Syria, Phenicia and the Hittite Kingdom General outline Two great civilizations of the Ancient East - ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian - significantly influenced the development of the regions of the Eastern Mediterranean - Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. The natural resources of this

1. DISCOVERY OF THE HITTES

The Hittites were known until the middle of the last century only from the Bible. In the Russian translation of the Bible, one of the pre-European peoples of Palestine and Syria is called “sons of the Hittites”, “sons of Heth”, “Hittites”, “Hittites”. That is why scientists at first considered Palestine or Syria to be the homeland of the Hittites, which was not confirmed by further research. As for the ancient authors, they had no idea about the Hittites at all.

The existence of the Hittites as one of the major peoples of the ancient East was confirmed in the last century by the successful decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Akkadian cuneiform.

Since the end of the last century, the Hittites have also become known from the cuneiform texts of the archive from Tell Amarna in Egypt, which contained diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian pharaohs (in particular, Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten) with various kings of the states of the Middle East (in Akkadian). Judging by this correspondence, the Hittite kingdom could be considered as a strong state, the center of which was located somewhere in Asia Minor, and its political influence extended to areas of Northern Syria, where the interests of the Egyptians, the Hittites and Mitanni clashed. It was clear that the Hittite kingdom (in Egyptian, conventionally read, Heta; in Akkadian, Hatti) was the largest power of the ancient East, competing with both Egypt and Assyria.

The assumption of the dominance of the Hittites in Asia Minor was fully confirmed only from the beginning of our century, when in 1906-1912. under the leadership of the German orientalist G. Winkler, the first archaeological excavations were carried out in the Turkish village of Bogazkoy (150 km east of Ankara). Archaeologists discovered thousands of cuneiform tablets here, some of which were written in the Akkadian language, and the vast majority were written in the well-known Akkadian cuneiform script, but in some then unknown ancient language, which scientists immediately began to decipher. Already in 1915, the Czech researcher B. Grozny managed to determine the nature of this language and conclude that it belonged to the Indo-European language family. Scientists called it "Hittite cuneiform" (as opposed to "Hittite hieroglyphic" - or rather, Luwian - examples of which were also discovered in Northern Syria and Asia Minor before the beginning of the last century). The ancient population of Asia Minor itself called the “Hittite cuneiform” language “Nesith” (named after the city of Nes). In the same archive, texts were found in other ancient languages ​​of Asia Minor.

The decipherment of the tablets found in Boğazköy showed that a cuneiform archive containing texts of a different nature had been discovered. On the site of Boghazkoy was the capital of the Hittites - Hattusa, or Hattusha. The Hittites designated their country (and the kingdom as a whole) with the term “Hatti”. The main territory of distribution of the Hittites themselves (Nesites) included not Palestine and Syria, as previously assumed, but the central part of Asia Minor. Most of Anatolia and areas of Northern Syria (and sometimes Northern Mesopotamia) were only subject to the Hittites.

The deciphering of Hittite cuneiform texts from Boğazköy laid the foundation for a new science - Hittology, which studies the history, languages ​​and culture of the population of Asia Minor (from ancient times to the middle of the 1st millennium BC). Archaeological excavations, which are still ongoing in different places of Asia Minor, have revealed not only new cuneiform texts, but also valuable monuments of material culture, indicating that the roots of the historical development of Asia Minor go back to the 2nd millennium BC. e. far back into the mists of time.

The Asian part of modern Turkey - the Anatolia Peninsula, - since ancient times called Asia Minor, is one of the most ancient centers of civilization. Recently, in Çatalhöyük, in central Asia Minor, archaeologists discovered a Neolithic urban settlement with paintings in sanctuaries and small religious sculpture, which dates back to the 7th-5th millennia BC. e. It had lively connections with remote areas.

The early historical development of Asia Minor continued in subsequent eras, when separate cultural and economic regions were finally formed in the western and eastern, northern and southern, as well as in the central region of Anatolia. During the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages, significant successes in economic and cultural development were achieved in the central and eastern parts of Asia Minor, as evidenced by those dating back to the 4th-3rd millennia BC. e. archaeological materials obtained from the settlements of Aladzha-Hyuk, Alishchar-Hyuk, Khoroz-Tepe. It was in Central Anatolia that the Hittite kingdom was later created, which existed throughout almost the entire 2nd millennium BC. e.

Asia Minor was a connecting link, a kind of bridge connecting the Middle East with the Aegean world and the Balkan Peninsula. A particularly important role in these connections was played by the city of Troy, which stood on the Asian coast near the Hellespont, or Dardanelles Strait, which leads from the Aegean Sea (part of the Mediterranean) to the Black Sea. Here the mutual influence of the tribes of the Balkan and Asia Minor peninsulas was clearly felt. However, not only its favorable geographical location distinguished Asia Minor in ancient times. A decisive role in the economic and cultural development of Anatolia was played by its natural resources, especially metals (copper, silver, lead, gold), which have long attracted the attention of the neighboring countries of Asia Minor in the ancient Near East.

Already by the 3rd millennium BC. e. fortified points located on the hills of the eastern part of the Asia Minor peninsula were the centers of economic, political and cultural life of the Asia Minor tribes. However, these most ancient tribes were not the Nesite Hittites (Indo-Europeans), who appeared in Asia Minor, according to written sources, only later, probably from the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Scientists call the ancient indigenous tribes “proto-Hittites” (that is, those who lived in the indicated parts of Anatolia before the formation of the Hittite state) or Hattians, since their language is named in the Hittite cuneiform texts compiled in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. e., Hutt. This term comes from the name of the central part of the Hatti country - Hatti (this name was only later borrowed by the Nesit Hittites to designate their country). The center of their political, cultural and economic life was the city of Hattusa.

Natural resources brought merchants from different countries of the ancient Near East to Anatolia. According to one late Hittite legend, for example, Akkadian merchants appeared in Asia Minor supposedly back in the 24th century. BC, i.e. during the reign of Sargon the Ancient, king of Akkad.

By the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. in Asia Minor, traders from different countries lived among the local population - mainly from Ashur and Northern Syria. We learn this from the so-called Cappadocian (after the later name of the eastern part of Asia Minor) cuneiform tablets discovered at the site of Kul-tepe (near modern Kayseri), on the site of which the city of Kanish (aka Nesa) was located in ancient times, in Bogazkoy (Hattusa) and Alishar Huyuk (possibly the ancient city of Amkuva).

According to the “Cappadocia” tablets, foreign merchants, in order to better organize trade in Asia Minor, created two types of trading settlements - karum (lit. “harbour” - a colony of foreign traders that had the rights of autonomous self-government under the local city-state) and vabartum - trading mill. The organized center of all foreign trading communities was located in the Kanisha karum.

Among the merchants of the trading colonies near the cities of Asia Minor there were local natives, but especially many were citizens of the city of Ashur; They also brought the first writing and written language to Asia Minor - the Old Assyrian dialect of Akkadian. Through them, Ashur had a great influence on the activities of trading communities. But Karum Kanisha could independently conclude agreements with local rulers. The task of the trading colonies was to organize trade in silver-lead ores and wool.

Apparently, the ore was refined in Ashur, where a lot of lead gradually accumulated, which even became a measure of prices. There was a lively trade in copper and bronze, mainly within Asia Minor itself. Iron was also known in it (apparently, not only meteorite), but the places of its extraction were kept by local residents in the greatest secret, and its export from Asia Minor until the end of the 2nd millennium BC. e. was strictly prohibited, although foreign merchants tried to engage in smuggling.

To make full-fledged bronze, a lot of tin was needed, but for Asia Minor its origin is still controversial.

Transportation of goods took place using caravans of donkeys. The route went through many small city-states, and each king had to be paid off with a duty in the form of a share of the goods. Nevertheless, upon arrival at the place, the merchants received enormous profits, because all nations were vitally interested in the production of bronze. The technological properties of bronze are much higher than those of copper or, especially, stone, and are second only to steel. Simple iron subsequently had over bronze only the advantage of cheapness and the abundance of its deposits.

