HITTITES hit’ īts (sing. חִתִּי, H3153, חִתִּֽית, pl. חִתִּ֔ים, חִתִּיֹּֽת; also written as בְּנֵי־חֵ֖ת, “sons of Heth,” based on eponym; represented in cuneiform as ḫatti). OT designation of several peoples of differing ethnos.

Outline

I. Use of the term “Hittite”

In scholarly usage, the term “Hittite” bears at least three meanings. It can denote: (1) the aboriginal inhabitants of the central plateau of Asia Minor, more accurately designated as “Hattians,” (2) that branch of Indo-European immigrants that settled in central Anatolia c. 2000 b.c. and wrote in a language that they called “Nesite” (nesumnili), and (3) the people who lived in several large city-states of N Syria during the first millennium b.c., which had been vassal states of the Anatolian Hittites during the period c. 1400-1200 b.c. Some scholars designate this third group by the term “neo-Hittites.” To the Assyrians and Hebrews of the first millennium b.c., the term “Hittites” covered all the inhabitants of the earlier Hitt. empire and its Syrian dependencies, irrespective of their linguistic or ethnic affiliation.

II. The Indo-European Hittites of Asia Minor

A. History. During the third millennium b.c., central Anatolia was occupied by several small kingdoms of non-Semitic and non-Indo-European peoples. One of these, the Hattians, bequeathed their name to the large mass of Indo-European immigrants who entered Asia Minor c. 2300-2000 b.c. and soon became the dominant political power. The centers of Indo-European power during the earliest period were the cities of Nesa and Kussar, but with the eclipse of the small Hattian kingdoms c. 1750 b.c., the seat of Hitt. power soon shifted (c. 1650) to the city of Hattusas. Already in the reign of Hattusilis I (c. 1650-1620 b.c.), Hitt. armies made forays into N Syria, where important cities such as Alalakh, Aleppo, and Hashshum endured their onslaught. Hittite activities in Syria and Mesopotamia at this early period were limited to raids without any attempt at consolidation of conquests or the appointment of governors or vassals. Though the Hitt. raids were ephemeral, they were none the less impressive. About 1600 b.c., the successor of Hattusilis I, Mursilis I (c. 1620-1590), raided and sacked the mighty city of Babylon. The rest of the period called the “Old Kingdom” (c. 1600-1400) was marred by internal dissension and weakness in the homeland, which made any appreciable Hitt. influence abroad impossible. The revival of Hitt. fortunes can be traced to the reign of an energetic monarch with the throne-name Suppiluliumas I (c. 1380-1340). His reign initiated the “empire period,” which lasted until the fall of Hattusas c. 1190 b.c. Suppiluliumas I began the practice of seeking to control the important, but small, city-states of N Syria by a combination of military force and astute diplomacy. He created a vast network of vassal states bound to the Hitt. suzerain by treaties. The system was a kind of benevolent feudalism. Each vassal king was given a free hand in matters of internal rule and the guaranteed protection of his dynasty against usurpers. In turn he forswore the right to an independent foreign policy and pledged an annual delivery of tribute to the Hitt. capital. The arch rivals of the Hittites in Syria were the Egyptians, who controlled most of S Syria. A military showdown was reached in 1300 b.c., when Ramesses II of Egypt and his allies joined battle with Muwatallis (c. 1315-1290) and the Hitt. allies in the vicinity of Qadesh on the Orontes River. In traditional style, both sides vociferously claimed the victory. It appears, however, as though no appreciable amount of territory changed hands. After 1300 b.c., both powers seemed to realize increasingly their need for each other’s support. In 1284, Hattusilis III of Hatti and Ramesses II of Egypt concluded a treaty of mutual recognition and assistance. The new enemy of both powers was the Assyrian kingdom of Tukulti-Ninurta I.

