Inligting

Hetitiese verligting van die God Sharruma en koning Tudhaliya



Nayan Tara -tempel in Sirië met geheimsinnige voetafdrukke! (Posnommer 3799)

Die nuutste boek oor The Hittite Civilization het nuwe inligting oor die Hetitiese gode. Hulle regeer dele van die moderne Sirië en Turkye.

Die einste naam van die land SYRIA kom vir die Sanskrit -woord Surya. Die aanbidding van die son is die gewildste in antieke Sirië. Hetiete wat 400 jaar lank tussen 1600 v.C. en 1200 v.G.E regeer het, spreek ou vorm van Sanskrit (Indo-Europees) en aanbid die Son God (Surya).

Ek het ten minste drie Hindoe -gode in die panteon geïdentifiseer.

Leeu uit die tempel (wikipedia -prent)

My navorsing toon dat hulle aanbid het

(1). Twaalf Adityas (12 vorme van Surya)

(2) .Godin Nayanatara (Ayn Dara in Hittitiese taal)

(3) .Varuna (Tarunhas)

Linguistiek toon aan dat die beginletters 'n geruime tyd laat val (Nayn Dara = Ayn Dara) en dat die aanvanklike letters verander word (T = V tarunhas = Varuna)

Die oudste godsdienstige boek Rig Veda het al die drie gode en godinne.

Nayanatara = Ayn Dara

Nayan Tara beteken Ster van die oë (iris). Dit is 'n gewilde Hindoe -naam vir meisies. Nayantara saghal, romanskrywer, verwant aan Jawaharlal Nehru (die eerste premier van Indië) is een voorbeeld. Nayan Tara het beskadig geraak en Ayn Dara in Sirië geword. Hindoes aanbid godin in verskillende vorme. Een daarvan is Eye of the Goddess Dit word selfs nou in die Naina Devi -tempel in Himachal Pradesh, Indië, aanbid (Naina = Nayana = Eye). Dit is 'n baie gewilde tempel wat duisende toegewydes lok met die OOG van die godin as die belangrikste simbool. Dit is een van die 51 Shakti Kendras (51 sentrums van Godin Parvati).

Ayn Dara -tempel naby Aleppo in Sirië

Ain Dara -tempel in Sirië behoort tot 1300 vC. Dit word in die Hebreeuse Bybel genoem. Dit is soortgelyk aan die tempel van Salomo (Word Solomon is ook 'n Sanskrit -woord wat Surya Solar = Surya = Solomon = Sulaiman in Arabies beteken).

Nayantara -beelde is beskikbaar in Nepal.

Aangesien Hindoes dieselfde godin Durga met 51 verskillende name in 51 godinstempels op die Indiese subkontinent aanbid, het mense in die Midde -Ooste die godin aanbid as Ishtar, Ashtarte (aan die Babiloniërs), Ashtoreth (aan die Hebreërs), Douga/Durga (in Tunis) , Kathayee (in Kartago) en verskeie ander name. As u die eienskappe van die gode lees, sal u agterkom dat dit dieselfde is. (Douga en Kartago is plekname - vernoem na godin).

In die Midde -Ooste is daar 3000 gode en godinne soos ons in Hindoeïsme vind. Vir 'n Hindoe is dit maklik om te verstaan. Same God Shiva het duisende name in Indië, en dit is dieselfde met Lord Vishnu. Elkeen het 'n spesiale verhaal op hierdie plekke. Vir 'n leek lyk alles anders. Vir 'n geleerde is dit dieselfde God met verskillende name. Dit is dieselfde in Wes -Asië.

Nayana Devi (nainadevi) tempel in Himachal Pradesh.

Daar is 'n paar bewyse dat Ayn Dara 'n Hindoe -tempel was.

1. Groot leeubeelde word opgegrawe leeu is die vahana (berg) van die Hindoe -godin Durga, selfs vandag neem al die tempels die godin op die leeubeel tydens Hindoe -feeste in Indië.

  1. Die tweede bewys is die ontdekking van massiewe voetafdrukke voor die tempel. Ek het reeds die aanbidding van voetafdrukke en sandale verduidelik in my twee navorsingsartikels (sien die skakels hieronder).

3. Een voetstap gaan in die tempel wat regtervoet is Hindoes moet die regtervoet eerste in die huis sit, pasgetroude Hindoe -bruide moet haar regtervoet gebruik as sy in die huis kom.

4. Hindoes gebruik selfs vandag nog voetafdrukke om aan te toon dat God in die huis kom. Al die Hindoes teken die simbool van voetafdrukke van Lord Krishna op die geboortedag van Krishna (Janmashtami) vanaf die hek tot by die gebedskamer in die huis.