Due to the poor development of the commercial economy at that time and the danger of transporting precious metals, intermediate payments were carried out by merchant societies (or large families) mainly on credit. Bills of exchange were written in cuneiform on clay tablets.

Local residents quickly became involved in trading operations. They used the accumulation of funds to lend to the local free peasantry on enslaving terms, when crop failure or other natural and social circumstances put the farmer in a difficult position and he could not cope from harvest to harvest.

The “Cappadocia” tablets preserved many proper names and individual words of Indo-European origin, but the appearance of Indo-European tribes in Asia Minor should be attributed to an earlier period. The question of the exact time and route of advance of the Indo-European tribes into Asia Minor has not yet been resolved. There are hypotheses about their migration to Anatolia in ancient times through the Balkans, through the Caucasus, through the eastern regions, but none of them has yet been conclusively confirmed. There is even an assumption that Indo-European tribes could have originally lived in Asia Minor itself. What is now indisputable is that by the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Indo-European tribes were already divided into the Nesiths, who occupied the territory, apparently, to the south or southeast of Central Asia Minor, from where they gradually spread to the north, where the Hutts ("proto-Hittites") lived, to the Palayans who lived in the country of Pala in the north of Asia Minor Asia, where they were also in contact with the Hutts, and, finally, with the Luwians, whose country - Luvia - extended to the south and southwest of Asia Minor. The Luwians also spread to the southeast of Anatolia, where the Hurrian ethnic element appeared almost simultaneously.

Significant changes that took place in the economy and technology of the eastern part of Asia Minor from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. (in particular, in the 19th-18th centuries BC), caused corresponding changes in the sphere of social relations. The process of social and property differentiation has gone far among the local population. In the territory of the eastern part of Asia Minor there was, apparently, back in the 3rd millennium BC. e. Several political entities such as city-states were created, headed by rubau (kings) or rubatum (queens). At the royal court there were many “great ones” who occupied various government positions (“chief of the stairs”, “chief of the blacksmiths”, “chief cupbearer”, “chief of the gardeners” and many others). The city-states of Asia Minor used writing and a written language borrowed from Ashur merchants. There was a struggle for political hegemony among the city-states; At first, Puruskhanda gained the upper hand, whose ruler was considered the “great king” among the other rulers of the city-states of Asia Minor. Later, the situation changed in favor of the city-state of Qussary, located somewhere in the south or southeast of Central Anatolia.

Of the first rulers of Kussara, we know Pithana and his son Anitta (circa 1790-1750 BC). Even when Anitta was the “chief of the ladder”, the expansion of Kussara’s possessions began. From the text compiled by Anitta and which has come down to us in the Hittite (Nesite) language only in a later edition, we learn that “the king of Kussara (i.e., Anitta’s father) with a whole multitude (of troops) descended from the city and attacked the city of Nesu at night took it. He captured King Nesa, and (of) the sons (i.e. citizens) Nesa did not harm anyone. And he made them his own mothers and fathers.” Anitta continued his father’s policy of conquest, conquering a number of nearby regions of Central Asia Minor. He twice defeated Piusti, the king of the country of Hatti, and razed Hattusa to the ground. Anitta went on a campaign against Puruskhanda, the king submitted without a fight, handing over to him the signs of royal power (an iron throne and a scepter). Anitta made the city of Nesa his royal residence, where he built fortresses and temples, and already styled himself the “great king.” In his city, deities of Indo-European and original Hutt origin were venerated.

The Kussar kingdom created under Anitta was the most powerful political union that existed in Central Asia Minor before the formation of the Hittite state. With Anitta's conquests, foreign trading colonies (factories) throughout Anatolia apparently disappeared.

It is also assumed that during the reign of Anitta there was a gradual spread of Indo-European Nesith tribes throughout the central part of Anatolia, where the Hutts still lived. During the period of this Hittite-Hattian contact, which lasted several centuries, during which the newcomer Indo-Europeans merged with the indigenous population, the Hattian language was absorbed by the Hittite-Nesi language, which at the same time itself underwent certain changes (in phonetics, vocabulary, morphology). As a result of the merger of Indo-Europeans with the aboriginal Hattian tribes in Central Asia Minor, the Hittite ethnic group was formed, which created approximately by the middle of the 18th century. BC e. the powerful Hittite state, which fully adopted the rich cultural traditions of the Hutts. Scientists conventionally divide the history of this state into three main periods: the Ancient, Middle and New Kingdoms.

3. ANCIENT HITTIAN KINGDOM (CIRCA 1650-1500 BC)

The Hittite historical tradition connected the most ancient period of the history of the Hittites with Kussara, which was the capital at the beginning of the existence of the Hittite state. However, after Anitta, some social and cultural changes occurred, which were expressed, among other things, in the fact that the Hittites replaced the official Old Assyrian Akkadian dialect and writing with their native language and another version of cuneiform, borrowed from Northern Syria through the Hurrian tribes living there. The historical tradition considered the founder of the Hittite state proper not to be the first rulers of Kussara known to us, i.e. Pithana or Anitta, but Labarna, also the king of Kussara, but of a later time. At the beginning of his reign, when “the country was small,” Labarna conquered the neighboring regions by force of arms. He transferred the struggle to the regions located in the south and north of Asia Minor, spreading the Hittite possessions “from sea to sea” (i.e. from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea).

The next ruler of the Hittites, Hattusili I (aka Labarna II), also reigned in Kussar; He was named Hattusili (“Hattusian”) because, for strategic reasons, he moved the center of his kingdom from Kussara to the north, to Hattusa. From that time on, Hattusa, which, apparently, after its conquest by Anitta was subordinate to Kussara, became the capital of the Hittites and remained so until the fall of the Hittite state. The name of the country “Hatti” began to be used to designate the Hittite state as a whole.

After conquering a number of regions located in Asia Minor, Hattusili went on a campaign to Northern Syria. Having subjugated Alalakh (the modern settlement of Tell Atchan), one of the strong Hurri-Semitic states of Northern Syria, Hattusili defeated two large cities of the same region - Ursha (Warsuwa) and Hashsha (Hassuwa) - and began a long struggle against the third - Aleb, but from - due to illness I was unable to complete the task; this fell to the lot of his successor Mursili I.

Having conquered Aleppo, Mursili went to distant Babylon, which was ruled by Samsuditana from the Hammurabi dynasty, captured the city and in 1595 BC. e. destroyed it, taking large booty. During the campaigns in Aleppo and Babylon, Mursili also defeated the Hurrians who lived along the left bank of the Euphrates and Northern Mesopotamia; their vast country was then called Hurri.

The military operations of Hattusili I and Mursili I in Northern Syria and Mesopotamia had a certain influence on the course of events throughout the Middle East. The Hittite victories over Alalakh, Aleppo, etc. laid the foundations for Hittite rule in Northern Syria. Since then, the issue of Syria has always been one of the most important in Hatti’s foreign policy. The victory over Babylon put an end to the kingdom of the First Babylonian Dynasty. These major victories were of great significance for the Hittites: from that time on, their state became one of the great powers of the Middle East, turning into a militarily powerful power that neither the “great kingdom” of Aleppo nor Babylon could cope with.

During the reign of Hattusili I and Mursili I, military clashes began between the Hittites and Hurrians. Hurrians from the Armenian Highlands and Northern Syria began raiding Hatti, devastating the eastern provinces of the Hittites. At the very beginning of the reign of Hattusili I, the Hurrians from Hanigalbat (Northern Mesopotamia) invaded the country of the Hittites, as a result of which many eastern regions subject to the Hittites were temporarily abandoned. Only the city of Hattusa remained unharmed. Sometimes the Hurrians attacked the Hittite possessions from Northern Syria, as happened, for example, during the reign of the next Hittite king, Hantili, when the Hurrians, having ravaged the Hittite territories, captured the queen and then executed her along with her sons. Hantili repelled the invasion of the Hurrians, but the struggle against them continued in subsequent times.

