Talk:Hittites

Archives
Archive 1

WPTR template

Listen, we went over this before: WPTR template is for geo purposes. Pyramids weren't built by Arabs either, but saying that they shouldn't have the WP Egypt tag or that Native American articles shouldn't have a WPUSA and related tags is also simply weird. Nobody claimed that the Hittites were Turkish or anything, but obviously for geo reasons it falls under the WPTR scope, right?? Also please watch for WP:3RR, come on it is a beautiful Saturday, what is all this fuss? Baristarim 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the 3RR, this has nothing to do with WikiProject Turkey if your a good faith editor you would take it off, if your serous go add your project to Armenia, Turkey, Assyria, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Urartu, Greece, if you don't take it off I will myself and WPAM to Turkey, since Armenians owned half of Turkey way before the Turkish migration. So stop making excuses for "geo" purposes. The project has no business here, again if you do not remove this I will act on behalf of your edits on Turkish articles. Artaxiad 13:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to Kurdistan, just like WPSyria had added it before. Stop making point comparisons and take it easy please.. WPAM tags are already present in many articles of Turkish cities.. I am sorry, but if this continues I will be obliged to take this to AN/I - I don't understand what the whole fuss is really.. Baristarim 13:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the point is there is no point of adding the project, no relevance what so ever, if this is about Geo the Ottoman empire covers many present day countries go add your project there too. Also WP:POINT I have not done anything yet. Artaxiad 13:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for a response. Artaxiad 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite relevant, the project is underhanded, so this might not be given high priority now, but it will improved as soon as possible. If you don not want to contribute, just do not contribute. It is part of the project. deniz^T_C 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay let it stay for Geo purposes. Artaxiad 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Create a 'History of Anatolia' wikiproject?

This would be a whole lot easier. I have noticed that Thales has also been added to Wikiproject Turkey, I mean come on guys, thats absurd.--NeroDrusus 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can create that wikiproject, but this article will still be part of the WP Turkey. An article can be part of multiple projects. If you don't want to create that wikiproject, you can join WP Turkey and help us improve this article, that might be your task if you want to. In that case, we can immediately increase the importance. deniz^T_C 23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were to put the Izmir article as part of wikiproject Greece and start adding information about the architecture and history of the old Greek houses and schools and libraries of the cities - as well as the culture of the Greeks who lived there, you would complain about it, that is the reason I am complaining.--NeroDrusus 23:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is İzmir is separated into two parts, İzmir and Smyrna, so it is not a parallel example. Also we (or you) are not going to write that Hittite's were ethnic Turks, or something like that. In any case, you can add correct information about houses and etc, as long it is notable enough. 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, any particular section of the Izmir article I should add it to?--NeroDrusus 13:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't been involved with that article. It might be a good idea to prepare the text that you want to add and then write it on the talk page first, and ask for suggestions there. Please see this policy page: WP:Point, it might be relevant. You stopped being User:EOKA-Assassin, please let it not be just a change in name. deniz^T_C 03:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My brother has taken the book in question so I'll have to get him to give it back before I can write up something about it, I'll do so in the next month.--NeroDrusus 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How was "hittite" sounded in the time of their life? /hitet/? /hitit/? because there was no long "i" as in find then.TedHuntington 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

vney heth-sons of heth (in Hebrew). hithi-hitites (in Hebrew). remember that English always changes how words in the thanach are spelled to suit English, rather than preserve the original sound. (I spelled all Hebrew words here the according to Yemenite pronunciation, because I think it most accurately preserves the original Hebrew pronunciation). -Shyisc 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

insufficient citations & references

Am intending to put the

template here due to it's single reference. Alcmaeonid 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Hittites passed much knowledge and lore from the Ancient Near East to the newly arrived Greeks in Europe."