5. Die hele streek Sirië en Turkye was 1000 jaar lank onder Hindoe -bewind onder die Kassiete, Hetiete en Mitanni. Die wêreld het die Mitanniese beskawing erken as die Hindoe -beskawing vanweë die kleitablette met rig Vediese gode en Sanskritgetalle en Sanskritname Dasaratha (tushratta), Pratardhana, Sathya Sila = hattusa = hattusili

(Lees my artikel oor Bogazkoy, dit is beskikbaar in alle ensiklopedieë.)

6. Hindoe -meisies was getroud met Egiptiese farao's (lees Amarna -briewe, Dasaratha -briewe, Kikkuli se perdehandleiding, beskikbaar in alle ensiklopedieë en in my artikels)

7. Hindoes het duisend name/Sahasranama vir al die gode. Die bekendste is van Vishnu, Lalita en Shiva. Hetiete gebruik ook die woord DUISEND GODE VAN HATTI. Hetiete was politeïste. (hatti = Hetiet = Kshatri/ya).

Hetitiese godsdiens is 'n mengsel van oortuigings, kultusse en tradisies wat uit verskillende streke en kulture kom.

12 Adityas van Wikipedia, Yazilikaya, Turkye

Die belangrikste godheid van die Hetitiese koninkryk was die Storm God TARHUNA. Dit is die Vediese God Varuna, verander as Taruna. Hy is beskou as die koning van alle gode. Hy was 'n hemelse God wat storms meegebring het, en daarom was donder en weerlig sy eienskappe. Dit lyk soortgelyk aan die Vediese God INDRA. Maar selfs in Indië, as hulle reën nodig het, doen hulle Varuna Japa (Prayers to Varuna) en nie na Indra nie. Sy gemalin was die songodin van Arinna. Dit is soortgelyk aan Gayatri (Sun Goddess). Afgesien van hierdie gode, het plaaslike en streeksgode by die Hetite -panteon aangesluit en nuwe name en nuwe verhale is geskep.

Net soos Hindoes, het die Hetiete die son, die maan en die sterre as gode beskou. Hulle het geglo in astrologie, voorspellings en voorspellings.

Dwadasa (12) Adityas by Yazilikaya

Dwadasa beteken twaalf Aditya beteken sonne. Die twaalf Adityas verteenwoordig 12 maande van die son se wentelbaan. Hulle is Vediese gode. 12 Adityas is op groot rotse van die Yazilikaya -rotstempel gemaak (sien die prentjie).

My ou artikels:

Hindoe -wonders in 'n Moslemland!

The Sandals- gepos op 24 April 2013

Geplaas deur Tamil en Vedas op 8 April 2017


PORTEFEULJE

Oorsig van kamer A. Kamer A, rotsreliëf wat 'n optog van manlike gode uitbeeld. Kamer A, twee bulmanne staan ​​tussen manlike gode op die hiërogliewe simbool van die aarde en ondersteun die lug. Linkermuur van kamer A wat manlike gode uitbeeld. Kamer A, hooftoneel in die middel van die kamer waar Teshup en Hepat ontmoet en vroulike godinne in optog op die regtermuur. Kamer A, godinne in optog. Kamer A, hooftoneel waarin (van links na regs) die God Kumarbi (hoofgod van die Hurriërs), die weer- en stormgod Teshuba, die aardgodin Hepat, Sharumma (seun van Teshuba en amp Hepat) en Alanzu (dogter van Teshup Hepat) uitgebeeld word . Kamer A, reliëf wat die stigter van die heiligdom, koning Tudhaliya IV, op twee berge uitbeeld.

Toegang tot kamer B met 'n reliëf van 'n gevleuelde, leeukop-demoon. Kamer B. Die smal galery is vermoedelik 'n gedenkkapel vir Tudhaliya IV, opgedra deur sy seun Suppiluliuma II Kamer B, die nisse is waarskynlik vir aanbiedings gebruik. Westelike muur van kamer B wat die twaalf gode van die onderwêreld uitbeeld. Oosmuur van kamer B met 'n uitbeelding van Negal, die swaardgod en die god van die onderwêreld. Kamer B, cartouche met die naam en titel van koning Tudhaliya IV. Oosmuur van kamer B wat in 'n nis die God Sharruma (seun van die Thunder God Teshub) uitbeeld wat koning Tudhaliya IV omhels. Die god het sy linkerarm oor die koning se skouers terwyl hy die regter pols van die koning vasgehou het. Die god dra 'n kort tuniek en het skerp skoene. Die koning dra 'n lang jas en dra 'n swaard en 'n lituus. Westelike muur van kamer B wat die twaalf gode van die onderwêreld uitbeeld.