Towards the end of the Old Kingdom, the Hittites made advances in Kizzuwatna, an important strategic area located at the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. The last ruler of the Ancient Hittite kingdom, Telepinu, concluded a friendly treaty with the king of Kizzuwatna. From now on, Kizzuwatna took a political orientation towards Hatti, gradually freeing itself from the influence of Aleppo and Hurri.

Throughout the Ancient Hittite kingdom, there was a fierce struggle to strengthen royal power, which was greatly limited by the popular assembly - panku. At first it united all men capable of carrying weapons, but later the circle of people included in the panka was significantly reduced, limited to representatives of the upper strata of the nobility. The assembly had the right to determine the heir to the throne, conduct court cases, etc. The king, who bore the high title of Hutt origin - tabarna, could only nominate the future ruler of the country, whom the panku approved or rejected. The range of candidates for the royal throne was quite wide, since not only the prince could become king, but in his absence, the grandson of the ruler of Hatti, the son or husband of the king’s sister, etc. Starting from Khantili, there were frequent cases of usurpation of the throne by pretenders.

The issue of inheriting royal power was finally resolved by Telepin, who issued “legislation on succession to the throne,” according to which the right to ascend the throne from now on was given only to the king’s sons by seniority. In the absence of such, only the husband of the king’s daughter could ascend the throne. All others were excluded from the list of possible contenders for the throne, and the punk had to enforce the law. This order of succession, which greatly strengthened royal power, operated throughout the existence of the Hittite state.

However, the king did not become the sole absolute monarch of the country even during the time of Telepinu, under whom, apparently, other Hittite laws were also edited for the first time. The royal power was still limited to the assembly, although now it stood above the king only if he arbitrarily violated the law of succession to the throne or arbitrarily executed the royal relatives. Punku did not interfere in other government affairs. During the period of the New Hittite kingdom, the assembly ceased to function altogether.

4. NEW HITTIAN KINGDOM (Around 1400-1200 BC)

Due to insufficient knowledge of the history of the Middle Hittite state, which covered approximately 1500-1400. BC e. , we will next touch on the main moments in the history of the Hittites during the New Kingdom, when Hatti was considered an equal power with Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria.

The policy of conquest was started by Tuthalia III at the end of the 15th century. BC e. and continued successfully until the middle of the 13th century. BC e. Almost throughout the entire New Kingdom, the Hittites undertook campaigns in the southwestern regions of Asia Minor, where the countries united under the common name Arzawa were located, as well as to the south. The entire southern territory was inhabited by the Luwians, closely related to the Hittites, and was generally called Luwia. The countries of Arzawa also included Wilusa (many scientists believe that this was the name of the region of Troy, or Ilion). In an earlier era, Artsawa maintained contact with distant Egypt, as can be clearly seen from one letter from Pharaoh Amenhotep III, written in the Hittite-Nesite language and addressed to the king of Artsawa (the pharaoh asks the king to send his daughter to his harem).

After the military operations of Tuthalia's son, Suppiluliuma I, and the latter's son, Mursili II, the countries of Arzawa were conquered and peace treaties were concluded with almost each. The rulers of the Artsawa countries pledged to regularly send military auxiliary detachments to Hatti along with war chariots, systematically send tribute to the Hittite ruler, promptly hand over fugitives from Hatti, etc. The Hittites promised to help Artsawa in the event of an enemy appearance. Peace treaties were sealed with an oath of allegiance, but it was fragile, because the rulers of the Arzawa countries, seizing the moment, immediately abandoned the Hittites.

Hittite historical documents from the New Kingdom period are full of descriptions of the struggle of the Hittites with the Kaska tribes who lived to the north and northeast of Hatti, in the mountains along the southern coast of the Black Sea. The information about helmets is especially numerous in the Annals of Suppiluliuma I and the Annals of Mursili II. Hittite texts tell us that in the country of the Kaskas, “rule by one (man) was not accepted,” that is, they did not have a king, and they were still at the primitive communal stage of social development. However, since the reign of Mursili II, some rulers of the Kask country (for example, Pikhuniya from the Kask region of Tipia) begin to rule the country “not in the Kask way,” but “in the royal way.”

The fight against the Kaskas had been systematic since the reign of Tuthalia III, which was caused both by the frequent raids of the Kaskas into the territory of the Hittites, and by the aggressive aspirations of the Hittite rulers. The Kaskis ravaged not only the regions bordering Hatti, but sometimes invaded the interior of the country, threatening the very capital of the Hittites. None of the Hittite rulers could finally resolve the Kask issue, although they sometimes concluded peace treaties with the Kasks. The military campaigns of the Hittites against the Kaskas only temporarily stopped their destructive raids.

On the eastern periphery of Asia Minor, the Hittites subjugated Azzi-Hayasa, with the people and with whose ruler Hukkana Suppiluliuma concluded a peace treaty, according to which Hukkana received a Hittite princess as a wife, but forbade him, among other things, to lay claim to other women of the Hittite royal house, which shows the presence in Hayas there are remnants of very ancient marriage relations (the right to cohabit with the wife's sisters and cousins).

The Hittites achieved great results at this time in the struggle for Northern Syria. Taking advantage of the temporary weakening of Hatti after the fall of the Old Kingdom, as well as the city of Ashur, which had until then dominated Northern Mesopotamia, the Mitannians achieved major successes west of the Euphrates, especially in Northern Syria: Aleppo, Alalakh, Karchemish and other kingdoms were under their political control. hegemony. Under the Mitannian king Saussadattar, the Mitannians defeated and destroyed the city of Ashur and took possession of the lands east of the Tigris. The rulers of Mitanni (Suttarna II and Dushratta) maintained friendly relations with the pharaohs Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton), which were consolidated by the marriages of Egyptian kings with the daughters of Mitanni rulers. Mitanni, like the Hittite kingdom, consisted of a whole system of semi-independent kingdoms and city-states that owed tribute and military assistance to the supreme king of the entire Mitanni union.

Suppiluliuma I put an end to Mitanni's power. Having crossed the upper Euphrates, Hittite troops invaded the small Hurrian kingdoms in the river valley and advanced from the north to Vashshukanni, the capital of Mitani. The Hittites defeated the capital, but the contender for the throne of Mitanni retreated without accepting the battle. Suppiluliuma placed his supporter Shattivazza on the throne of Mitanni, marrying his daughter to him. After Suppiluliuma's successful campaigns in Northern Syria, the kingdom of Mitanni lost all its possessions west of the Euphrates. Then Mitanni was unable to repel the attacks of the Assyrians and by the end of the 13th century. BC e. became an integral part of the Assyrian state. Suppiluliuma I not only defeated Mitanni, but also managed to overthrow almost all the rulers of the Syrian principalities that depended on him, extending to the Lebanese mountains. From this period the long reign of the Hittites in Northern Syria began. After conquering Aleppo, as well as Karkemish, an important city at the crossing of the Euphrates, Suppiluliuma placed his sons Piyassili and Telepina on the throne of these cities, thus laying the foundation of the Hittite dynasties in Karkemish and Aleppo, which lasted for a very long time. Suppilulium was also conquered by Alalakh, which was also owned by the Hurrians. And here the Hittites maintained dominance until the end of their kingdom. During the period of the New Hittite state, other principalities of Syria were also under strong influence of the Hittites. The dominance of the formidable northern neighbor was strengthened in Syria by the periodic appearance of the Hittite army here.

Under Suppilulium, there were no tensions between Hatti and Egypt. Proof of this is Suppiluliuma's congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Akhenaten on the occasion of his accession to the throne. But the Hittite policy pursued in Syria brought them into conflict with Egypt.

