From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


There's a line appearing twice (redundant); the two statements should be fusioned at the first instance, yielding a single entry at the 1st emplacement; it’s not needed in the 2nd time.

“After c. 1180 BC, the empire came to an end during the Bronze Age collapse, splintering into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until the 8th century BC.”

“After 1180 BC, general turmoil in the Levant occurred that was conjectured to have been associated with the sudden arrival of the Sea Peoples.[5][6] The kingdom disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC. “

yielding: “After 1180 BC, general turmoil in the Levant occurred that was conjectured to have been associated with the sudden arrival of the Sea Peoples.[5][6] The kingdom disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC. “ Anniemagic (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Hittites probably WERE the Hattians[edit]

The third paragraph of the article says:

"Despite the use of Hatti for their core territory, the Hittites should be distinguished from the Hattians, an earlier people who inhabited the same region (until the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC) and spoke a language possibly in the Northwest Caucasian languages group known as Hattic.[1]"

I don't see why the Hittites should be "distuinguished from" the Hattians?

There seems to be no evidence to backup this claim, and the use of the term Hattti for their core territory should re-enforce that they ARE one and the same people. I am not sure if there is even a difference between the Indo-European language of the Hittites (which is not even given a name in the article) and the Hattic language spoken by the Hattians, although this is what this paragraph seems to imply. The citation is not clickable, but from what I can get from the citation when mousing over it, even the citation doesn't differentiate between Hattic and the Indo-European language spoken by the Hittites, except to say that the Hattic language is a North-West Caucasian language. (is not Indo-European and Caucasian the same, or at least very strongly connected?)

Even if the languages were different, languages change over time and it is most likely that the Hittite language evolved from Hattic, especially since their land is called Hatti and there is no evidence that the Hittite people originated from any other land besides the land they called Hatti. Why then is the article trying so hard to distinguish the Hittites from the Hatti, when all evidence points to them being one and the same people and there is no real evidence to show that they are not the same (different times in history, but same place, same place name, therefore most likely same people).

Incidentally, just to throw in something else here a little off topic. Less evidence for this one, but anyone notice the similarity between the name Hatti and Hessians? (one of the German tribes). The Old High German spelling of Hesse was Hatti!

May I please add this info to the article, or at least just remove the "should be distuinguished from" part?-- (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Hittite is the earliest known specimen of Indo-European language, but it certainly did not come from Hattic, which is completely unrelated. (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

After doing some more research into the language issue, I am willing to concede that the Hattic and Hittite languages may be totally unrelated. However, I don't think this fact is enough to conclude that "the Hittites should be distinguished from the Hattians". They existed in the same place, but at different times and while it is possible that they are NOT the same people, language differences are not enough to say these peoples should be distinguished from each other. The Philistines for example, were from Crete (or some say Asia Minor, or Greece) however soon after migrating to Palestine, they started speaking a Semitic language. Languages can change, without a people changing. Most British people speak English today, despite their ancestors speaking Gaelic, German, or Danish. I don't think the language difference is enough to rule out the idea that the Hittites descended (at least in part) from the more ancient Hattians of the same region. Not only is the region in which they lived the same, but even the name 'Hittite' is similar to 'Hatti'. It is therefor more likely than not that they were the same people -- (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Just an update to the info above. After doing some further research again, it would appear you are wrong (or at least exaggerating). Above you wrote that "Hittite... certainly did not come from Hattic, which is completely unrelated". They are MOSTLY unrelated, but not COMPLETELY unrelated as evidenced by the quote from another existing Wikipedia article below: (They were different languages, but the Hittite language DID preserve certain parts of the Hattian language which were adopted into Hittite.)