Die Hetiete en die Egeïese wêreld

Die eerste ding wat u van die Hetiete moet besef, is dat hulle nie Hetiete is nie. Die hartseer is dat ons 'n verkeerde terminologie het, maar dit is te laat om nou iets daaraan te doen. Hierdie ongelukkige situasie het ontstaan ​​as gevolg van verskeie afleidings wat deur vroeëre geleerdes gemaak is, wat weliswaar heeltemal redelik was, maar onwaar was. Die beskawing van die Bronstydperk van Sentraal -Anatolië (of Turkye), wat ons vandag Hittiet noem, het omstreeks 1200 v.C. heeltemal verdwyn Ons weet nog steeds nie presies wat gebeur het nie, alhoewel daar nie 'n gebrek aan moderne teorieë is nie, maar dat dit vernietig is, dat daar geen twyfel bestaan ​​nie. Die hoofstad is tot op die grond afgebrand en het honderde jare lank onbewoon gebly. Uit die wrak van die Bronstydperk -beskawing het 'n groep klein onafhanklike state ontstaan, wat 'n aantal kenmerke en een van die tale van hul vergete voorouers behou het, maar oorheers deur die nuwe etniese groepe in die gebied, veral die Arameërs. Die grootste aantal van hierdie state was geleë rondom die Taurus- en Amanus -bergreekse, in die suidooste van Turkye en Noord -Sirië. Dit is die gebied wat die konings van Assirië bekend staan ​​as die “HattiLand, ” en hierdie terminologie is ook te vinde in die Ou Testament, waar ons sulke Hetiete ontmoet soos die ongelukkige Uriah en sy pragtige vrou, Batseba.

Die beskawing van die Bronstydperk van Sentraal -Anatolië het spoorloos van die geskiedenisblaaie verdwyn, maar danksy die Assiriërs en hul Hebreeuse tydgenote het die Hetiete uit die Ystertydperk oorleef om die westerse historiese tradisie aan te gaan. Toe die terreine in die noorde van Sirië en die suide van Turkye ondersoek word, was dit dus natuurlik om die naam Hetiet, wat die inwoners van die Hatti-land beteken, op hulle toe te pas. Sulke terminologie is korrek: hierdie mense is die ware Hetiete, die Hetiete van die Ou Testament.

Algemene uitsig op die gebied Boghazköy, noordooswaarts deur die Lion's Gate.

In 1906 het die assirioloog Hugo Winckler, wat die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft verteenwoordig, en Theodore Macridy Bey van die Ottomaanse museum in Istanbul, opgrawings geopen op 'n terrein naby die Turkse dorpie Boghazkoy (“Gorge Village ”), vandag moderne Boghazkale. In 1907 het die argitek Otto Puchstein by hom aangesluit, wat namens die Duitse argeologiese instituut gewerk het, en opgrawings het in 1911 en 1912 voortgegaan totdat hulle deur die Eerste Wêreldoorlog onderbreek is. Die Duitsers het in 1931 na die terrein teruggekeer, en met 'n lang stilte wat die Tweede Wêreldoorlog veroorsaak het, was hulle sedertdien daar en sal dit nog 'n tyd lank wees. Die onlangse opgrawings was onder die algemene leiding van Kurt Bittel.

Die terrein van Boghazkoy was bekend aan Europese geleerdes sedert 1834, toe Charles Texier dit besoek het en sy verslag en tekeninge van die bestaande sigbare ruïnes gepubliseer het, beide in Boghazkoy en in die nabygeleë Yazilikaya (“Inscribe Rock ”). Carl Humann het 'n plan van die stad in 1883 opgestel. In 1893-1894 het die Franse argeoloog Ernest Chantre die terrein verken en selfs 'n paar kleitablette gevind wat in spykerskriftekens geskryf was. Dit is wat die aandag getrek het van Winckler, wat toe besig was met soortgelyke tekste, die Amarna Letters, wat in 1887 in Egipte gevind is. Winckler het gehoop om soortgelyke tablette by Boghazkoy te vind en hy sou nie teleurgesteld wees nie, want in die eerste seisoen in 1906, werkend op die westelike helling van die sitadel of Buyukkale, het hy en Macridy Bey ongeveer 2500 tablette of fragmente tablette opgegrawe. Ek gebruik die term “excavated ” in 'n baie algemene sin, want hulle is met 'n piksteel uit die grond gekap en in mandjies weggedra. Gelukkig is Hetitiese tablette gebak vir hedendaagse gebruik, of min sou oorleef het. Teen 1912 het die telling ongeveer 10 000 stukke bereik en feitlik almal is na die Staatliche Museen in Berlyn gestuur, waar hulle nog steeds bly.