Since the 19th Dynasty, Egypt has been faced with the task of restoring its former influence in Palestine, Phenicia and Syria, lost in the first half of the 14th century. BC e. Egypt's main rival in Asia was now Hatti, against whom Pharaoh Ramesses II began to fight. In the fifth year of his reign (about 1312 BC), Ramesses II gathered an army of twenty thousand and went to Syria, where the Hittite king Muwatalli with his army of 30 thousand soldiers was preparing to meet him. Near the city of Kadesh (Kinza), detachments of the Hittite army, which included militias from various subordinate countries, including the Dardanians, that is, the Trojans, ambushed the pharaoh, suddenly attacked him and defeated the Egyptian detachments that were with him. Although Ramesses managed to escape from the encirclement and repel the enemy, he was never able to defeat the Hittites and take possession of Kadesh. However, the Hittites were unable to advance to the south; the fight against the Egyptians continued.

After a long struggle, in the 21st year of the reign of Ramesses II, that is, presumably in 1296 BC. e. , when Hattusili III was already the king of the Hittites, a peace treaty was concluded between Egypt and Hatti, which provided for mutual immunity, assistance to each other in the event of a common enemy, mutual surrender of fugitives, etc. The agreement was sealed by the marriage of Ramesses II with the daughter of Hattusili III, after which the Egyptians and the Hittites never fought with each other.

Hittite cuneiform texts from the New Kingdom period contain a lot of information about the contacts of the Hittites with the state of Ahhiyawa (apparently the same as the “Akaivasha” of Egyptian hieroglyphs). Akhhiyawa is mentioned in connection with areas located in the west and southwest of Asia Minor. The name itself is identified by some scientists with the term “Achaeans,” which in Homer denoted a union of ancient Greek tribes, although other scientists, on linguistic grounds, resolutely reject this identification. Ahkhiyava is still not completely localized; researchers assumed the possibility of looking for it in Rhodes or Cyprus, Crete or somewhere in Anatolia (in the southwest, west or northwest). Recently, the initial assumption about the identification of Ahhiyava with Mycenaean Greece has gained more and more supporters.

Friendly relations existed between Ahhiyawa and Hatti since the reign of Suppiluliuma I. However, these relations subsequently deteriorated, as Ahhiyawa sought to strengthen himself in the south and southwest of Asia Minor, especially in the city of Milavaida (possibly the later Miletus), as well as in Alasiya (Island of Cyprus), where the interests of both powers collided. By the second half of the 13th century. BC e. “the man (from) Akhiya (you),” that is, the ruler of this country, increasingly devastated the territories of countries dependent on the Hittites and located in the far west of Anatolia.

From this time on, the gradual decline of the power of the Hittite state began. The Kask tribes continued to attack the northern border regions of their weakened neighbor, as some scientists believe - under pressure from the Abkhaz and Georgian tribes who began moving from the Caucasus to the southwest; in the east of Asia Minor, various political associations of the upper Euphrates valley (Pakhkhuva, Tsukhma, etc.) became more active. An unfavorable situation was created for the Hittites in the countries of Arzawa, who sought to gain political independence, which was facilitated by the strengthening of the cultural and religious influence of the Luwian world in Hatti itself.

By the end of the 13th century. BC e. The Hittite kingdom was experiencing an internal crisis. Continuous military campaigns greatly weakened the country's economy, ruining various sectors of the economy. From one letter addressed by the Hittite king to the ruler of Ugarit, it turns out that at this time Hatti experienced a great shortage of food. Added to this was the invasion of Asia Minor by tribes of the Aegean world, called “peoples of the sea” in Egyptian sources. “Not a single country, starting from Hatti, could resist their troops,” notes one of the Egyptian inscriptions. The Hittite sources that have come down to us do not contain information about this catastrophe, which apparently broke out under the last king of the Hittites, Suppilulium II.

Around 1200 BC. e. or somewhat later, the once formidable kingdom of Hatti fell forever along with its capital Hattusa. Eastern Asia Minor was deserted for three to four hundred years. In those same years, the famous Troy, which connected the civilizations of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula, also perished in the war with the Achaeans. The legends about the fall of Troy subsequently provided material for the great Greek epic poems that were attributed to the legendary poet Homer - the Iliad and the Odyssey.

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN HATTI

The main occupation of the population of Hittite society was agriculture and cattle breeding, reflected in many paragraphs of Hittite laws. The Hittites were engaged in breeding sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. Horse breeding is spreading in Asia Minor. Subsequently, the Hittites learned the most advanced methods of training war horses from Hurrian manuals translated into Hittite from the textbook of the Hurrian horse breeder Kikkuli. Hittite laws preserved for us the prices for various livestock: a horse or mule cost from 15 to 40 shekels of silver (shekel = 8.4 g), an ox - 4-12 shekels, a sheep - 1 shekel, etc. The Hittites had developed poultry farming, beekeeping and other sectors of the economy.

Agriculture occupied a large place in the economic activity of the Hittites. Land plots of direct producers usually consisted of arable land or vineyard gardens. Compared to livestock, a plot of land was cheap: 1 iku (0.35 hectares) of uncultivated land cost 1 shekel of silver, cultivated - 2-3 shekels. Vineyard gardens were more valuable: 1 vineyard was worth 40 shekels of silver.

Along with cattle breeding and agriculture, crafts were highly developed in Hittite society: bronze metallurgy, the manufacture of tools from it, as well as pottery. Thanks to archaeological excavations, excellent examples of agricultural and craft tools, weapons, and highly artistic utensils have survived to this day. A significant level of agriculture and crafts led to the development of trade among the Hittites.

Forms of land ownership and land use were different. In the Hittite state there were royal (palace), temple and private (community) lands. The royal and temple lands were at the direct disposal of the supreme state power, for the king was already considered not only the supreme ruler of the country, but also the high priest, therefore, the main owner of the palace and temple lands. However, he was not the owner of all the lands in the country. A certain part of the land was outside the state economy (sector). Such lands were freely alienated (by purchase and sale, donation, etc.).

State lands could be transferred - usually in the form of entire settlements - to various royal (palace) and temple households. The royal economy covered different “houses”-farms: “house of the king” (sometimes called “house of the Sun”), “house of the queen”, “house of the palace”, etc., in which various categories of direct producers worked. A certain part of them was attached to the “house”. Among the temple households were the “houses of god” (i.e. temples), the so-called stone houses, bone houses, printing houses, tablet houses, etc. They had their own contingents of direct producers, often also attached to the lands of these temples ( as well as generally cultic, for example funeral) farms. “Houses” were handed over for use to various royal or temple employees, as a rule, together with working personnel attached to the land of a particular settlement. Plots were given out even without personnel.

Large “houses” of the public sector ultimately disintegrated into small farms - individual “houses”, which served as the main production cells in Hittite society. Ownership and use of state land were associated with the performance of two types of state duties - sakhkhan and luzzi. Sakhan is a duty in kind; it obligated individual direct producers or large farms to supply finished products of all kinds (dairy or other food products, wool, etc.), as well as livestock in favor of the king and large government officials (“Mr. country", head of the district, mayor, etc.). Luzzi - labor service, it consisted of performing work in the fields or vineyards, plowing the land, repairing fortresses, construction or other state and public works in favor of the ruler of the country (palace) or state dignitaries. These duties included the duties of a royal employee or a large state enterprise to supply the state with auxiliary units from which the Hittite army was formed.

Sakhan and luzzi were exempted from performing sakhana only by special decree of the king. Usually, temples and various religious institutions, the direct producers of which worked only in favor of “God,” were exempt from state duties. However, there were cases of double exploitation, when the direct producer was forced to work both for the king or his dignitaries, and for the temple.

In the process of agricultural production in the public sector, economic relations of two types took shape and developed: the slave-owning nature itself and the serf-owning type (which implied labor service). The methods of exploitation were mainly slave-owning, with which forms of exploitation of the serf type were combined. Therefore, the direct producers of the public sector can be called “dependent people of the slave-serf type.” It should be borne in mind that the Hittite “serfs” did not constitute a class separate from the slaves, and the Hittites themselves, although they distinguished them from private slaves of the usual type, still designated the serfs as “the heads of male and female slaves.” Therefore, they are now often seen as a subdivision of the same class of unfree.