By c. 1265, when Tudhaliyas IV began his reign, political and military pressure on Hatti came from another direction. Freebooters called the Ahhiyawa, who may have been an early wave of “sea peoples” from the Gr. mainland, began harassing the western coast of Asia Minor and prompted Tudhaliyas to lead an army to the W c. 1230 to protect Hitt. interests. Some scholars connect this pressure from the Ahhiyawa with the traditional invasion of the western coast of Asia Minor by the Achaeans at the time of the Trojan War (c. 1230-1210?). When the end finally came for the Hitt. empire c. 1190 during the reign of Suppiluliumas II, the conquering hordes included another wave of “sea peoples” who likewise brought to an end the influential city-state of Ugarit.

B. Languages and scripts. The official archives of the Hitt. capital city, Hattusas, contained clay tablets on which were inscribed in cuneiform script documents composed in at least five distinct languages: (1) Hattic, the language of the aboriginal inhabitants, (2) Nesite, the language of the Indo-Europeans who initiated the Hitt. kingdom at Hattusas, (3) Luwian, and (4) Palaic, Indo-European dialects closely related to Nesite, (5) Hurrian, and the most common cuneiform languages, (6) Sumerian, and (7) Akkadian. Since the vast majority of texts were written in Nesite, this language was dubbed “Hittite” and was assumed to have been the official language of the empire. The Indo-European character of Nesite and its sister dialects is apparent not only from its vocabulary (containing words like mekki- “much,” pada- “foot,” watar “water,” eshar “blood,” kard- “heart,” genu- “knee,” and pahhur “fire”), but also from its grammatical inflection of nouns and verbs, and its pronominal forms (kuis “who,” etc.). It is at present the oldest known written Indo-European language and has in consequence enormous value for the reconstruction of the early history and development of the Indo-European languages. It appears that the Hittites and their neighbors also recorded their language in a hieroglyphic script on tablets of wood, which have not been preserved because of the perishable medium. Examples of this hieroglyphic script have been found inscribed in stone or lead from sites in Anatolia, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia. The language of these texts, though popularly referred to as “hieroglyphic Hittite,” is actually closer to Luwian than Nesite.

C. Religion and pantheon. The Hittites referred to their pantheon as “the thousand gods” and with good reason. Although the present listing of divine names falls short of 1,000, it does represent a wide diversity of linguistic and ethnic origins. Deities were venerated whose names and origins were Hattic, Luwian, Palaic, Hurrian, Nesite, Sumerian, Akkadian, and Canaanite. At present there is no evidence that any Egyp. deities were venerated on Hitt. soil. Many of these deities are known only as names in a list of treaty guardians, whereas others are described in myths, rituals, and festival texts. Most of these deities are depicted in the long relief carved into the rock at the sanctuary of Yazilikaya near modern Boğazköy. Gods were worshiped in their own language by singers called “the Hurrian singer,” “the Hattic singer,” “the Nesite singer,” etc. The male head of the pantheon was a storm deity; the female head, a solar deity. During the empire period, the Hurrian elements in the pantheon gained the ascendancy. Each king had his own patron deity.