Soos die toeval dit wou hê, is baie van die eerste tablette wat gevind is, in Akkadies, die lingua franca van die dag, geskryf, 'n taal waarmee Winckler baie tuis was. Hulle het 'n koninkryk onthul in 'n gebied genaamd die “Hatti-Land, ” met dieselfde naam as die latere Assiriese tekste, hierdie koninkryk word beheer deur konings met name soos Hattushili, Tudhaliya en Shuppiluliuma, konings wat op gelyk aan die diplomatieke betrekkinge met die koninkryke Assirië, Babilonië en Egipte in die middel van die tweede millennium v.C. Winckler het die ontdekking van die hoofstad van die Hetiete aangekondig, en ons weet dit nog steeds vandag. Die ou naam van die webwerf was Hattusha. Winckler het ook in hierdie tekste 'n groep mense genaamd die Hur-ri of Har-ri gevind (die tekens kan in elk geval gelees word), onder leiding van konings met Indo-Ariese name soos Tushratta. Winckler het laasgenoemde lesing tot sy en ons groot ongeluk gekies, aangesien die Harrians natuurlik binnekort geïdentifiseer sou word met die Ariese meesterras, 'n verwarring wat vandag nog bestaan, hoewel dit lankal duidelik was dat die Hurriërs niks te doen het nie doen met enige Indo-Europese taalgroep.

Myceense aardewerk uit Efese (veertiende eeu v.C.) soos dit in die Efese -museum, in die stad Seljuk, vertoon word. Die pottebakkery kom uit 'n graf wat toevallig gevind is tydens die nivellering vir 'n parkeerterrein op die heuwel Ayasoluk, naby die basiliek van Saint John.

Die meerderheid van die tablette wat in hierdie vroeë opgrawings gevind is, en in alle daaropvolgende opgrawings, is nie in Akkadies geskryf nie, maar in 'n tot dusver onbekende taal. Transliterasies van die tekste is gepubliseer, maar dit kon nie gelees word nie. Die situasie was soortgelyk aan die wat vandag bestaan ​​tussen Lineêr B en Lineêr A. In 1915 publiseer die Tsjeggiese geleerde, Bedrich Hrozny, 'n referaat waarin hy beweer dat hy hierdie taal as 'n vroeë vorm van Indo-Europees lees. Sy ontsyfering is met groot skeptisisme begroet, maar dit was korrek. Ons weet nou dat hierdie mense wat ons Hetiete noem Indo-Europeërs was, wat deel uitmaak van die sogenaamde Anatoliese tak van die Indo-Europese taalfamilie. Die ooreenkoms tussen Hetities en ander Indo-Europese tale is vinnig vasgestel.

Daar word nou geglo dat die Hetiete iewers in die laaste deel van die derde millennium v.C. in Anatolië gekom het, maar presies wanneer en waarvandaan kan ons nog nie antwoord nie. Vermoedelik hou die koms van die Hetiete verband met die algemene migrasie wat nou uit die jare rondom c. 2200 v.C., wat ook die eerste Griekssprekende mense (of Proto-Grieke) na die Balkan-skiereiland gebring het, maar die verband bly suiwer hipoteties en daar moet nog baie gewerk word oor die hele vraagstuk oor die vroeë Indo-Europese geskiedenis. Op die oomblik is historiese taalkunde omtrent die enigste oorblywende veld wat nog oorheers word deur die diffusionistiese teorieë van die negentiende eeu.

Die ontsyfering en vertaling van die Hetitiese tekste self bevestig die historiese prentjie wat uit die Akkadiese briewe en verdrae verkry is. Die Hetiete was inderdaad 'n groot wêreldmoondheid in die tydperk 1700-1200 v.C., maar hulle was nie Hetiete nie. Dit wil sê, hulle het hulself nie Hetiete genoem nie. Hulle verwys na hulself as Neshians, en#8220 inwoners van die stad Nesha, ” en hul taal Neshian. Maar soveel daarvoor dat die geleerde wêreld hulle reeds Hetiete genoem het, en, al dan nie, Hetiete, hulle sal vir ewig bly. Dit is net so goed dat die term Neshian slegs die aandag vestig op ons onkunde oor hierdie vroeë tydperk, ons weet nie eers waar Nesha geleë is nie.