"According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[10] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[11] In Hittite there are many loanwords, particularly religious vocabulary, from the non-Indo-European Hurrian and Hattic languages. The latter was the language of the Hattians, the local inhabitants of the land of Hatti before being absorbed or displaced by the Hittites. Sacred and magical texts from Hattusa were often written in Hattic, Hurrian, and Luwian, even after Hittite became the norm for other writings." - (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a fair addition because it is on topic, but aside from that, we can't state anything about it being "likely" the non-Indo-European Hattians and the Indo-European Hittites were the same, unless reliable sources indicate that this is a significant school of thought, and not just your own opinion or conjecture as a wikipedian, which is not allowed. For that matter, the ethnicity of the Philistines is not an open-and-shut, debate-free case, but that's another topic and we should also avoid substituting arguments by "analogy" in a slippery slope in place of addressing the conditions at hand. (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. I have more , or less only added the Craig Melchert quote (all from another Wikipedia article anyway) as you suggested, and although I see where you are coming from it is somewhat misguided. The Philistine part of what I wrote was just an example and I agree with you there, although what I wrote is probably closest to the truth, although we may never know the exact truth on their origins. I also understand the argument about scientific consensus, but believe you are misguided in interpreting consensus. Let me quickly explain what I mean. I don't think any scientist/anthropologist today denies that the modern Ethiopian is largely a descendant of ancient Ethiopians - despite the Arab admixture found amongst a lot of them. There are no scientists shouting out en mass "the modern Ethiopian is a descendant of ancient Ethiopians" - there is no need for a consensus on this, because it was never a debate to begin with. What I am trying to say here is that just because there are NOT lots of scientists all shouting that the Hittites descended (at least in part) from the ancient Hatti, doesn't mean they do NOT descend from them. There is Druid blood in the modern Brits, ancient Greek blood in the modern Greeks, ancient Egyptian blood in the modern Egyptians (although they are largly mixed with Arab as well). These are all obvious facts that don't need to be proclaimed by hundreds of scientists in order to be true. It would make logical sense that the same would apply to Modern Turkey and even to ancient Turkey regarding even more ancient Turks than them. It is more likely than unlikely, at least in part. The similarities attest to it (at least in part). The Wikipedia article I linked to also said: "The latter was the language of the Hattians, the local inhabitants of the land of Hatti before being absorbed, or displaced by the Hittites." Displacing almost never happens without absorption. Absorption would have led to at least a part of the Hittites descending from the Hatti making them (at least in part) "Hattian". No scientist today would argue that the Italians "should be distinguished from the" Romans, "an earlier people who inhabited the same region". This is essentially another version of what the article is saying - and I therefore have to disagree.-- (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Your response is something of a non sequitur since I made no mention of "scientific" consensus. This isn't even much in the realm of scientific method and experimentation from my perspective, as much as it is basic history (except insofar as archaeology utilizes science.) And ignoring what I advised about argument by analogy usually being fallacious, you have responded with a heap of more analogies to other disassociated topics. This is confusing and not particularly helpful for the topic at hand (Ancient Hittites). Every idea stated on any wikipedia article is supposed to be citeable to reliable sources; this is an important cornerstone policy. If any idea is not found in any scholar's previous research but appears in wikipedia for the first time anywhere, we have to remove it, this can be researched on our important policy page at WP:NOR. Regards, (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WPTR template[edit]

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. denizTC 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?[edit]

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. denizTC 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. denizTC 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[edit]

Am intending to put the {{Refimprove}} 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 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There must have been something in the food around December of 2007 where you live(d). Strange, ridiculous statements. (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (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)


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[edit]

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)


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)
Oh, it be! (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Legacy of the Hittites" section[edit]

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[edit]

Hittites 1300bc.jpg

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 , 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[edit]

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. (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)


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


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[edit]

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<ref>x</ref> 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)


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[edit]

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)

Which was circa 2000 B.C. or so ... well before the Hittites made use of it in swords against Egyptian bronze weapons. (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Name of the Hittites[edit]

As most of the direct descendants of the Hittites and other ancient anatolian civilizations currently speak Turkish but are mostly of ancient anatolian ancestry, the name of these civilizations should also be provided in Turkish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycianhittite (talkcontribs) 23:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no cultural continuity, and literature about the Hittites is mostly in other languages, not Turkish. So it's no special service to readers to inform them how "Hittite" is said in Turkish. SamEV (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is definite cultural continuity:

-education: The only university in the WORLD having the name Hittite is in Turkey(Anatolia) [2]

-city symbols: -> Turkey(Current name of Anatolian country) is the only country in the world whose let alone any city, but capital has the hittite sun as its symbol!