III. The Neo-Hittites of north Syria

The term “neo-Hittites” implies nothing with regard to continuity of language or ethnos with the Hittites of Anatolia during the second millennium b.c. When the Hitt. capital was destroyed by the “sea peoples” c. 1190, the only centers that remained to continue the culture of the Hitties were the important cities of Syria that had once been under their sway. It is not clear just to what extent the culture of the Hitt. empire truly survived in these Syrian centers. This much is clear: (1) the old Hattic throne names borne by the Hitt. emperors such as Suppiluliumas, Labarnas, Muwatallis, and Hattusilis continued to be used by the kings of N Syria during the first millennium, for they appear in the Assyrian annals as Sapalulme, Mutallu, Lubarna, and Katuzili; (2) many of these kings erected stone monuments bearing inscrs. in “hieroglyphic Hittite”; and (3) the Assyrians and Hebrews of the first millennium b.c. continued to refer to N Syria as Hatti and its inhabitants as “Hittites.” Among the petty kingdoms that scholars call “neo-Hittite” were: Tuwana (class. Tyana), Tunna (class. Tynna), Hupisna (class. Kybistra), Shinukhtu, and Ishtunda, all in the Taurus Mountains or on the S edge of the central plateau; Tabala (Biblical Tubal) to the NE of these, somewhere along the upper reaches of the Euphrates River; Milid (modern Malatya), was the capital of Kammanu; Marqasi (modern Marash) was the capital of Gurgum, both of the latter were along the upper Euphrates; to the S was the kingdom of Kummukhi (class. Commagene), and still further S the city-state of Carchemish. NW of Carchemish was the kingdom of Arpad, to the W of which, and reaching to the gulf of Alexandretta, was the state of Ya’udiya (also known as Sam’al). Occupying the Amuq plain was the kingdom of Hattina with its capital at Kinaluwa (Biblical Calneh). In the vicinity of Aleppo was located the kingdom of Lukhuti with its capital first at Aleppo itself and later at Hatarikka (Biblical Hadrach). In the extreme S was the kingdom of Hamath, and E of the Euphrates was a kingdom centered in Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar). These kingdoms were by no means all continuations of Hitt. vassal kingdoms during the second millennium. To the contrary, with the exception of Carchemish and Aleppo, almost all of them were newly founded during the centuries that immediately succeeded the fall of Hattusas (c. 1190 b.c.). It cannot be denied that they were culturally the heirs of much that is properly associated with the second millennium Hittites. In time, as the powerful armies of the neo-Assyrian empire pushed westward to the Mediterranean coast and into Asia Minor itself, these small kingdoms were—one by one—incorporated into the Assyrian empire. Culture is not subject to force of arms, and the distinctive neo-Hitt. culture of these areas continued with only slight diminution down into the Hel. age, where traces of it appear at sites such as Nemrud Dagh.

A. Usage of “Hittite(s)” and “sons of Heth.”

1. “Hittites” in the patriarchal age. The OT employs the expressions “sons of Heth” (בְּנֵי־חֵ֖ת) and “Hittites” (חִתִּ֔ים) synonymously. The expressions “sons of Heth” and “daughters of Heth” have reference to the eponymous ancestor of the “Hittites,” named Heth (חֵֽת; Gen 10:15). These expressions occur only in Genesis (10:15; 23:3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 20; 25:10; 27:46; 49:32). They are used to designate the “Hittites” only of the patriarchal age and no others. The term “Hittite(s),” on the other hand, is also a much broader reference and is found not only in Genesis (15:20; 23:10; etc.), but also throughout the historical and prophetical lit. of the OT. With reference to the many meanings that the term “Hittite” bears in scholarly lit., it may be noted that in the OT it denotes only two groups. There is no reference in the OT under the term “Hittite” to the Indo-European Hittites of Asia Minor. Nor is there any allusion to the Hattians. In the OT, the term “Hittite(s)” refers either to an ethnic group in Pal. during the patriarchal age, the period of the Exodus, and the period of the Conquest, or to the “neo-Hittite” peoples and kingdoms of Syria during the first millennium b.c. E. Forrer proposed in 1936, on the basis of a cueniform Hitt. text written in the reign of Mursilis II (c. 1330 b.c.), that a group of Hitt. people from the city of Kurustamma migrated into Egyp. territory (i.e., anywhere S of Qadesh on the Orontes, but prob. Pal.). There they formed an enclave and survived into Biblical times. The above-mentioned text, though written c. 1330, refers to an incident that might have taken place centuries before. But the migration described would hardly have taken place as early as c. 1700 b.c. (i.e., during the patriarchal age). And even this ingenious proposal does not fully satisfy the Biblical data. O. R. Gurney presents an alternative view: that the Hattians were originally much more widespread geographically than just in central Asia Minor, and that an enclave of Hattians had lived in Pal. since prepatriarchal times. Neither of these two views can, of course, be conclusively proved. Some scholars have seen in the account of Abraham’s purchase of the cave in Machpelah (Gen 23) from Ephron the Hittite, a reflection of certain subtle distinctions of Hitt. law relating to transfer of certain feudal obligations by sale of property (Lehmann, BASOR, CXXIX, pp. 15-18; Hittite laws 46-47 in ANET, p. 191). If this interpretation is correct, the passage would offer support to Forrer’s theory. But cf. H. Hoffner, Tyndale Bulletin 20 (1969), 27-55 which refutes Lehmann. Whatever the geographic origin of the “Hittites” of Pal. in the patriarchal age, it is clear that they have been thoroughly Semitized, for none of their personal names can be satisfactorily interpreted as Indo-European or Hurrian.