Met die ontsyfering van die Hetitiese, kon geleerdes uiteindelik die getuienis waardeer deur een van die Amarna -briewe, 'n teks wat al lank bekend was, maar vir niemand van nut was nie, omdat niemand dit kon lees nie. Die brief blyk een van die twee Amarna -briewe te wees, eintlik nie in Akkadies nie, maar in Hittiet. Hulle verteenwoordig korrespondensie met die koninkryk Arzawa, 'n land so ver dat die skrifgeleerdes nie in staat was om Akkadies te lees en te skryf nie. In die betrokke brief spreek die skrifgeleerde van Arzawa sy Egiptiese kollega toe:

Mag die god Nabu, die “king of wysheid ” en die songod van die hilammar die skrifgeleerde wat hierdie tablet (vir die koning) gaan lees, beskerm, sodat hulle hul hande beskermend om u kan hou. Asseblief, skryf my, 0 skrifgeleerde. Plaas ook u naam aan die einde (van die letter). Skryf al die tablette wat hulle vir my in Neshian sal bring!

Daar was die hele tyd bewyse: wat ons Hittiet noem, moet Neshian genoem word en die bewyse hiervoor was sedert 1887 beskikbaar.

Gesteelde reliëf by Karabel soos geteken deur Charles Texier, uit die Description de l ’Asie Mineure, 2 vols., Parys 1839, 1849, vol. 2, pl. 132. Foto met vergunning van die Marquand Library, Princeton University.

Dieselfde monument soos dit vandag lyk. Dit is die rotsreliëf wat nou bekend staan ​​as Karabel A.

Dit laat die vraag ontstaan: wat word bedoel met die naam “Hatti-Land, en#8221, waar kom dit vandaan? Gelukkig kan ons die vraag nou beantwoord. Voor die aankoms van die Hetiete is die gebied van Sentraal-Anatolië beheer deur 'n nie-Indo-Europese groep wat hul taal Hatties, hul land die Hatti-land en hul hoofstad Hattush genoem het. Hierdie mense moet vermoedelik geïdentifiseer word met die koninklike grafte op die terrein van Alaca Huyuk, noord van Boghazkoy, maar dit is nie seker nie. Al wat ons kan sê, is dat hulle 'n groot invloed gehad het op die latere Hetitiese inwoners van die gebied, wat baie van hulle geleen het, insluitend die naam van die land en van hul hoofstad en wat tot ons groot geluk Hattiese tekste in hul eie bewaar het argiewe. Teen die tyd van die Ou Assiriese handelskolonie, of karum, in Boghazkoy, vind ons dat die terrein reeds bekend staan ​​as Hattush, want die Ou Assiriese tablette wat daar voorkom, verwys na die karum Hattush. Iewers omstreeks c. 1650 v.C. het die Hetiete die terrein oorgeneem. Hulle het die naam Hattush aangeneem en 'n Hittitiese nominatiewe einde bygevoeg, wat dit Hattushas gemaak het. Die Hetitiese koning, wie se inheemse naam Labarnash was, het die troonnaam Hattushili, die naam van Hattusha, geneem. ” Die naam Labarnash het oorleef om 'n koninklike titel te word wat deur alle latere heersers geneem is, net soos die naam van Caesar.

Hatties, Akkadies en Hetities is maar die begin. In 1919 het die Switserse geleerde, Emil Forrer, aangekondig dat hy nie minder nie as agt tale in die Hetitiese argiewe geïdentifiseer het. U sien nou waarom die studie van die Hetiete deur filoloë oorheers is, want verdere navorsing sou hom heeltemal korrek bewys het. In 1924 het Forrer probeer om 'n negende, Achaean Grieks by te voeg. In die figuur van Alakshandush, die prins van Wilusha, het Forrer probeer om Alexandros van (W) ilios, die seun van Priam en ontvoerder van Helen, te vind. Die manne van Ahhiyawa in die Hetitiese tekste was natuurlik Homeros Achaeans, die Achaioi (*Achaiwoi), wat op een of ander manier verband hou met die land Achaea (*Achaiwia). In Attarsiya, die man van Ahhiya (wa), het Forrer Atreus gevind, terwyl Forrer in Tawagalawa van Ahhiyawa daarin geslaag het om 'n *Etewoklewe s, beter bekend as Eteokles, te identifiseer.

Hetitiese rotshulp op die berg Sipylos, naby Manisa, uit The Art of the Hittites, uitgegee deur Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Ek is seker dat almal die eerste hoofstuk van die geskiedenis van Denys Page ken en die Homeriese Ilias, waarin Page die werk van Forrer beoefen. Soos uit die volgende sal blyk, is ek ook nie in staat om die basis van Forrer se teorie te aanvaar nie, maar, anders as Page, respekteer ek Forrer as geleerde. Forrer is meer as Ahhiyawa; daar is skaars 'n enkele daaropvolgende ontwikkeling in Anatoliese studies wat nie terugkeer na iets wat hy eers voorgestel het nie.

