument consists of a large pool built on a natural water source and god and goddess figures made in relief technique on rocks shaped in rectangular form. Horizontal water channels parallel to the wall of the pool provide important information about the water system and water technology of the period by allowing the water to flow into the pool.

In 2014, it was included in the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List as the Hittite Sacred Water Temple.

Outstanding Universal Values Justification for Inclusion in the List: The feature of the Eflatunpınar water pool is that it is one of the rare water systems that are used economically when necessary by collecting the flowing water with the central pool system. This monument is one of the rare monuments not only in terms of its appearance, layout and iconography, but also in terms of technology and craftsmanship used during its construction.

Leyla Murat, Hititlerde su kültü. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31, 51. 2012

Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İsmail COŞKUN, Nesim KILIÇ, Hitit Kutsal Su Tapınaklarında Eflatunpınar ile İlgili Değerlendirmeler, 3. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Kongresi, Van, 2019.


57 pictures related to this museum

Gordium, Great Tumulus, Chamber, Model

Karchemish, Neo-Hittite mythological relief

Ancyra, Temple of Augustus, coin

Karchemish, Neo-Hittite relief of a soldier(?) riding a dromedary

Melitene, Statue of Mutalluh

Karchemish, Neo-Hittite relief of Kubaba

Hattusa, Sculpture of a bull

Apollo on a coin of Philip II

Çatalhöyük, Statuette of a woman with two felines

Hattusa, Treaty between king Tudhaliya IV and king Karunta of Tarhuntašša

Karchemish, Neo-Hittite relief of a mythological creature

Constantine IV the Bearded

Ancyra, Balgat Tomb, wreath

Heraclius and his son Constantine III

Hattusa, Letter from the Hittite queen Puduhepa to the Egyptian queen Nefertari


Hittite relief of the God Sharruma and King Tudhaliya - History

TRAVELOGUES

TRAVELLERS' VIEWS

Places – Monuments – People

Southeastern Europe – Eastern Mediterranean
Greece – Asia Minor – Southern Italy

15 th - 20 th century

TEXIER, Charles Félix Marie. Asie Mineure. Description géographique, historique et archéologique des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnèse d’Asie, Paris, Firmin-Didot, MDCCCLXXXII [=1882].

Charles Félix Marie Texier (1802-1871) was a French archaeologist and architect. In 1823 he entered the School of Fine Arts and by 1827 he had already become inspector of public works in Paris. He conducted excavations in Fréjus and Ostia. During 1828 and 1829 he directed archaeological missions on behalf of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. In 1833, after just one journey, Texier published "Asie mineure: description géographique, historique et archéologique des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnèse d’Asie", overshadowing all the preceding rather simplistic related studies. In 1839 he embarked on an archaeological mission to Armenia, Mesopotamia and Persia, the results of which were published between 1843 and 1845. From 1840 he was Professor of Archaeology at the Collège de France, from 1843 inspector of public buildings in Algeria and in 1855 he was elected an academician.

Texier’s work on Asia Minor was first published in three large-format volumes (1839-1849). An abridged Greek translation of it was published also in the nineteenth century. Many of the illustrations were used in later editions on similar subjects. Texier’s encyclopedic spirit extends beyond archaeology to geography, geology and ethnology. He was among the first to study Byzantine architecture and published a well-documented and impressive edition, again in large format, on the subject.

With R. Chandler (1765), W.M. Leake (early 19th century) and Texier, travellers begin gradually to penetrate the vast interior of Asia Minor. The first explorations were made in the area of Bithynia but the easternmost regions, linked more with looting antiquities than with romantic itineraries, held a dual attraction for travellers, because of their rich Graeco-Roman past and the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse.

Written by Ioli Vingopoulou

Subjects (70)

Reliefs from Yazilikaya sanctuary near Hattousa (Boǧazkale), capital of the Hittites. a) Goddess of love and war, Shaushka. b) King Tudhaliya IV. c) Nergal, god of the underworld. d) God Sharruma shelters King Tudhaliya IV.

Agora of Gods (or scene of holy wedding) from Yazilikaya sanctuary near Hattousa (Boǧazkale), capital of the Hittites. Central scene depicts Storm-god Teshub and sun-goddess Hebat. Teshub stands on two mountain deities and Hebat on a panther. Behind Hebat, their son Sharruma and daughter Alanzu.

Relifs of gods from Yazilikaya sanctuary near Hattousa (Boǧazkale), capital of the Hittites.

Remains in Hattousa (Boǧazkale), capital of the Hittites.

1. Gate in the walls of Hattousa (Boǧazkal), capital of the Hittites. 2. Gate in the walls of Hattousa.