-genetics: ->According to scientific studies more than %90 of anatolian turks are indigenous anatolians

-music: -> anatolian saz instrument is a direct continuation of the hittite stringed-musical instruments as proven by hittite pots bearing coloured depictions of the exact instrument being played. [3]

-food ->the food eaten in Anatolia is a direct continuation of the hittite cuisine[4]For reference please read the book titled "Hittite Cuisine" published by Alpha Publishing(08-2008) in Turkey.

-place names -> Adana is a major province of Turkey famous for its Kebabs and according to studies Hittite cuisine contained a strong element of meat skewer(Shish Kebab). The name of the city comes from Hittite beginning of its name Adaniya.

-person names -> Kybele was a prominent ancient anatolian goddess. Her name in Turkish is Sibel and this is a very prominent female name in the central regions of Turkey(corresponding to core hittite areas).

-folk games: -> A lot of games played by children of Anatolians are direct descendant of ancient anatolian games including the hittite ones. For reference research the "Asik Kemigi(Asik Bone)" game which is very popular in anatolia even today. Depictions of the exact game were found from late hittite period near eastern anatolia(turkey)

In conclusion Turks(as Anatolians are now referred to as/not to be confused with real Turkic Central Asians) are direct continuation of ancient anatolian civilzations and they currently pronounce their ancestors' civilizations names in Turkish.For this reason, the name of hittites should be provided in Turkish. --Lycianhittite (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well.
A little tip: remove those ''<ref>, </ref>'' tags from those links you just gave. Replace them with square brackets ([ and ]), so that other readers can click on them directly, without having to open the edit window. SamEV (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the approval and the tip.

Lycianhittite (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These "arguments" are all a bunch of unsourced OR and wishful thinking. The bits about the university and cuisine are especially ludicrous. No one will take your arguments seriously unless you provide scholarly sources to make your points. So far you have not done so. Find me a work by a real Hittitologist that demonstrates continuity between Hittites and Turks, and I will believe you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hittie Goddess[edit]

The ancient "Anatolian" people I think might be unintentionally misleading, since the present day Turks who currently occupy this region were not the original indigenous people during biblical times. Prior to the Turks invasions during the 6-7th century, there was the Ethiopian “Mitanni Empire” that ruled for 26 centuries; and was reputedly the main inspiration for the later Byzantium period after theirs (and later the Roman) invasions. During ancient times these various Egypto-Ethiopian groups were known as the Phrygians. I have found an image of a Hittite Goddess which can aid in shedding some historical light of the physical resemblance of its ancient peoples. I would like to include this link in the "external references" since it does cite the source from which it came. Photo image:Hittie Goddess-- (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Ethiopian Mitanni Empire?? 26 centuries???  :-) Please. Also, you can find any crackpot theories on the web. Wiki requires Reliable Sources (aka, scholarly works.) (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The map[edit]

I wonder who has drawn the map .

  • According to map, Hittites have no ports on Black sea. However, according to the article Sinop, Sinop ( "Sinuwa") was a Hittitian port on Black sea. (source John Garstang).
  • According to map, except for a narrow strip, there was almost no connection between Hittite lands and Agean sea. However according to article Assuwa league the small kingdoms in west Anatolia had been defeated and vassalized by Hittities.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New map[edit]

Using various sources including Trevor Bryce's excellent book i have drawn up a new map of the Hittite empire to replace the other highly problematic map. This one shows its true holdings in Mitanni, Syria Kaska and western Anatolia. Using Bryce's book i will be editing the History of the Hittites article as well as this one. I think we should just have one "Hittite Empire" article instead and merge both articles.