Wat ek hier wil beklemtoon, is die paradoks waarvoor Forrer in werklikheid bloot in die gevestigde tradisie gewerk het, sedert die antieke Grieke vanaf die tyd van die antieke Grieke, is die Hetitiese geskiedenis en Hetitiese monumente beskou as iets anders as Hetities. Geleerdes was selde tevrede om dinge in suiwer Anatoliese terme te sien. Dit geld natuurlik ook vir Troy of, om meer presies te wees, vir wat by Hissarlik gevind is. Die pogings om die Hetitiese tekste en die opgrawings by Hissarlik te sien as bewys van die historiese werklikheid van die Homeros -Trojaanse oorlog, blyk nog meer 'n illusie te wees as die Forchaërs.

Teen die tyd dat die Grieke belangstel in die binneland van Anatolië, was die Hetiete al lankal weg. Herodotus vertel ons wonderlike verhale oor Lydiërs en Frygiërs. Hy kom uit 'n Carian -stad, Halicarnassus, en vertel ons van die vroeë Carian -bevolking van Miletus, 'n groep wat Homer reeds genoem het. Maar van die Hetiete geen woord nie. Pausanias kom ook uit Klein -Asië, waarskynlik uit Smirna, en ook hy is 'n myn van inligting oor Ionia en sy omgewing, maar van die Hetiete is hy self 'n lieflike onkunde.

Hoe kan dit wees, kan u die vraag vra oor die Myceense aardewerk in Miletus en Efese, plekke wat waarskynlik in die Hetitiese tekste genoem word as Millawanda en Apasas? Nou lees ons van massas Myceense aardewerk by Miletus en selfs van Mykeense baksteenstrukture en 'n Mykeense baksteenfabriek, om niks te sê van 'n Mykeense versterkingsmuur nie. Dit moet sekerlik beteken dat die Mykeneërs direk in aanraking gekom het met die Hetiete, en dat dit redelik sou wees om in die Hetitiese tekste daarna te verwys. Laat ek twee redelik konkrete voorbeelde neem van moontlike kontak: die twee Hetitiese monumente wat in die Griekse letterkunde genoem word. Die eerste is die groot rotsgesnyde verligting by Karabel naby die moderne Kemal Pasa, oos van Smyrna. Dit toon 'n Hetitiese koning wat regs stap, met 'n boog in sy regterhand en met sy uitgestrekte linkerhand wat 'n spies vashou. Uit die rotsgesnyde hiërogliewe inskripsie kan ons dit identifiseer as 'n voorstelling van die Hetitiese koning Tudhaliya, waarskynlik Tudhaliya IV. Hierdie monument is nou opgeneem deur Herodotus, wat dit in detail beskryf in hoofstuk 106 van Boek II, as deel van sy verslag van die Egiptiese farao Sesostris:

Algemene siening van Yazilikaya, soos geteken deur Charles Texier in 1834. Uit sy Description de l ’Asie Mineure, vol. 1, pl. 72. Foto met vergunning van die Marquand -biblioteek, Princeton Universiteit.

Die pilare wat Sesostris in die verowerde lande opgerig het, het grotendeels verdwyn, maar in die deel van Sirië wat Palestina genoem word, het ek hulle self nog sien staan. … In Ionia is daar ook twee voorstellings van hierdie prins wat op rotse gegraveer is, een op die pad van Efese na Phocaea, die ander tussen Sardis en Smirna. In elke geval is die figuur dié van 'n man, vier el en 'n span hoog, met 'n spies in sy regterhand en 'n boog in sy linkerkant, en die res van sy kostuum is ook half Egipties, half Ethiopies. Daar is 'n opskrif oor die bors van skouer tot skouer, in Egiptiese hiërogliewe, wat sê: "Met my eie skouers het ek hierdie land verower." hierdie feite. Daarom het sommige van diegene wat hierdie vorme gesien het, gedink dat dit figure van Memnon is, maar wat so ver van die waarheid dink. (En so ook Herodotus.)