2. “Hittites” in the monarchy. During the age of the Heb. monarchy, other “Hittites” appear in the narratives. These “Hittites” are foreigners rather than aboriginal inhabitants of Pal. They are, in fact, the “neo-Hittites” of Syria. Solomon’s Hitt. wives, unlike Esau’s, were foreigners included in the harîm for political reasons, along with women from Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Sidon (1 Kings 11). The “kings of the Hittites” mentioned in 2 Kings 7:6, 7 and 2 Chronicles 1:17 were powerful monarchs from Syria. In this category one would wish to place Uriah the Hitt., the faithful soldier in David’s army. The hard core of David’s army was the foreign mercenary troops, who were undeterred by petty local allegiances from following him without question (2 Sam 15). Since David’s northern border reached all the way to the Euphrates (8:3), it is surely likely that among his mercenaries would be a sizable number of Syrian “Hittites.” And since the new bureaucracy of David’s state required the service of experienced civil servants from Egypt and elsewhere (2 Sam 8; 1 Chron 18; note the Egyp. name Shavsha; 1 Chron 18:16), the political affairs in the new capital, Jerusalem, may also have received the council of trained bureaucrats from Syria, i.e., “Hittites.”

B. Hittite influences on the literature and culture of Israel. In 1954, G. Mendenhall proposed that the structure of the Biblical covenant at Sinai be understood as preserving a very ancient treaty form best known from, but not originating in, the Hitt. suzerainty treaties with Syrian vassal states during the second millennium b.c. This “form” contained the following elements: (1) a preamble, (2) a historical prologue, detailing the previous relations between the two parties to the treaty, (3) a section of stipulations including: (a) prohibition of foreign alliances outside the Hitt. orbit, (b) prohibition of hostility against another vassal of Hatti, (c) obligation to answer any call to arms issued by Hitt. suzerain, (d) obligation to suppress any vicious rumors about the Hitt. crown or secret plots to rebel, (e) prohibition against granting asylum to refugees from Hatti, and obligation to extradite all such fugitives to Hatti, (f) obligation to appear personally at least once a year at Hitt. court with tribute, (4) provision for depositing copy of treaty in sanctuary and bringing it forth for periodic public reading, (5) lists of the gods of both the Hitt. empire and the vassal state as legal witnesses and enforcers of the treaty, and (6) formulae of curses and blessings. Each of these elements finds a striking counterpart in the OT passages relating to the Sinai covenant. In 1960, M. G. Kline extended this comparison to the problem of the formal unity of the Book of Deuteronomy. These theories do not presuppose a direct influence of the Anatolian Hittites on the Biblical Hebrews. Rather they employ evidence from the Hitt. texts to elucidate the form in which a given segment of Biblical narrative might have been cast. [Kline’s theory has apologetic ramifications, since, if one can demonstrate very early prototypes (contemporaneous with Moses) for the literary form of the Book of Deuteronomy, then there is less plausibility for certain critical views regarding the source analysis of the book and its supposed compilation as late as the reign of Josiah.] Another possible area of Biblical lit., where the literary form of the narrative might possibly hark back to a prototype dating from the second millennium and most familiar from Hitt. texts, is the section 1 Samuel 15-2 Samuel 8, which many OT source critics are accustomed to designate as the court history of David and to regard as one of the oldest portions of the OT in its present written form. It has seemed to this writer for several years that this pericope, dealing as it does with the transfer of rule from Saul, the unfit incumbent, to David as chosen of God, is in fact a very early piece of dynastic justification. Political apologies that seriously attempt to justify an extraordinary transfer of power on a firm moral and theological basis are far from common in the ancient Near E. There are, however, concrete examples of such to be found. One with many striking similarities to the court history of David (i.e. 1 and 2 Samuel) is the Hitt. text that E. H. Sturtevant aptly entitles “The Apology of Hattusilis” (a much more appropriate label than “The Autobiography of Hattusilis” used by many other Hittitologists). The text in question is certainly no autobiography, for it omits too much that is pertinent to an autobiography and includes much that is unnecessary for such, placing a conspicuous emphasis at every turn on the “propagandistic” elements. The entire thrust of the document is to demonstrate that the paranoiac Urhi-Teshub (Mursilis II) was not only unable to function as a worthy ruler, but in a jealous rage actively pursued plots to murder Hattusilis III, when he suspected that the goddess Ishtar had designated the latter to succeed him to the throne.