Hittite laws divide Hittite society into free people and the unfree (“slaves”) opposed to them. From the very beginning, “free” were people who were exempted by the king (palace) from state duties sakhhan and luzzi, not only in favor of the king (palace) or major government officials, but also in favor of the temple, as well as other religious institutions. Free from all duties, people gradually became “noble, honorable, noble,” that is, socially free. From them formed the upper, dominant layer of society (royal employees, military leaders, various representatives of the administration, temple employees, etc., who owned large plots of land), for whom labor activity became a shameful occupation or a form of punishment.

“Unfree” were persons who were not exempt from work - from performing at least one of the state duties - and as a result were considered as socially unfree. If such a person was released from duties, for example, in favor of the king and large government officials, then he had to work for the benefit of the temple, that is, he still remained unfree, dependent. “Unfree” covered a wide range of direct producers (plowmen, shepherds, artisans, gardeners and many others) who made up the lower social stratum of Hatti. They included slaves themselves, serfs, mercenaries, etc., that is, people who were in various forms of dependence.

The war provided Hittite society with auxiliary labor and material goods. During their campaigns, the Hittites captured many prisoners. Mursili II alone brought 66 thousand captives from the Artsawa countries, named in the “Annals of Mursili II” by the Sumerian term nam-ra (in Hittite read as arnuwala), i.e. “deported” (the population of the conquered territory taken captive). Some of these deportees were turned into slaves of various categories, others were settled on the land as obligated subjects of the Hittite king (sometimes they were enlisted in the army). After a certain time, they found themselves equal to the working population of the country of Hatti.

There were various categories of direct producers of material goods. Some of them were completely deprived of the rights of ownership or ownership of the means of production and were forced to work for the owner by direct force. These were slaves, usually acting only as objects of law. They were used as servants, to cultivate the land "at home" or care for livestock, etc. Others had the means of production, but only with a conditional right of possession, but not property. Economically (but, apparently, not classally) different from them were those who, usually acting as subjects of law, had their own “houses” (farms), which included a family, a plot of land (as a rule, only on the basis of ownership rights), a certain number own livestock and working personnel - their slaves. With all this, an economic opportunity was created for a certain material interest and economic initiative of small producers of material goods. From a legal point of view, all categories of direct producers constituted a single exploited class-estate of “dependent, unfree, bonded people” of Hittite society.

The Hittite state had a loose structure. In this respect, it did not differ from Mitania and other relatively short-lived state associations of Asia Minor, Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. In addition to the cities and regions subordinate directly to the king or queen, there were small semi-dependent kingdoms (for princes), as well as regions allocated for the management of major dignitaries. At the head of the entire state were the king (xaccy), who (unlike lesser kings) also bore the title of tabarna, and the queen, who could bear the title of tavananna, if she was the mother of the heir to the throne or the king himself. The king had important military, religious, legal, diplomatic and economic functions. The tavananna queen, along with the king, occupied a high position in the Hittite social organization: she was a high priestess with a wide range of cult and political rights and responsibilities, and received independent income.

At the royal court there were many officials and servants: “sons of the palace”, “squires of the golden spear”, “men of the rod”, “overseers of a thousand”, “butlers”, “stewards”, “cooks”, “cup makers”, “barbers” ”, “bread bakers”, “milkers”, etc. The king was served by “tanners”, “shoemakers”, “makers of royal war chariots”, etc. They were called “slaves (servants) of the king”, although they were not slaves in the literal sense words. All of them received a plot of land for food for their service.

The temples were large farms, similar in structure to the royal farm. Various categories of people worked in the temple. These were ministers of the cult (“great priests”, “small priests”, “anointed ones”, “musicians”, “singers”), servants of the “kitchen” (“kravchie”, “stewards”, “cooks”, “bread bakers”, “ winemakers"), direct producers (plowmen, shepherds, sheep breeders, gardeners). All of them are designated as “God’s male and female servants.” In reality, they were not actually slaves.

6. LAW AND LAW

The laws of the Hittites were attributed to divine origin, although this is not reflected in their text. The collection of laws that has come down to us consists of two main tables, the first of which was compiled at the beginning of the ancient Hittite period (there is also a later version of the laws, dating back to the 13th century BC). Hittite laws, being of a class nature, paid great attention to the protection of property, especially the property rights of a “free” person. They established a fixed price tariff - proof of the well-known development of the commodity-money system (prices are also given for slave artisans: potters, blacksmiths, carpenters, tanners, tailors, weavers, bird catchers - from 10 to 20 shekels of silver). A number of paragraphs are devoted to family law, as well as the law of inheritance. The Hittite family was patriarchal in nature: it was headed by the father. His power extended not only to family property, but also to his wife and children, although the rights of the head of the family in relation to its members were not unlimited. There were various forms of marriage: marriage, which implied the payment of a certain amount by the groom's family; Errebu marriage, in which the son-in-law was part of the bride's family who paid the ransom; marriage-kidnapping. Marriages between various representatives of free and unfree were allowed.

7. HITTIC CULTURE

If the Hittite ethnos was formed as a result of the merger and crossing of Hattic and Indo-European tribes, then in the process of merging the cultural achievements of these two ethnic groups, the Hittite culture was created, which from the very beginning was characterized by an abundance of local, Hattic traditions. Hurrian and Luwian cultural elements played a significant role in the formation of the Hittite culture. It was also influenced by the North Syrian and Sumerian-Akkadian cultural worlds.

The Boghazkey archive has preserved for us rich Hittite literature, containing official texts (decrees of the kings, annals), as well as myths and legends. Thanks to this archive, we became acquainted with one of the earliest autobiographies in world literature - “The Autobiography of Hattusili III.” During the New Hittite period, a significant number of works of literature of the peoples of the Middle East were translated into the Hittite language (the Epic of Gilgamesh, Hurrian myths). Of greatest importance are the Hurrian epic tale of the kingdom in heaven, which tells of the transfer of power from one dynasty of gods to another, and the Hurrian epic poem about the god Kumarbi - “The Song of Ullikummi”. These works serve as a link connecting the ancient literatures of the Middle East with the ancient Greek mythological and poetic tradition, in particular with Hesiod's Theogony. The plot of the poem about the succession of four generations of gods in heaven is similar to Hesiod's story about the transfer of power from Uranus to Kronos and from Kronos to Zeus. The plot of the "Song of Ullikummi" is very similar to Hesiod's myth of Typhon.

Hittite mythological literature is quite rich, including myths of Hattian origin. One of them is a mythological story of the proto-Hittite New Year ritual - “The Myth of Illuyanka”. The ritual conveyed the battle between the divine hero and his opponent - the dragon Illuyanka, which took place in connection with the approach of the New Year. This fight is compared to the ritual battles that took place during the later New Year holidays in different countries of the world. The myth of a temporarily disappearing and resurrecting deity - the “Myth of Telepinu” - dates back to the Hutt tradition. One of the attributes of the cult of this deity was an evergreen tree.

Monuments of Hittite art attract attention with the variety and originality of forms and types (silver and bronze figurines of animals, bowls and jugs made of gold, gold ornaments, so-called standards, sometimes with the image of a deer). The stone idols from Kul-Tepe and ceramic samples (dishes, rhytons, vases) are unique. From the period of the New Hittite kingdom in Central Asia Minor, a monumental style appeared in various fields of art (reliefs on stone, images of animals - sphinxes, lions), as well as in architecture. Stone processing reached a high level in Hatti, an excellent example of which is the sculpture gallery carved into the rock at Yazilikaya. Original examples of Hittite glyptics have been preserved: the royal seals contain inscriptions made in “Hittite” (actually Luwian) hieroglyphics and Hittite cuneiform.