Alhoewel Herodotus die hande en voorwerpe omgekeer het, kan daar geen twyfel bestaan ​​oor die identifisering van sy beskrywing met die Karabel -reliëf nie. Dit is reeds erken deur Texier in sy publikasie van die monument in 1849. Kiepert, wat die Hetitiese monument in 1843 besoek het, aanvaar ook hierdie identifikasie, maar niemand, van Herodotus af, het vermoed dat dit iets met die Hetiete te doen kon hê nie, want hulle het niks geweet van die Hetiete nie. Die Hetiete wat in die oorlewende historiese literatuur genoem is, was duidelik in 'n heel ander deel van die wêreld geleë. Die reisigers van die negentiende eeu het besef dat die monument nie Egipties kan wees nie, maar hulle vermoed dat dit Persies is of selfs 'n getuienis van die Skithiese verowering van Asië.

Die webwerf van Yazizikaya, soos dit vandag lyk. Dit is 'n aansig van Gallery A, soos getoon in die meegaande plan. Die sentrale toneel toon gode nr. 42 en 43, Teshub en Hepat.

Ag, dit is slegs Herodotus wat in die middel van die vyfde eeu v.C. My tweede voorbeeld kom van Homeros. Nou behoort Homerus, indien iemand, iets te weet van die Hetiete, en daar is inderdaad baie pogings aangewend om dit in die Ilias of die Odyssee, hetsy onder hul eie naam of vermom as Amazones. Homeros skryf immers oor Anatoliese aangeleenthede, sekerlik moet hy bewus wees van die bestaan ​​van die groot bronstydperk in Anatolië. Homerus gee wel 'n Trojaanse katalogus en 'n lys van die bondgenote van Priam, maar daar word geen melding gemaak van die Hetiete nie, en ons moet ook nie hieroor verbaas wees dat Hittiet ooit in Troy gevind is nie. Homeros praat wel van die Frygiërs, a probleem wat Strabo gepla het en steeds vir die meeste Homeriese geleerdes 'n verleentheid is. Die ontmoeting tussen Priam en Achilles, in die 24ste boek van die Ilias, het Homer geïnspireer om te dink aan Niobe, wat net soos Priam ook al haar kinders gely het. So baie het sy gehuil oor hulle verlies dat sy in klip verander het:

En nou iewers te midde van die rotse, op die eensame berge, op Sipylos, waar, sê die mans, die hurkplekke van godinne is, selfs van die nimfe wat vinnig in die dans oor Achelous loop, daar, al broei sy oor haar ellende wat deur die gode gestuur is. (XXIV: 614-617)

Alhoewel hierdie reëls deur Aristofanes van Byzantion en deur Aristarchus verwerp is, is die steenfiguur van die huilende Niobe op die berg Sipylos welbekend in die Griekse letterkunde en word dit genoem deur Sophocles (Antigone, 825f.), Pausanias (1.21.3 3.22.4 7.2 .7) in die fragmentariese Niobe van Aeschylus, in Quintus Smyrnaeus (I. 293-306), en selfs deur Nonnus (2. 160). Dit alles is bestudeer deur W. M. Ramsay in 1882, wat tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat die steenfiguur van die huilende Niobe geïdentifiseer kan word met 'n rotsgesnyde berg op Sipylos naby Akpunar, in die Manisa-streek. Ramsay twyfel wel:

Algemene plan van Yazilikaya, uit The Art of the Hittites, uitgegee deur Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Boonop kon ek dit nooit sien huil nie. Ek het twee keer gegaan te midde van swaar reën wat 'n geruime tyd geduur het, maar ek het nie 'n druppel water oor die figuur gevind nie: die water val van die voorkant van die nis af heeltemal van die figuur af en raak nie eers sy knieë nie .

Dit is wat gebeur as u u Classics te letterlik opneem. Die beeld van die arme ou Ramsay wat daar in die reën staan, is genoeg om my te ondersteun deur maande se vrugtelose navorsing.

Die Grieke het die figuur as die van Niobe geïdentifiseer, maar ons weet nou dat dit 'n Hetiet is, wat 'n enkele Hetitiese godin verteenwoordig. Ons weet nog baie min van die verligting, maar die ikonografie en styl van snywerk maak dit ongetwyfeld Hetities.

Die teenwoordigheid van die Grieke in Anatolië het so 'n indruk op moderne geleerdes gemaak dat, totdat anders bewys is, byna alles aanvanklik op 'n manier met Grieke verband gehou het of met gebeure en mense wat in Griekse skrywers bespreek is. Die rotsgesnyde heiligdom by Yazilikaya is nog 'n goeie voorbeeld. Charles Texier het die webwerf in 1834 besoek en sy tekeninge is vyf jaar later gepubliseer. Hy het besluit dat die twee optogte van figure in Yazilikaya Amazones en Paphlagonians verteenwoordig. Ander besluit dat die hele toneel die ondertekening van die verdrag tussen Alyattes en Kyaxares verteenwoordig, na die verduistering van die son soos voorspel deur Thales, vermoedelik die verduistering van 28 Mei 585 v.C. Die sentrale manlike en vroulike figure is geïdentifiseer as Astyages, seun van Kyaxares, en Aryenis, die dogter van Alyattes, die toneel was hul koninklike troue soos beskryf deur Herodotus (1.74). Wat die ruïnes by Boghazkoy self betref, is dit geïdentifiseer met Pteria, die plek van die geveg tussen Croesus en Cyrus en beskryf deur Herodotus (1.76) as die sterkste posisie in die hele land. ”