To this day, Greece is not European, only officially. And as for Europe.....Europe didn't even officially EXIST until 1993 AD. I am aware that it is very convenient to circulate the idea of Europe actually existing. Until you have lived in the places you claim are European, it is also extremely stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ri-i-ight... But at any rate, the sentence you quoted is a pretty bald and unsourced assertion that somehow needs to be tamed, as it stands now! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Akkadogram

What is an Akkadogram? --Thus Spake Anittas 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A word written in the Akkadian language inserted into a text of some other language. In this case, Akkadian words inserted into Hittite texts. They are easily identifiable as such within Hittite texts and follow the grammatical rules for Akkadian rather than Hittite. It is therefore understood that the Hittite scribe, while familiar with Akkadian, would have "translated" the Akkadogram into Hittite when reading it. Publik 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to write on this page that I'd asked the same question and arrived at the same conclusion. Since that's already transpired here, I'm going to go ahead and turn "Akkadogram" into a link to Akkadian_language Brian Geppert (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning recommended improvements to Introduction made on 12/21/07

1) The Hittites did not come from Kaneŝ. They never claimed to come from Kaneš. The famous Anitta text clearly indicates that they did NOT come from Kaneš. If anywhere, they came from Kuššar, a dynasty that conquered Kaneš. Ḥattušili I called himself a king of Kuššar, not Kaneš. Scholars do not speak of the Hittites coming from Kaneš, they do not speak of them coming from any particular city, rather that the Hittite language diverged from the other proto-Anatolian languages in central Anatolia, and that the proto-Anatolians themselves entered Anatolia from somewhere north of the Black Sea.

2) Given that it is inappropriate to talk about the Hittites coming from a single city, the fact that the Hittites called their language after the city of Kaneš can only be used to justify a high concentration of Hittite speakers there. Ḥattuša itself may have had a lower concentration of Hittite speakers prior to its resettlement, but that does not justify postulating that the Hittites came from a city that was conquered by Kuššar, the self-same city which future Hittite kings connected themselves with. Given the importance of Kaneš for the economy during the Assyrian trading period, it is hardly surprising that the Hitites may have named their language after that city, but it does not mean that they originated there.

3) The fact that city names first appear in Hittite texts does not mean that the Hittites created those names. The very name of their capital, Ḥattuša, predates the Hittites. Unless you can demonstrate a definite Hittite etymology for a city name, then you cannot assume that it is Hittite.

4) I'm not sure what your objection is to the rearrangement of the last paragraph. The Hittites are clearly better known for their use of iron than they are for any skill in chariot building. And the Hittites were a Bronze Age civilization, not an Iron Age civilization.

Okay, thanks for explaining those edits, I see you have put a lot of thought behind them. They had initially looked to me like they were more than just simple 'tweaks' so I had reverted, but if they are okay with the other editors, I will defer to your reasoning above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks! Publik (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It's mentioned on the main article page and in 20th century research that the Hittites spoke an Indo-Europeon language. This cannot be since this black race predates Europeon intellectualism by several centuries. Neither David, Solomon nor any other Judaen king was able to subdue them. It would be more proper to say that the Indo-Europeons spoke a form of Hittite. Tom 01/14/08

Thanks, Tom... Now if you can find one published source that takes this view anywhere in the history of human literature, we can talk about referencing it. Otherwise please read WP:OR. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy of the Hittites" section

A section referring to the legacy of the Hittites could be written. This could be moved from the introduction(where I don't think it fits) to the new section: "Many of the modern city names in Turkey are first recorded under their Hittite names, such as Sinop and Adana, reflecting the contiguity of modern Anatolia with its ancient past." Other parts of the article could belong to the "legacy" section as well. Btw, I also remember reading somewhere about conical hats the Hittites wore that are still occasionaly used in Turkey. I can't recall the source, though, so someone else has to help. What do you think? Dankuwaz (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hittite Maps

1. There's nothing wrong with having 2 maps on this article, especially if they show different but relevant information.

2. The current map [Image:Hittite_Empire.png] is good, it shows the Empire in 2 stages, early and late. And it's zoomed in for a close-up view of the Empire.

3.The map Dbachmann keeps reverting [Image:Hittites_1300bc.jpg] shows the Empire at its height, along with its neighbors and rivals. The Hittite Empire is highlighted and easily visible, and the map gives readers valuable information about the world of the Hittites. Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your map (a) shows all of Europe and half of Africa besides the entire Middle East. What is the point of that? The other point is that it is executed very carelessly. The shape of the purple blob indicating the Hittite Empire appears to imitate Hittite_Empire.png directly. If we zoom in on the Hittite Empire, we'll just get a lower quality variant of the map we already have.