The Hittite religion played a colossal role in the ideological and economic life of society. As the Hittites themselves believed, there were “a thousand gods of Hatti,” including deities of Hittite, Indo-European (Nesite, Luwian, Palai), Hurrian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Aryan and other origins. The main deity was the thunder god, called “the king of the sky, the lord of the country of Hatti,” whose wife was considered the sun goddess from the city of Arinna - “the mistress of the country of Hatti, heaven and earth, the mistress of the kings and queens of Hatti.”

The traditions of Hittite culture did not disappear even after the fall of the Hittite state.

Hittites. Destroyers of Babylon Gurney Oliver Robert

3. EMPIRE (NEGO HITTIAN KINGDOM)

All we know for certain about Tudhalia II, the founder of the dynasty that later created the Hittite Empire, is that he captured and destroyed Aleppo. Consequently, the Hittite kingdom restored internal political stability and was again able to dictate its will to the rebellious tributaries.

The exact date and circumstances of this attack on Aleppo are unknown to us, and this event has yet to be written into the chronicle of Syrian history of the 15th century BC. e. During a long period of unrest, which began with the assassination of Mursili I, Northern Syria managed to come under the rule of Hanigalbat, a political union of Hurrian tribes organized around 1500 BC. e. The impotence of the Hatti kingdom is evidenced by the fact that the Syrians, themselves tributaries of the Hurrians, could raid Hittite lands with impunity. In 1457 BC. e. The victories of Thutmose III in the eighth military campaign put an end to the rule of the Hurrians, and Syria became dependent on the Egyptians for 30 years. However, after the death of the energetic Thutmose, the Egyptians were unable to hold Northern Syria for long and were soon forced to retreat to the new Hurrian power - Mitanni. Under the Tsararii dynasty, the state of Mitanni achieved dominance over all of Western Asia. We do not know what the internal political factors of this process were, since the archives of the kings of this dynasty have not yet been found. But from the next century, when the power of Mitanni had already begun to decline, many monuments have been preserved, from which it is clear that the Hurrian language and Hurrian culture as a whole managed to exert a very noticeable influence in all territories from Hittite Anatolia to Canaanite Palestine.

The document reporting the Hittite campaign on Aleppo explains that it was a punitive campaign undertaken as punishment for the city coming under Hanigalbat's rule. Consequently, it took place no later than 1457 BC. e., when Hanigalbat was defeated by Thutmose III. It is possible that the Hittites timed their campaign to coincide with the Egyptian campaign, acting in alliance with the Egyptian pharaoh: it is known that at that time Thutmose accepted gifts from the “Great Kheta”. This version explains why there is no mention of the capture of Aleppo in reports of the Egyptian campaign.

The rise of Mitanni plunged the Hittite kingdom into another crisis. Many principalities that had previously fallen into the orbit of Hittite influence now came under the rule of the Hurrian power or declared their independence. Under Hatgusili II and Tudhalia III, the kingdom came to the very edge of the abyss. Apparently, the description of the critical situation left by one of the later kings refers specifically to this period:

“In the old days, the lands of Hatti were plundered from abroad (?). The enemy from Kaski came and plundered the lands of Hatti and made Nenassa his border. An enemy from Artsawa came from beyond the Lower Lands, and he also plundered the lands of Hatti and made Tuvana and Uda his border.

An enemy from outside, from Arawnna, came and plundered the entire land of Hassia.

And again an enemy from outside, from Azzi, came and plundered all the Upper Lands and made Samukha his border. And the enemy from Isuwa came and plundered the land of Tegarama.

And an enemy came from outside, from Armatana, and he also plundered the lands of Hatti and set the city of Kizzuwatna as his border. Hattusa was burned to the ground and<…>but home Hasty <…>survived."

It seems completely improbable that all these attacks occurred at the same time, for in this case all that would remain of the entire kingdom would be a piece of barren land south of Halys. But partly this description corresponds to the known facts about the situation of that time: the raids of Hatti’s eastern neighbors can be explained by the support provided to them by the Mitannian power, and the facts of the independence and expansion of Arzawa are confirmed by letters found in the archives of El-Amarna from the Egyptian pharaoh to the king of this state.

The end of this period of weakening and the beginning of a new era was marked by the accession of Suppiluliuma I. He ascended the throne around 1380 BC. e. under not entirely legal circumstances, despite the fact that he was the son of Tudhalia III and accompanied his father on several campaigns.

We know not much about the struggle for the unification and strengthening of the Hatti lands, to which this king, in all likelihood, devoted the first years of his reign. It must have been Suppiluliuma who built the massive defensive wall along the southern border of Hattusa and other fortifications in the capital city, which will be discussed below. And only after this he was able to begin his main task - settling scores with Mitanni, a formidable enemy, through whose fault the Hittite kingdom fell into decline under the previous rulers.

The first campaign against Syria through the Taurus Range resulted in defeat and heavy losses; King Tushratta of Mitanni sent part of the war trophies captured from the Hittites to his ally, the king of Egypt. The next campaign was prepared more carefully. Apparently, the Hittites managed to find out that the main means of defense of the Mitannians were concentrated in Northern Syria. But one way or another, the new plan was to cross the Euphrates at Malatya and attack the Mitannian kingdom itself from the rear. This was a dangerous route, since wild tribes lived in the northern mountains, and to conquer them they first had to make a separate trip. As a result, a peace treaty was concluded with a certain kingdom, called Azzi in some texts and Hayasa in others, sealed by marriage between Suppiluliuma’s sister and the leader of this mountainous country. So the Hittites secured themselves from the left flank. Having transported the army across the Euphrates, Suppiluliuma easily returned the previously lost region of Isuwa to his power and, suddenly falling on the capital of Mitanni, the city of Vashshukanni, captured it and plundered it. Apparently, the Mitannian king was unable to resist and avoided battle. After this, Suppiluliuma again crossed the Euphrates and returned to Syria, where the local kings, having lost the support of Mitanni, hastened to show him complete obedience. Apparently, the conflict with Egypt was not part of the plans of the Hittite king, and it is possible that he would have been content with establishing the border along the Orontes River. But the prince of Kadesh - a city that at that time was an outpost of Egyptian influence - himself went to battle against him. He could not resist the Hittite chariots, and as a result, the Hittite army moved further south to Abin (biblical Hobah, Gen. 14:15), a city near Damascus, and Suppiluliuma declared the ridge of Lebanon as its border. Fortunately for him, the Egyptian kings during this period stopped paying attention to the defense of their borders and began to engage in religious reform within the country.

As a result of this brilliant expedition, carried out around 1370 BC. e., the Hittite kingdom included Halpa (Aleppo) and Alalakh (Atshana). Apparently, it was at that time that the treaties that have reached us were concluded with the kings of Nuhassi (Central Syria) and Amurru, which included the territory of Lebanon and most of the coastal strip. However, Karkemish, which controlled the main crossing of the Euphrates, and the area known to the Hittites as "Astata" and stretching along the Euphrates from Karkemish south to the mouth of the Khabur, did not submit to the Hittites and could still count on the support of Tushratta, who, at the cost of his own reputation, preserved the army.

Suppiluliumu was called back to the capital by urgent matters. The task of holding Syria, which the king entrusted to his son, Telepin the “priest,” turned out to be very difficult. The Syrian principalities were divided into two warring factions: one supported the Hittites, the other the Mitannians, and both closely followed the struggle between the two great powers. But, fortunately for the Hittites, the kingdom of Mitanni itself was mired in civil strife. King Tushratta and his predecessors maintained allied relations with Egypt, and the dynasties of these two countries were linked by diplomatic marriages. But in light of recent events, it appeared that there was little hope for Egypt, and a rival branch of the Mitannian royal family decided to seize power, taking advantage of Tushratta's disgrace. This group turned for help and support to the power-hungry Assyrian king Ashuruballit, whose predecessors paid tribute to the kings of Mitanni. As a result, Tushratta was killed, and the new king Artadama and his son Shuttarna, who succeeded him, recognized the independence of Assyria and rewarded its king with rich gifts.

