Talk:Hittites

There are no "Indo-European people"

The current article describes the Hittites as an "Indo-European people." But Indo-European is a linguistic designation that doesn't correspond to any ethnic or racial category. While archaeologists and linguists have discussed the likely origin of the various Indo-European languages within a single culture, they are usually careful to designate this theoretical people group as "Proto-Indo-European" or "PIE." The various people groups who have spoken differentiated Indo-European languages, including the Hittites and other ancient Anatolians, are properly described as "Indo-European speakers" and not "Indo-Europeans." This is especially sensitive because of the prominence of false claims and racial theories about Indo-European speakers since at least the early 20th century, notably including Nazi theorists. Please change this section of the introduction. Ftjrwrites (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Indo-Europeans who spread their language around no doubt spread their genetics around as well. I have always seen them called "Indo-Europeans" and never "Indo-European speakers." Seems unnecessary JameezWiki (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You are incredibly incorrect. The Indo-Europeans 'were' (rather are as their genes are in over 50% of the global human population) an ancient race of people who spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods. Their ancestors are numerous and live all around the world now. 47.203.0.219 (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

When the f the Hittites control Cyprus

I even asked chat gbt which clarified that it has never been conquered by then The writer fixer (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"even chat GBT". Lol. Looks like there were periods of control under Tudḫaliya IV and Šuppiluliuma II.. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "Hattusili's son... even temporarily annexed the island of Cyprus, before that too fell to Assyria." I'm not sure why you would assume that you asking chat GPT was more reliable than Nowacki and Lefèvre (2009). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Oh my, oh my. I tried to edit this. Only to be turned down by someone higher up on the Wikipedia totem pole. I was requested to explain my edit using Talk. I can see I am not the first to post on this either.

This statement should be corrected in the article:

“He even temporarily annexed the island of Cyprus, before that too fell to Assyria.” Referring to Tudhaliya IV.

To my knowledge, this is historically wrong.

Trevor Bryce’s The Kingdom Of The Hittites describes the military activities of Tudhaliya IV on Cyprus in the following way, quote:

“Information about the campaign appears on a tablet from the reign of his son Suppiluliuma II [...]”

Said tablet translated (source Bryce):

“I seized the king of Alasiya with his wives, his children, [and his]. All the goods, including silver and gold, and all the captured people I removed and brought home to Hattusa. I enslaved the country of Alasiya, and made it tributary on the spot. (KUB xii 38 i, 3–8, after Güterbock (1967a: 77))”

Tudhaliya IV reigned c. 1245–1215 BC. Tukulti-Ninurta I, the Middle Assyrian king who supposedly took control of Cyprus reigned c. 1243–1207 BC. Wikipedia’s article on Tukulti-Ninurta states that he captured Babylonia, and invaded the Arabian Peninsula, conquering the pre-Arab states of Dilmun and Meluhha. No historical research connects him to Cyprus. In order to conquer Cyprus a fleet of ships would have been necessary and a port to assemble the fleet. Correct? Tudhaliya IV had an ally in Ugarit, a small vassal kingdom and port (destroyed c. 1185 BC) in what is today Syria. My proposed edit:

Remove: ‘[...] before that too fell to Assyria.’

Revise: ‘[...] probably with naval assistance from Ugarit.’

Note the word ‘probably’ in my version. It is dubious to claim that Assyria conquered Cyprus. Trevor Bryce’s The Kingdom Of The Hittites sets out that Cyprus/Alasiya was a bone of contention between Ahhiyawa (Mycenean) and the Hittites going back to at least the reign of Arnuwanda I (c. 1390–1380/1370 BC). There was then a crisis involving a rebellious Hittite vassal Madduwatta who repeatedly raided Cyprus. Arnuwanda wrote to him and Madduwatta’s reply was this:

“The Land of Alasiya is a Land of My Sun (wrote Arnuwanda) and brings him tribute. Why have you taken it?’ But Madduwatta spoke thus: ‘When Attar(i)ssiya and the Man of Piggaya were raiding the Land of Alasiya, I often raided it too. But the father of My Sun did not subsequently write to me, the father of My Sun never signified to me: ‘The Land of Alasiya is mine. Acknowledge it as this!’ If now My Sun demands back the prisoners taken from Alasiya, I will give them back to him. (Indictment §36, rev. 85–9)”

Here, during a much earlier dispute, the problem for the Hittites may have been that they needed ships to assert control over Cyprus. Madduwatta and Attarissiya were better situated.