The similarities extend beyond mere coincidental incidents in the lives of the persons involved and point to a possible formal similarity attributable to the function of the respective documents. It is by no means suggested that the constituent episodes in the two documents were fabricated for propaganda purposes. On the contrary, such documents would depend upon the reliability of the information for their effectiveness. Nor does this theory imply that David’s motives were questionable in having such a document drawn up. When David came to power, matters were unstable for many years. It was advantageous for him to have drawn up a record of the events leading up to his accession, making clear to all that he had no hand in killing Saul, that he at all times refrained from taking the initiative to drive his predecessor from the throne, and that Yahweh had been working behind the scenes from the start to place upon the throne of Israel His chosen one. If within his cabinet, or bureaucracy, there were Syrians who knew of an appropriate form in which to express this information, David would certainly have felt inclined to employ it.

A final area of possible Hitt. influence on the lit. and culture of Israel is the science of historiography. From the earliest periods of Sumer. and Egyp. history, documentary records were kept of important events. The lists of such events can in a very loose sense be termed “history.” Historical writing in the sense in which we encounter it, as in the writings of Herodotus—“the father of history-writing,” is found in only two areas of the ancient Near E. Only in Hatti and ancient Israel is there evidence of historical writing that probes for causes, and which seeks to express a kind of moral philosophy of history. Without desiring to instigate a pan-Hitt. movement in the study of ancient Near Eastern civilizations, some scholars have suggested an indirect influence here by the second millennium culture of the Hittites upon the late second millennium and early first millennium culture of the Hebrews.

Bibliography O. Schroeder, ZAW, XXXV (1915), 247, 248; A. H. Sayce, JTS, XXII (1921), 267; E. O. Forrer, PEQ, LXVIII (1936), 190-209, and LXIX (1937), 100-115; Delaporte, RHA, IV (1938), 289-296; M. Vieyra, RHA, V (1939), 113-116; F. F. Bruce, The Hittites and the OT (1948); G. E. Mendenhall, “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” BA, XVII (1954), 26-46, 49-76; A. Malamat, “Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography,” VT, V (1955), 1-12; A. Kammenhuber, “Die hethitische Geschichtsschreibung,” Saeculum, IX (1958), 136-155; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (1963); D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1963); C. Rabin, “Hittite Loanwords in Hebrew,” Orientalia Nova Series, XXXII (1963), 113-139; H. Hoffner, “An Anatolian Cult Term in Ugaritic,” JNES, XXIII (1964), 66-68; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (1965), 32-56; H. Hoffner, “Symbols of Masculinity and Femininity,” JBL, LXXXV (1966), Part III; H. Hoffner, “Some Contributions of Hittitology to OT Study” Tyndale Bulletin 20 (1969), 29-55.