Talessman, your map project is cool, but it belongs on http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/ , not scattered across random Wikipedia articles. I appreciate you are still learning how to draw maps, and I can see some progress. If you should summon the skills and patience to create a map similar to those showcased on your talkpage for your inspiration (commons:User:MapMaster & Cie.), I will personally thank you and shower you with barnstars. Until then, may I suggest you consider acting less pushy. dab (𒁳) 15:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, gents, the given depictions of the Hittite empire "at its peak" stinks in both maps. When you consider that we know the Hittites ruled over Troy in the far northwest, Caria in the far southwest, at least part of Pamphylia and that mess of Lukka (Lycia) lands in the south, Pala in the north, Mitanni in the southeast; the "long nose" map of the Hittite empire that has become so popular on the web these days is ridiculous. The question of Masa and Karkisa may leave room for some gaps in their coverage of Anatolia, but not much. Publik (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Publik, do you have any source information to back up that information? I can correct the map if there is a good reference to base that change on. But I've never heard that the Hittites ruled Troy, which was (I believe) at the height of it's own power, just before the war with the Greeks. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hittite rule over Troy and Troad: Derived from the connection of Hittite "Taruisa" with Troy and, especially, Hittite "Wilusa" with "Ilion". While there were decades of dispute on this issue, it's basically been resolved now in favor of the connection. This stems particulary from the discovery of a text join that puts "Wilusa" near "Lazba" (i.e. Lesbos). See Bryce, Trevor, The Kingdom of the Hittites (1998) 394-395, who briefly discusses the dispute. This means that both the vassal treaty between Muwatalli II and Alexandu of Wilusa (which presupposes Hittite rule during the reign of Mursili II), as well as the Manapa-Tarhunta treaty, demonstrate Hittite rule over Troy.

Hittite rule over Caria and Lycia: There was no place called "Caria" in the Hittite era, unless you accept Karkisa as Caria (an issue which has not yet been settled, but I agree with Garstang and Gurney (p. 108) that it is in the northwest). But the Annals of Mursili II and the Tawagalawa Letter in particular make Hittite rule over Caria certain, and numerous sources point to Hittite rule over the Lukka Lands. See Garstang and Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire (1959) pp. 77-82. (And, of course, there is the appearance of the Lukka among the Hittite forces at Kadesh.)

Pamphylia: There is no reference to "Pamphylia" in Hittite records, but the Bronze Tablet mentions "Parha" (Perge) and the Kastaraya River (Classical Kestros River, modern Aksu Çayı). I don't have a published reference for that, but I'm sure I can dig it up if required. Pamphylia was probably part of the general morass of the Lukka Lands, although this is uncertain.

Northwest (Pala and Masa): Pala being to the northwest of the Hittite core land is so commonly accepted that I don't even know who proposed it. That Pala reached the Black Sea seems to be supported by modern place names such as "Bolu", and the classical territory of "Blaene". As a reference, you can see it placed on a map in this region in Trevor's book, map 3. Masa is tricky because of it's association with Karkisa. So here you start to get into opinion. I accept the position that "Masa" is "Mysia" (see Trevor's map 3 again) and, along with Karkisa, fills in the gap between the far northwest and Pala.

Mitanni: I don't think there's any need to discuss this one? Other than to say that it should extend beyond Tell Fecheriye, the unproven but universally accepted location of Wassukanni, one-time capital of that kingdom. Also the fact that it controlled Assyria until the Hittites conquered Mitanni. This means that the map shown in this article does not extend far enough to the east.

Another problem is that the map shows the Hittite southern border at Kadesh. But, at its peak, it extended to include Apa/Upi, captured by Suppiluliuma I. This would mean the border must be stretched at least far enough south to include Damascus (Hittite Dimasku).

And another problem with this map is what, I guess(???) is meant to be the core territory in the darker red. If that is supposed to be the core territory, then it is pointing southeast when it should be pointing southwest towards the Lower Land instead.