Note on Attarissiya. The name ‘probably’ (that word again) is related to LinB. a-ta-ra-si-jo, ‘without copper’ — a self-sufficient smith, able to obtain his own copper. Its LinB. opposite was ta-ra-si-ja, ‘with copper’ — a smith depending on palace copper. The implication of the name seems to be that Attarissiya had a vested interest in Cypriot copper. Tudhaliya IV’s annexation would not have pleased Ahhiyawa. Speculation perhaps, but the Greeks did go to enormous trouble to build a fortress at Kition on Cyprus, dated to about the time Ugarit was destroyed by Sea Peoples, c. 1185 BC. An exchange of letters from Ammurapi, last king of Ugarit, and the viceroy of Carchemish sheds light on the disaster about to unfold. The viceroy wrote Ammurapi (source Bryce):

“As for what you have written to me: ‘Ships of the enemy have been seen at sea!’ Well, you must remain firm. Indeed for your part, where are your troops, your chariots stationed? Are they not stationed near you? No? Behind the enemy, who press upon you? Surround your towns with ramparts. Have your troops and chariots enter there, and await the enemy with great resolution! (RSL 1 = Nougayrol et al. (1968: 85–6 no. 23))”

Assyria did not take control of Alasiya until centuries later. From Wikipedia:

“The town of Kition, now Larnaca, recorded part of the ancient history of Cyprus on a stele that commemorated a victory by Sargon II (722–705 BC) of Assyria there in 709 BC.”

Finally, allow me to say this, on a somewhat personal note. My late father, H. Nowacki, is among the sources listed for the Hittite article. Footnote 71. Context:

“The last king, Šuppiluliuma II also managed to win some victories, including a naval battle against Alashiya off the coast of Cyprus.”

My father and a colleague of his researched naval battles in a published book. I can no longer ask him, but we had a talk about it once; my father felt, like do I, that Ugarit was involved, conspiring with the Hittites against an enemy. Ahhiyawa, the Myceneans, Sea Peoples?

My edit stands: ‘[...] probably with naval assistance from Ugarit.’

I made the suggested edit on 29 May, 2026. TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TnbniceR (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Biblical references

Please go back to your sources and see what Biblical verses they refer to in identifying the people of Hattusas with the peoples referred to in the Bible. a/ The Victorians were notorious for coming to wrong conclusions based on a likeness of names that actually had nothing to do with each other, failing to recognize that Kush at one place probably refers to Mesopotamian Kish, while in another it refers to the Kush or Ekwesh of Africa about whom they knew nothing because they misinterpreted the Medinet Habu stele of Ramses III. b/ The people referred to in Jeremiah could not have been the people of Hattusas: that city was wiped out by the Sea Peoples 500 years before Jeremiah lived, another thing that Victorian scholars had no idea of. 100.15.117.34 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Should trader-state relations be included in the economy section?

Evidence is quite fragmentary and most of the evidence we have is from Ugarit. Klengel's hypothesis but there is a modern scholarly debate in certain parts encompassing trader state relations (specifically if the traders were foreign or from hattusa). Some books that talk about this current debate is "scales of fate" by Christopher mount ford Monroe (2009). StealabrainrotTUNGTUNGSAHURBOIII (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are the Hittites listed as a constitutional monarchy in 1400 bce?