Ons weet nou dat Yazilikaya 'n Hetitiese godsdienstige heiligdom is, gebou deur die Hetitiese koning Tudhaliya IV rondom die middel van die 13de eeu v.C. Hy het sy eie beeld daar uitgekap en hom in die rok van 'n Hetitiese koning laat sien, saam met die koninklike staf, die Iituus, ook gedra deur Etruskiese regters. Hy word geïdentifiseer deur inskripsie, net soos al die sentrale figure in Yazilikaya. Die sentrale groep wys nie 'n Lydiaanse prinses en 'n mediane prins nie, maar Teshup, die storm god sy vrou, Hepat hul seun, Sharruma en hul troeteldierbulle, Hurri en Sheri (“night ” en “day ”). Die inskripsies toon die groot impak van die Hurriaanse godsdiens op die Hetitiese beskawing aan die gode wat hier uitgebeeld word, het Hurriaanse name en is die belangrikste gode van die Hurriaanse panteon. Die presiese doel van Yazilikaya is nog nie heeltemal duidelik nie, maar dit het vermoedelik te doen gehad met die viering van die jaarlikse Nuwejaar -fees.

Ek wil nie die pogings van die reisigers van die negentiende eeu wat ons baie skuld, verkleineer nie

hul ywerige en intelligente opname van ou monumente. Die punt is dat hulle gebruik gemaak het van wat byderhand was. Die antieke Grieke self het identifikasies gemaak op grond van wat hulle uit die oorlewende geskiedenis en tradisies geweet het, en die Europese reisigers het slegs die voorbeeld gevolg. Niemand, oud of modern, het die Hetiete vermoed nie, want niemand het iets van die Hetiete geweet nie. In die oorlewende Griekse literêre tradisies is daar geen spoor van enigiets wat gesê kan word om die Griekse kennis van die Hetitiese beskawing van die Bronstydperk Anatolië aan te dui nie.

Dit is teen hierdie historiese agtergrond dat ons die moontlikheid moet evalueer dat die Mykeense Achaeërs binne die Hetitiese interessesfeer was. Daar is 'n aantal Hetiete. tekste wat Ahhiyawa noem, alhoewel die meeste daarvan slegs oorleef het as stukke van wat voorheen lang komposisies was, wat oor verskeie tablette strek. Die mees gedetailleerde uitgawe van hierdie dokumente is gepubliseer deur Ferdinand Sommer as Die Ahhijava-Urkunden, in Berlyn, 1932. Sommer het gevra wat vir my die belangrikste vraag is: Wat vertel hierdie tekste ons oor die land Ahhiyawa? Is daar veral iets wat kan dui op die bestaan ​​van iets anders as 'n plaaslike Anatoliese mag? Sommer se antwoord was 'n nadruklike NEE, en niks wat die afgelope veertig jaar geskryf is, het iets gedoen om die posisie te verander nie. Geleerdes het hul verbasing uitgespreek oor die feit dat die koning van Ahhiyawa werklik op Anatoliese bodem gevind kan word. Wel, ek sou antwoord, waar anders moet hy wees! Hy word gevind in hierdie teks presies waar hy hoort: nie langs die Lion's Gate in Mykene nie, maar in die geselskap van Anatoliese vorste in Wes -Anatolië.

In die beroemde Tawagalawa-brief (KUB XIV 3) verwys die Hetitiese koning na die stuur van 'n hooggeplaaste ambassadeur, ene Dabala-Dattash, na die koning van Ahhiyawa:

Nou is Dabala-Dattash nie 'n man met 'n lae rang van my jeug af nie; hy het gereeld saam met jou broer op die strydwa (saam met my) gery, ook saam met jou broer en saam met Tawagalawa [op die wa].

Soos almal erken het, vestig hierdie gedeelte die noue persoonlike verhouding tussen die koninkryk Ahhiyawa en die Hetiete.

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.

Bekend as “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. V.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.


Kyk die video: De Lampjesfabriek I Zelf je hanglamp of fittingset installeren? (Januarie 2022).