Not every point above is referenced to a scholarly article. Some are derived from the texts themselves.

Publik (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess it wasn't convincing enough. Oh well. C'est la vie. Publik (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No Publik, you weren't unconvincing, and I am taking your points into account. I haven't started making the corrections to that map yet because I'm still working on possible corrections to the borders of Tibet and India in 700 and 800 AD.

Keep in mind though, I relied on existing maps and source info to make this 1300 BC Hittite map. That was just before the Battle of Kadesh, ie just before the height of the Hittite Empire. All maps I've seen showing the Hittites at their height show pretty much the same thing I show above. But even when I'm ready to make corrections to 1300 BC, I'll still need to actually research the info you give above. For that I need links so I can look that info up and add it to the reference section for the map. Can you please provide some links to back up that info, so I can make the corrections more quickly? Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether (the Mushki) moved into the core Hittite areas from the east or west has been a matter of some discussion by historians. Some speculate that they may have originally occupied a territory in the area of Urartu; alternatively, ancient accounts suggest that they first arrived from a homeland the west, from the region of Troy, or even from as far as Macedonia, as the Bryges.

The quotes from one author on Hittites, MacQueen, pasted at talk:Mushki, lay out the evidence that the Mushki came from the west; your map seems to adopt the conjecture of other authors that the Mushki were originally to the east of the Hittites. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical Appearance of the Hittites

I removed that section because I couldn't see the relevance of it, and the only way to bring up the subject is to make an edit change. So I put the question here: What is the relevance of stating that the Egyptians "always" painted them yellow (and then point out an exception)? What does it add to the article?

Is the intent to identify a single Hittite ethnicity? Garstang discussed this way back in 1910 ("The Land of the Hittites" pp. 317-319), with images (Particularly Plate LXXXIII and LXXXIV). He pointed out that, as steriotypical as Egyptian art is, they nonetheless seemed to recognize two different ethnicities for the Hittites, but that it "did not distinguish between them with sufficient clearness or consistency for our purpose." (p. 318), and concludes the "population of the Hittite lands (was) no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day" (p. 319). There are also many studies of Anatolian bones in an attempt to identify the various ethnicities, based particularly on cranial shapes. It has elsewhere been noted that Hittite art itself seems to depict multiple ethnicities. Publik (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "I removed that section because I couldn't see the relevance of it..." Its important to know what they looked like. If Garstang pointed out that there are 2 distinct types of Hittites you may add that, although it is important to show what these ancient peoples looked like. - IndoHistorian —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, it's a data point that stands in isolation. There isn't anything else with it. Does one data point really merit a separate section? A more complete discussion of their physical appearance, including the fact that the Egyptians colored them yellow, would be appropriate as a new section. But as it is, it just leaves you hanging, reduced to a trivia point, without any real understanding of their appearance. 208.97.196.5 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it important to describe their physical traits so that people may understand what they were like? If Garstang wrote, "population of the Hittite lands (was) no less mixed than that of Turkey in Asia to-day" then that can be inputted into the article too. - IndoHistorian —Preceding comment was added at 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate to describe their physical traits. But "yellow" is inadequate. It would be nice to research a bit more and flesh it out. There's plenty out there on the subject, particularly around how the Egyptians drew them. But, whatever. If you restore it, I won't remove it again. Publik (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing more research on this topic. Yellow should be a suitable definition (that's how the scholars wrote and how they appeared as I've seen.) The original Aryans too appear to have been "yellow" (guara.) - IndoHistorian —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am adding and changing a few things that should make this section a little better (hopefully)...

If you would like to discuss these changes please let me know. Thanks.

Geog1 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Indohistorian,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not and I can only assume good faith but some of your sources appear to reflect rather archaic and outdated thought w/in the realm of physical anthropology. Also for sources when referencing them you should really put the title, author, date, publisher etc. When writing entries it is best not to say the "publisher" said as publishers do not write on the matter rather it is the author (assuming this is what you meant). Please feel free to discuss these issues w/ me as we are barking up rather controversial territory here. Thanks.