So according to this source; Drapkin, Israel (1989). Crime and Punishment in the Ancient World. Lexington Books. p. 29. The Hittite Middle and New Kingdom's are a constitutional monarchy why is this label used from a dated source from 37 years ago and not an expert in Hittite politics also using that term back then is anachronistic to say the least I changed it to elective monarchy but I need to look at that page to see any claim of constitutional monarchy said cause the edict of Telepinu is not a constitution its a law of succession plus it was ignored by like most of the middle kingdom labarna's and suppiluliuma 1 and Hattusili 3rd ( kinda he only deposed Mursilli but suppiluliuma did kill his brother)

Last minute addition: Drapkin Israel is not even a historian but a crimonologist so one more point in changing this source.

Theopedias (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

From the source in the main body: The Pankuš. :)

The cited reason is still valid, there was still an Pankuš, despite the dated source. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok but I think we need to explain it better and cite a better source, Thanks for the correction. Theopedias (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, the source doesn't really explain it much tbh. :) I think it goes back to the reforms of Telipinus, though he got assasinated if memory serves, so don't think his reform were yet very effective. If you look for Telipinus reforms, the pankus etc. in academia.edu or elsewhere you may find stuff you can use as source for any expansions of the Hittites#The Pankus :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Telepinu's reforms were mostly create a succession document the edict of telepinu but I am still skeptical of the whole constitution claim as the edict is really a treaty to outline succesion and prevent murders plus like all hittite treaties contains a historical prolougue that is usefull for stuff ike the sack of babylon in 1595 bce (also telepinu was not killed the following obscure middle hittite kings were though ) Theopedias (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The Pankus was created to arbitrate between the royal family's different internal disputes. You can find Bryce's Kingdom of the hittites on Academia.

Bryce:

"The group charged with this responsibility included the warriors of

an organization called the panku. This term is basically an adjective

meaning ‘all, entire’. In the context in which it is used here it apparently

referred to some form of general assembly. We shall discuss below

(Ch. 5) the question of its membership and the specifc functions

assigned to it by a later king. At least in Hattusili’s reign, it seems to

have functioned primarily as a supervisory and judicial body, with

particular responsibility for dealing with oVences of a religious nature.

The king himself was obliged to refer such offences to this body for

judgment. Thus Hattusili instructed his new heir:

You will deal mercifully with my servants and nobles. If you see that one of

them commits an offence, either before a god or by uttering any (sacrilegious)

word, you must consult the panku. Even evil speech must be referred to the

panku. (Testament §22, iii 59–62)" Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that is a way better source you can cite that and not the 1989 source go do it. Theopedias (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"Constitutional", "Absolute" or even "Parlementary" seem anachronistic in this context. Telipinu's Edict is indeed sometimes labelled "Constitution" and considered one of the rare occurences of constitutional law in the Ancient Near East; but it's mainly about royal succession and criminal law, not the whole government. Is there a scholar specialized in Hittite politics who uses this type of expression in order to define the Hittite monarchy? If not, you can't use it. Zunkir (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

true I agree witth you why use such a anachronistic term for the period that is why I changed it to elective monarchy. Theopedias (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Really, rather than worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin maybe someone could see about replacing all the dodgy sources like "Encyclopedia Britanica" "World History Encyclopedia" and "All About Turkey" with proper sources in this "B" rated article. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

yes why is encyclopedia Brittanica cited instead of I do not know Bryce, like the citations are not good also because the Hittite Empire is such a huge topic this article needs to be split into one about the people group and the Old Middle and New Kingdoms of Hatti. Theopedias (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, you guys can make said edits yourselves. ;) Just make sure their sourced. Imo too many sections in this article have no source (or source been lost) and dubious claims that may or may not be supported by some source somewhere.

The Britannica and WHE are imo decent sources, but not the best tbh. Their websites poised to be edited or go offline at anytime invalidating said ref. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Bryce's Book:

https://www.academia.edu/5018455/Bryce_The_Kingdom_Of_The_Hittites

A bunch of books:

https://openlibrary.org/

Some to get started :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)