006
History, we often say, begins with the written word. What comes before writing is prehistory.
The world’s first historians—that is, people who record actual events in a detailed manner—were the Hittites, a kingdom that controlled much of Anatolia in the second millennium B.C. The earliest Hittite inscription is by a king named Anitta, who was approximately contemporary with Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria (1813–1781 B.C.) and Hammurabi of Babylon (1792–1750 B.C.). Anitta tells of his victories over various city-states of the Anatolian plateau—including Hattusa (modern Bogazköy, northeast of Ankara), which was later to become the Hittite capital. Ironically, the only extant copies of Anitta’s inscription were found in the archives of Hattusa, which Anitta had leveled.
Although similar accounts of fantastic events had been written hundreds of years earlier by Mesopotamian kings of Sumer and Akkad, Anitta marks the beginning of Hittite historical writing—a tradition that would surpass all that had been written before in quality and variety, as well as in its dedication to recording what actually happened.
Real Hittite historiography begins with King Hattusili I (c. 1640–1610 B.C.), who ruled from Hattusa (where a number of inscribed clay tablets from his reign have been found). Like earlier and later kings, Hattusili described his great deeds and drew on both legendary and historical material to explain present circumstances. But he also invented at least two genres of historical writing, one of which, curiously, was satire.
Unfortunately, only one satirical text survives from Hattusili’s reign, and this text is extremely fragmented. It describes the Hittite siege of the city of Urshu, in Syria, which Hattusili also describes more straightforwardly in another inscription. In the satirical text, the king directs the siege from a distance, admonishing his generals with sarcasm: “Are you standing on chariots of water?” he asks. “Are puppies wearing the helmets there?” Partly because this text is incomplete, it is hard to know just who is being satirized. Perhaps the inscription is meant to glorify the king at the expense of his generals. Or perhaps it is the king himself who is being mocked—for demanding glorifying half truths from soldiers and forcing historians to record the lies.
Another genre of historical writing, moralistic history, is also first attested in Hattusili’s reign. In a text whose primary purpose was to name his grandson, Mursili I (c. 1610–1594 B.C.), as heir, Hattusili uses history to teach a number of lessons:
Take the case of my [son] Huzziya. I made him lord of Tappassanda. But he listened to the people there, saying, “If you give us tax exemptions, we will support you in a rebellion against your father.” So I deposed Huzziya. Then the citizens of Hattusa went to my daughter and said to her: “Now the king has 007no male heir, but you have a son; we don’t want a servant to sit on the throne.” So she and the nobles and courtiers plotted against me.
When Hattusili discovered this plot, he banished his daughter to the countryside. He says he tried to solve the succession problem by naming his sister’s son, Labarna, as heir. “I continually instructed him and looked after him. But he showed himself an unfit youth. He did not shed tears. He did not show mercy. He was cold. He was heartless … He would not listen to my advice.” So Labarna was demoted and banished, making Mursili the king’s rightful choice.
Mursili I, too, produced texts showing that good behavior yields good results and bad behavior leads to disaster. He tells of a former governor who unjustly imprisoned someone; when news of this reached the Hittite king, the governor found himself reduced to poverty while his victim found royal favor. Then there was a general who was afraid to fight the enemy; the king had him mutilated. (One wonders if this latter text was composed during Mursili’s long minority, as a warning to royal officials not to be tempted to misbehave because of the king’s youth and inexperience.)
The Hittites also invented what we might call exculpatory history—that is, a history written to justify a leader’s right to reign. After Telipinu usurped the throne around 1500 B.C., he recounted that the ruler he ousted, King Huzziya I, was an illegitimate son who took the crown by killing his two legitimate half-brothers. Since Telipinu’s wife was the full sister of these unfortunates, he feared that he would be murdered next and took the throne in self-defense—though, unlike the bastard Huzziya, without resorting to bloodshed.
Telipinu’s apology comes in a preface to an edict that, among other things, regulates royal succession and codifies laws on murder. The preface also provides a brief history of Hittite politics—arguing that the kingdom prospers when the royal family is united and that the gods punish murderous usurpers. This history, however, ignores the fact that several successful usurpers had ruled over prosperous Hittite kingdoms. But then, Telipinu was hardly the last to write a tendentious history to serve his own purposes.
The high point of Hittite historical writing comes with the works of Mursili II (c. 1334–1308 B.C.), primarily his biography of his father, “The Manly Deeds of Suppiluliuma,” and his autobiographical writings. Mursili unexpectedly came to power as an untried teenager after the deaths of his father and his father’s elder son (and general), Arnuwanda II. Mursili’s “Ten Year Annals” tell of his growth from an upstart boy king belittled by the rulers of surrounding lands to a capable mature king who punishes his detractors. Mursili later wrote a second text extending the tale through subsequent years of his reign.
The historical writing in these two texts is highly sophisticated. The “Ten Year Annals,” for example, has a clear literary structure, with a prologue and epilogue that deliberately echo one another and address the theme of the text (Mursili becomes a man and thus a great king). These texts are able to describe simultaneous action on different fronts, and sometimes include descriptions of different kinds of terrain. They also include ethnographic information concerning foreign peoples, military techniques (including psychological warfare), the causes of various wars, and sometimes the diplomatic exchanges that preceded a war:
I, My Majesty, sent him (Pihhuniya) a messenger with a letter saying: “Send out to me my subject whom you took down into Kaska.” Pihhuniya wrote back to me as follows: “I will not give anything back to you. And if you come to fight me, I will not take a stand to fight you anywhere in my territory; I will come and fight you in the midst of your land.” When Pihhuniya had written this back to me and did not give my subjects back to me, I went to fight him, and attacked his land.
Mursili often even gives the reasoning behind decisions he makes: “Because [the enemy’s] lookouts were at their posts, and because if I had tried to surround Mr. Pittaggatalli, Pittaggatalli’s lookouts would have seen me, and he would not have waited for me, I turned and marched toward Mr. Pittapara.”
Although the Hittites believed the gods played an important role in history, their historical writings are remarkably free of miracles. In each Hittite victory, “the gods are said to run before the army,” and at the end of a campaign the gods’ share of the booty is often enumerated. Generally, however, the gods do no more than to help the Hittites help themselves, giving victory to their just cause and punishing the evil enemy with defeat. For the most part, gods and myths have no place in Hittite historical writing—which is partly why we call it “history.”
Historical traditions similar to those of the Hittites soon developed throughout the Near East. Egyptian pharaohs of the New Kingdom (1550–1070 B.C.) extensively chronicled their exploits, particularly their victorious military campaigns, as did the Assyrians of the first half of the first millennium B.C. The biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, too, are highly detailed histories without which we would know a good deal less about the Iron Age Levant.
Were the Hittites, then, the inventors of a tradition of recording past events that has passed down to us? That is going too far, at least at the moment. Recent research has shown Hittite influence on early Greek thinking, but there is a considerable chronological gap in our current knowledge concerning the transmission of historical writing. Only further research can answer this question.
History, we often say, begins with the written word. What comes before writing is prehistory.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.