Despite all the dangers that this sudden rise of a new state on the Tigris, full of young forces, was fraught with for the Hittites, after the collapse of Mitanni it was no longer difficult to conquer Syria. Returning to Syrian lands around 1340 BC. BC, Suppiluliuma captured the huge fortress of Karchemish after only eight days of siege, and all of Syria from the Euphrates to the sea became dependent on the Hittites. Telepin became the king of Aleppo, and another of the king's sons, Piyassili, became the king of Karchemish. The kingdom of Kizzuwatna found itself isolated and was forced to make peace with the Hittites, who recognized it as a friendly power.

The wide popularity Suppiluliuma acquired in his time can be judged by one incident that occurred while the Hittite army was camped near the walls of Karchemish. An envoy from Egypt arrived at Suppiluliuma with a letter from his queen, which said: “My husband has passed away, and I have no son, but they say about you that you have many sons. If you would send one of your sons to me, he would become my husband. I will never take any of my subjects as my husband. I am very afraid". Suppiluliuma was so surprised that he sent his envoy to the Egyptian court to make sure that he was not deceived. The ambassador returned with a second letter from the queen: “Why do you say: “They are deceiving me”? If I had a son, would I write to a stranger, publicly announcing my misfortune and the misfortune of my country? By saying this, you insult me. The one who was my husband is now dead, and I have no son. I will not marry my subject for anything. I didn't write to anyone but you. Everyone says that you have many sons; give me one of them so that he can become my husband.” The Egyptian queen who wrote these letters is none other than Ankhesenamun, the third daughter of the “heretic” king Akhenaten, who already in her early youth became the widow of King Tutankhamun, who did not live to be eighteen years old. Remaining childless, she had the right (at least formally) to choose a second husband on her own and thereby decide the future fate of the Egyptian throne. Of course, Suppiluliuma did not want to miss such an incredible chance. But the plan failed. The Hittite prince was killed immediately upon his arrival in Egypt - apparently on the instructions of the court priest Ey, who later became Tutankhamun's successor, entering into a fictitious marriage with Ankhesenamun and thereby legitimizing the usurpation of the throne. There is no doubt that it was from this marriage that Ankhesenamun tried to escape with the help of the Hittite king.

Soon after this, the son of the late Tushratta, who himself narrowly escaped death, approached Suppiluliuma with a request for help. Being a subtle politician, the Hittite king was not slow to take advantage of this opportunity to create a buffer state that would protect the Hittites from Assyria, which was rapidly gaining strength. He sent the young petitioner under the command of Piyassili. Together, the two princes crossed the Euphrates at the head of a large army and captured the Mitanni capital of Vashshukanni for the second time. As a result, a new dependent kingdom of Mitanni was formed, which, however, turned out to be too weak and could not withstand the onslaught of Ashuruballit, who soon after the death of Suppiluliuma annexed this territory to his possessions. After this, only the Euphrates separated the Hittite lands from the Assyrians.

But the rule of the Hittites in Syria was no longer threatened. Even when illness took King Suppiluliuma to the grave, and soon his eldest son Arnuwanda II, and the throne passed to the inexperienced younger son Mursili II, the governors of Aleppo and Karchemisha remained faithful to him. The threat now came mainly from the western regions of the empire, but in this regard much remains unclear, since it has not yet been possible to establish the exact location of most of the settlements mentioned in documents of that period. The powerful kingdom of Artsawa, once conquered by Labarna himself, separated from the Hittite kingdom, once it fell into decline, and the king of Artsawa even carried on friendly correspondence with the Egyptian king. Suppiluliuma conquered Artsawa again, but during the reign of Mursili II it rebelled again, and a number of city-states joined this rebellion: Mira, Kuwaliya, Hapalla and the “land of the Seha River”.

However, Mursili turned out to be the true son of his father. As a result of a large-scale military campaign, which lasted two years and about which a detailed account has been preserved, Artsawa was crushed, its king was killed, and Hittite governors were placed on the thrones of several small kingdoms. At least one of the latter was already connected with the Hittite royal house by ties of kinship: he was married to a Hittite princess. This state of affairs continued until the death of Mursili, but peace on the western outskirts of the Hittite Empire was always fragile, and each successive king had to suppress another uprising.

The northern borders also caused a lot of trouble, although for a different reason. Here the problem was not the proximity to a powerful rival, but, on the contrary, the fact that there was no state at all adjacent to the Hittite Empire from the north with which a peace treaty could be concluded. Hittite garrisons were stationed at strategic points, but, apparently, they did not have enough strength to restrain the raids of the violent Kaska barbarians who inhabited the mountain valleys north of Hatti. We have no reason to believe that the helmets received any help from other opponents of the Hittite kingdom; but, despite this, every few years the king had to lead an army into the northern mountains and pacify these violent tribes. Mursili II conducted ten such campaigns - in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 19th, 24th and 25th years of his reign (detailed descriptions have been preserved these trips). All campaigns ended successfully, but complete victory was never achieved: as soon as the empire began to show the slightest signs of weakness, the raids were resumed. Therefore, one can suspect that the reasons for these troubles lay deeper than it seemed to the Hittites themselves.

In the seventh year of Mursili's reign, the kingdom of Azzi-Hayasa separated from the Hittite Empire and had to be re-conquered. At the first stage, the command was entrusted to one of the royal commanders, since the king at that time was fulfilling the religious duties prescribed to him by law in the city of Kummanni (ancient Comana).

Meanwhile, even Syria rebelled (here, apparently, this was not without incitement from Egypt, where at that time the commander Haremheb usurped power). The governor of Karkemish, Shar-Kushuh, brother of Mursili, who successfully ruled the lands entrusted to him for ten years, also went to the holiday in Kummanni, but fell ill there and died. During his absence, someone apparently captured Carchemish. One way or another, the need arose for the king’s personal intervention, and in the ninth year of his reign, Mursili led an army to Syria. To pacify the Syrian kings, the mere appearance of the Hittite army was enough. Shar-Kushuh's son ascended the throne at Carchemish, and in the same year Mursili was able to move further north and lead the fighting against Azzi-Hayasa.

It is not possible to correlate other campaigns of this king with known geographical locations. Oddly enough, the documents from the period of his reign say nothing about a campaign against Kizzuwatna, although it is known that soon after Mursili's accession to the throne this area rebelled. Since after the death of Suppiluliuma I, references to the kings of Kizzuwatna completely disappear from the documents, and under Mursili II this state apparently completely lost its independence and became part of Hatti, it would be natural to assume that Mursili conquered it again, and the text describing this campaign is simply lost.

King Mursili II left his son and heir Muwatali a strong empire surrounded by many dependent kingdoms. Upon his accession to the throne, Muwatali did not face any serious difficulties. It is only known that a demonstration of force was required on the western borders, but history has not preserved the name of the enemy who disturbed the peace of the new king. Muwatali confirmed the powers of the kings of Arzawa, who remained tributaries of Hatti, and concluded a new peace treaty with a certain Alaksandu, king of Wilusa - a country that was part of Arzawa, but which had always remained faithful to Hatti since the time of king Labarna. Having thus secured the western borders, Muwatali was able to focus his attention on the new threat from the south. The Egyptian colossus awoke from a long sleep. The pharaohs of the 19th dynasty were eager to reconquer the Syrian lands, once conquered by Thutmose III, but lost during the reign of Akhenaten, who paid attention only to his religious reforms. Around 1300 BC e. Seti I set out on a campaign against Canaan. Having restored law and order there, he moved on and reached Kadesh itself, which is on the Orontes. But the Hittites, apparently, quickly repulsed him, and until the end of the reign of Seti I, peace remained between Egypt and the Hittite power. However, after Ramesses II ascended the throne in 1290 BC. e. it became clear that it would no longer be possible to avoid a large-scale clash between the two rival empires. Muwatali gathered troops from all allied states. A list of them is given by Egyptian scribes (the Hittite annals from the reign of Muwatali have not survived), and here for the first time mentions of the Dardans, known to us from Homer’s Iliad, and the Philistines, as well as the Sherdans, a people whose name is often found in Egyptian inscriptions, appear. But in the Hittite documents that have reached us, none of these peoples are mentioned, and since we do not have Hittite chronicles of that period, we can only guess about the reasons for their participation in the war on the side of the Hittites. The armies of the two empires met at the walls of Kadesh in the fifth year of Ramesses' reign (1286/1285 BC). Inscriptions on the walls of an Egyptian temple praise the pharaoh for his valor in this campaign, but in reality the Hittites retained Syria. Muwatali even managed to expand his possessions by conquering Abu (Abina), a region near Damascus. Thus, there is no doubt that the Battle of Kadesh ended in victory for the Hittites. Some details of this battle will be outlined below.