Geog1 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Judging by his contributions, Indohistorian appears to be one of the many sockpuppets of banned user Goldenhawk 0, whose method of research is to accummulate data without ragard to its age or reliability to push his theories about the race of early indo-europeans. I think te first paragraph is essentially nonsense. Apart from IndoHistorian do any other editors think that there is anything worth saving here? Paul B (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know all the many nationalistic users here so its good to know who is supposedly who. I agree that the first paragraph should come out as the Expositor appears to be nothing more than an old monograph on archaic Biblical thought. I am pretty sure it does not even refer to what he had posted there. However I think the sentence on humty could be salvaged in some way. That was actually something I had posted and cited and always thought it was something interesting that the Hittites were known for. Geog1 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Goldenhawk and his avatars is obsessed by the idea that a race of golden skinned Aryans once existed. All this stuff about Hittites being depicted as yellow is presumably supposed to support their golden identity. Yes, I think you are right about the later passages. Paul B (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how many retarded POVs are pushed here. I presume this all may be in line w/ the whole "Indigineous Aryans" which is connected somehow w/ the "Out of India" theory for IE dispersal? Anyway I've taken the liberty and changed the article around.Geog1 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

The Table of Nations and the Hittites

I'm curious as to why the Table of Nations is included in this article. For those who don't know, the TofN is chapter 10 of Genesis, and records the putative offspring of Noah's putative sons (Noah himself being as putative as you can get). While a few people regard it as accurate ethnography, they,re generally the same people who believe that the Flood represents an accurate report of an extreme weather even shortly after the creation of the world some 6,000 years ago. The more popular view is that the TofN was written in the 6th century BC at the very earliest. Which is sort of a bit late for the Hittites. So why is there a section on it in this article? PiCo (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe because of what the NPOV policy says? As the article currently notes, there "has been some debate", and it is "a matter of dispute" on this question. In fact, that's about all this article really states about it. One way to win a debate/dispute might be to sweep all opposing viewpoints under the carpet and pretend they don't exist or can't be mentioned, but that isn't the way we are supposed to do things here. If there is a debate or dispute, we mention both sides, with references, no matter what our personal opinions, which should be kept out of it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Codex, nice to meet you again. It's not so much the "point of view" policy that's at work here as the "relevance" policy - does a document written in the 6th century have any relevance to events five hundred years earlier? Well, you could stretch a point, since I gather that some Hittite city-states continued into the late 8th century, and the TofN could well be drawing on traditions from that period. But debate? I'm not aware of any debate or dispute about the rough date of the TofN. PiCo (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not aware of any debate or dispute? Maybe it's time to expand your mind then - that's what encyclopedias are supposed to be for. The statement in the article lead that this is "a matter of dispute" is already referenced, if after reading that, you still are skeptical that the question on the origins and age of the Bible is indeed highly controversial and that there are indeed multiple POVs on that, we will add more references and proof, just for you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to help me out here, I don't have access to the Mazar book. What does the contribution by Singer say about the relevance of TN to the Hittites? And what does it say about the composition of the primeval history? (Incidentally, I find it curious that the lead and the section on the TN talk about the documentary hypothesis - as they all say, nobody, or almost nobody, believes that any more, including me). PiCo (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, it so happens I don't believe the "documentary hypothesis" either - but no matter what you and I think about it, I will always defend its right to be mentioned, because we are supposed to faithfully reflect what ALL the significant, published views are, and this is a controversial subject. And I'm sure there are still plenty of people out there who do still swallow DH, we had someone arguing pretty vociferously for it on wikipedia only a couple years ago or so! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Someone"is always willing to change his mind if he reads enough. But please, let me know what Singer says. PiCo (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked and couldn't find it on Google-books, sorry I don't know who added that reference to the article, but I didn't. But if you try the same Google book search I did, it should satisfy you that there has been considerable scholarly debate and disagreement on who the "Hittites" of the Bible were. Trevor Bryce is already cited, and what he has to say is interesting. The 3 main POVs we can find seem to be: 1) The Biblical Hittites were associated with the Hittite Empire of Khatti in Anatolia 2) The Biblical Hittites were a small Canaanite tribe unrelated to the Hittites; 3) The Biblical Hittites were the later neo-Hittite states of the Carchemish area (apparently, Bryce's view). The Wikipedia article Biblical Hittites is a complete mess and not much help, we should probably clean it up to accurately reflect the gamut of published views out there! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bryce book is interesting and looks authoritative to my unprofessional eye. But given that, why not just summarise Bryce without reference to the TofN? The problem with directly referencing the Tof N is that it comes close to original research, the TN being a primary source. In my view it's a dodgy primary source, but not yours - so to avoid that, just go by Bryce. Incidentally, Bryce seems more interested in Kings and Chronicles than in the TofN. PiCo (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I can't find the phrase "Table of Nations" in the article, it only says "Genesis" which is certainly fair enough, since that is where the Biblical explanation for their origin is found, after all. Second, Bryce's POV can certainly be mentioned and attributed, but per NPOV, we aren't supposed to endorse any one POV, because this is a controversial question, and there are plenty of conflicting opinions and conjectures from other voices, on who the Biblical Hittites were - just look at the other results that come up. Just stating that it is controversial, as this article already does, should be enough for here; the full explanation of all the contradictory opinions of various scholars should be done at Biblical Hittites, which will be a lot of work cut out for us, since that article at present is barely referenced and consists of mostly raw quotes from Scripture! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENT)Let me propose this: Let's keep the section Biblical Hittites or whatever it's called, since it's an interesting subject and since some readers might actually come to this article because of the Biblical mentions of Hittites. But let's base it more on Bryce (clearly identifying him as the source of course) rather than directly on the primary source, i.e. the various Bible mentions of the name Hittite. Within that overall orbit, I'd begin with noting that there are references to Hittites in Genesis, Kings and Chronicles (I think that's all, but we can check). Then I'd say something like: "X.X. Bryce notes that these appear to be two separate groups, the first, in Genesis, domiciled in Palestine and apparently a small people of no great power, the second, in Kings and Chronicles, apparently living outside Palestine and the possessors of sufficient military power to overawe their enemies." This is off the top of my head and would need to be checked and cleaned up. But as an outline, what do you think? PiCo (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article currently notes, there are three major schools of thought regarding the "Biblical Hittites". What you suggest is fine for elucidating one of these three (the third), but we could also rely on authors who hold to the other schools of thought, for the other two. For a controversial matter, the last thing we want to do is declare one of the POVs the "winner" and exclude the other two; we don't have authority to do that. I may have my favorite theory and so may you, but that is supposed to be irrelevant, we have to neutrally mention all significant sides in a controversy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As Marten Woudstra notes "There is no unanimity among experts as to the relation of the biblical Hittites and the Hittite empire which had its center in what is presently Turkey" [1] This seems to be a typical statement of the situation acknowledged by several other sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Get back to you tomorrow - it's past midnight here!PiCo (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've revised the section in line with our discussion. What do you think?PiCo (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hittite seated deity, Anatolia, 13th century BCE.

Here's an image of a 13th century BCE Hittite deity, which I took at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Please feel free to include it in the article. PHG (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've put it in Hittite mythology. If you're in the museum already, it would be great if you could take note of the catalogue number, or at least the site of excavation.--dab (𒁳) 13:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hittites were not the first to work iron

There are popular - usually Biblically based - publications stating that the Hittites were the first to work iron. No scholarly work would say this anymore.

Examples: 1) (Meteoric) iron beads on a necklace from pre-dynastic Egypt 2) Dagger handle made from (non-meteoric) iron at Chagar Bazar in Syria dating from the Early Dynastic III period 3) Traces of an iron blade from Tell Asmar on the Diyala river, also ED III 4) Third millennium BC iron objects in Anatolia (i.e. pre-Hittite)

What the Hittites did was start to "flood the market", as it were, with iron. They had more of it than anybody else, and so could gain greater skill in its working, and use it more extensively for trade. But iron remained a precious metal until it was discovered how to work it into steel, which finally made it practical for tools and weapons. Publik (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)