During the reign of Muwatali, the northeastern regions of the Hittite state acquired the status of a principality with the capital in Hakpi, where the king's talented and ambitious brother, Hattusili, ruled. The king himself moved his residence further south, to the city of Datassa, closer to the theater of military operations in Syria. As a result, Hattusili's position was too strong, and it is not surprising that Urhi-Teshub (3), the young son of Muwatali, who succeeded him on the throne around 1282 BC. e., tried to take away part of the lands from his uncle. He probably suspected that Hattusili was making plans to seize power in the country. But records from the short period of the reign of this king also have not survived, and we can only glean information about him from the tendentious story of Hattusili. The latter claims that for seven years he suffered undeserved insults from Urkha-Teshub, then declared war on his nephew and overthrew him. From the fact that the coup succeeded without difficulty, it can be concluded that Urhi-Teshub was an unpopular and short-sighted ruler. For some time, his uncle kept him captive in the city of Samukha (near Malatya), but treated him leniently, and subsequently sent him into honorable exile in Nuhassi, one of the distant Syrian regions.

Hattusili III ascended the throne in 1275 BC. e., at the age of about 50, already an experienced commander. Under his rule, the Hittite Empire entered a period of relative peace and prosperity. True, at first there were some frictions with Egypt, and the Kassite king Kadashman-Turgu even promised Hattusili to provide military assistance if it came to conflict. But the differences were settled peacefully. Obviously, Hatti and Egypt were forced to unite in the face of a new formidable enemy - Assyria, which was gaining strength. Since then, the friendship between the two former rivals grew stronger every year, and in 1269 BC. e. a famous peace treaty was concluded to ensure peace and security in the lands of the Levant. Not only the kings, but also the queens of the two powers exchanged congratulatory messages on this occasion; one of these letters has survived. Finally, 13 years after the conclusion of the treaty, the two empires sealed their friendship with marriage: the Hittite princess became the wife of Ramesses II. The fact that 69-year-old Hattusili had a daughter of marriageable age is explained by the fact that he himself married Puduhepa, the daughter of the priest Kizzuwatna, only twenty-nine years earlier, upon returning from a campaign against the Egyptians, in which he participated under the command of his brother.

Under Hattusili III, the capital of the Hittite kingdom again became Hattusa, which was plundered by the Kasque tribes during Muwatali's stay in the south. The city was rebuilt; In addition, by order of the king, scribes made copies from the archives. Hattusili and his wife Puduhepa issued many religious and administrative decrees, which at first glance can be taken as evidence of order and prosperity in the country.

However, the only small fragment remaining from the annals of Hattusili suggests that not all was well in the western part of the empire. Apparently, there was a need for military action against the ancient enemy - Artsawa; but the details of this campaign are unknown to us. Relations with Babylonia after the death of Kadashman-Turgu in 1270 BC. e. also worsened. In a letter that has come down to us to the young Kadashman-Enlil, Hattusili expresses dissatisfaction that this new Kassite king has not sent an envoy to Hatti since his accession to the throne. Perhaps Urhi-Teshub was involved here, since in one of the documents Hattusili reports that the exiled king was noticed in relations with the Babylonians and for this reason was exiled from Nuhassi “away to the sea.” The meaning of this phrase is not entirely clear, but perhaps the island of Cyprus was meant. We learn that Urkhi-Teshub later lived in a foreign land - it is possible that it was in Cyprus - from another document. Here he tried to gain the confidence of the king of Egypt. But if he sought to enlist the help of the pharaoh in order to regain his throne, he clearly did not achieve success.

King Hattusili is the author of one very remarkable document, which we will discuss in detail in Chapter VIII. Apparently, he set himself the task of justifying the usurpation of the throne and the expulsion of the legitimate king. Hattusili declares that he did so only under the pressure of circumstances and on the direct orders of the goddess Ishtar, the patroness of the city of Samukha. Naturally, one cannot completely trust such a tendentious description of events, but as evidence of a highly developed political consciousness, this document has no equal in the Ancient World.

Since Hattusili ascended the throne already in adulthood, it can be assumed that he died soon after his daughter married the Egyptian pharaoh. His son and successor, Tudhalia IV, appears to have paid special attention to religion and introduced a number of reforms related to religious holidays and other ceremonies. It is possible that it was Tudhalia IV who ordered the decoration of the rock in Yazilykaya with reliefs, for on the main gallery this king is depicted with his “monogram” (Fig. 8, 64), and on the side - in the arms of his patron god (photo 15). All this suggests that, at least in the first years of his reign, peace and prosperity reigned in the country. Only in the west was there still unrest, but eventually order was established there too: the lands of Assuwa (later the Roman province of Asia, the name of which now bears the entire Asian continent) became part of the Hittite Empire.

But shortly before the end of Tudhalia's reign, a new threat loomed from the west. The territories of the dependent countries in the extreme west of Anatolia began to be devastated by the Ahaivasha tribes (possibly the Achaeans) of the country of Akhhiyawa and the leader Attarissia. A certain Madduwatta (whose name researchers compared with the names of the ancient kings of Lydia - Alyatta and Sadyatta), expelled from his country by Attarissia, appeared before the Hittite king and received as a gift a small dependent kingdom somewhere in the west of Asia Minor. From this we can conclude that Tudhalia still had enough strength to repel further attacks.

But the power of the Hittite Empire had already been undermined. Under the next king, Arnuwand III, the situation in the west deteriorated sharply. Madduwatta went over to the side of Attarissia, and although the Hittite king in his lengthy rescript calls him nothing more than a treacherous servant, it is easy to see that the balance of power in the region has changed significantly. In particular, it is reported that Madduwatta "seized the entire land of Arzawa." At the same time, in the eastern mountains, where the kingdom of Hayas was previously located, another enemy appeared - a certain Mitas. The identity of his name with the name of the king of the “country of the Mushki”, who ruled in the 8th century BC. e. and who is usually identified with the Phrygian Midas - a character of Greek myths, may turn out to be no more than a coincidence, but it is possible that the Phrygian flies had already invaded this area and that the name "Mitas" was dynastic. However, be that as it may, we know for certain that during that period there was a great migration of peoples; and although we do not find any harbingers of impending disaster in Arnuwanda’s decrees, it was already obvious that the fragile union of states that were part of the Hittite Empire would not withstand the onslaught of migrants. Arnuwanda was succeeded by his brother, Suppiluliuma II, but his reign seems to have been short, since the name of this king is not mentioned anywhere except in the record of several dignitaries and officials swearing allegiance to him. The annals of Ramesses III tell how the Hittites and other peoples fled to Syria from certain conquerors who, with hordes of the so-called “peoples of the sea”, found themselves dangerously close to the borders of Egypt and drove the Philistines to the coast of Palestine (which thus received its modern Name). If you believe the Homeric legend, then it was during this period that Asia Minor came under the power of the Phrygians.

2. The “Mongol” empire and the famous Christian kingdom of Prester John. The history of the legendary kingdom of Prester John is one of the most exciting mysteries in the Scaligerian history of Europe and Asia. The essence of the matter is briefly as follows. It turns out that medieval Western Europe