Edit: I will also be adding more content on Hittite religion and society, using Bryce's other book on Hittite society and culture.

( Javierfv1212 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) )

Pointless Edit War regarding the A. Arnaiz-Villena study and mystery user ""[edit]

Look here is what the study says from the abstract:

Abstract: Turkish and Kurdish HLA profiles are studied for the first time. The comparative study of their allele frequencies, characteristic haplotypes, genetic distances with other Mediterraneans is complemented by neighborjoining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older ‘‘Mediterranean’’ substratum. No sign of the postulated Indo-European (Aryan) invasion (1200 B.C.) is detected by our genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if occurred, had a relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to present-day Kurdish, Armenian and Turkish populations.

Its all right there in the abstract. But wait...there's more! In the opening of the body of the study this is said:

Present-day Turks number about 62 million. Turk tribes started moving towards Azerbaijan, Iran and Anatolia from the Altai Mountains and Lake Aral areas around the 10th century A.D. (1). They spoke an Altaic language (Altai Mountains, in Siberia, North Mongolia). Turks came into Iran and Anatolia, took power in what is now Iran/Iraq and quickly advanced towards the West threatening both Byzantium (Roman Empire) and Muslim conquests in Anatolia and the Middle East (1). First, Selyuk and in a second place Ottoman Turks conquered part of Roman areas and Constantinople (Istanbul, 1453 A.D.) respectively. By 1800 A.D., Turks still held power in Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, all Balkan countries and neighboring southern Russia, Hungary, Anatolia and southern Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia) (1). Confrontation with Mediterraneans and Russians started and many countries obtained independence (Greece, Egypt, Bulgaria, Rumania, Serbia, etc.). After World War I (1918), the former Turkish Empire was split and seized by France, Great Britain, Italy and Greece. Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) declared the Turkish Republic in 1922 (1) and Turks thus started living within the limits of what is present-day Turkey. On the other hand, Kurds are about 30 million people and are distributed in Turkey (11.4 million), Iran (6.6 million), Iraq (3.9 million), Armenia and Azerbaijan (0.9 million) (1). Their Diaspora throughout other countries accounts for another 5.5 million. They speak an Iranian language with a strong Caucasian influence (Ergative composition, toponyms, 2); there are Kurd communities also in the West of South Caucasus republics including Georgia (in its capital, Tblisi, 1). In the present work, it is intended to obtain for the first time the Turkish HLA gene profile and the characteristic haplotypes, studying the relative contribution of ancient Mediterraneans to the genetic pool of present day Turkish people. A Kurd group is also analyzed and both ethnic groups will be compared with the HLA genetic structure of neighboring Armenians and other Mediterraneans. For these purposes, both the HLA class I and class II genes have been studied since the HLA system has been shown to be very polymorphic, able to be compared among ethnic groups and useful to distinguish and/or relate populations (3, 4).

And finally:

In summary, it seems than Turks, Kurds and Armenians are very close genetically and all of them seem to have been living in the area for many millennia, because typical Asian HLA genes are not found (39, 42–44). Probably, small different ‘‘elite’’ invaders imposed different languages on these three different groups who originally spoke a similar pre-Indo-European language (36). Armenians (Urartu 900 B.C.) and Kurds (’’Kurti‘‘) probably were initially splits of Hurrian groups (2nd millennium – 1st millennium B.C.), the Kurds remaining mainly at the mountains. Thus, the postulated Asian invasion (1200 B.C.) is not noticed on our HLA genetic studies.

User (who doesn't even have an account just an IP address....hmmmmm) is basically vandalizing the article.

Geog1 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

this isn't about the Hittites. Please take it to Genetic history of the Near East where it belongs. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks D. Just so you know I did not originally cite this but here is what was originally writtien:

Research using HLA profiles on select Middle Eastern groups suggests that the Hittite's descendants are the Kurds and Armenians. Armenian and Kurdish HLA profiles have been studied for the first time and the comparative study of their allele frequencies, characteristic haplotypes, and genetic distances with other Mediterraneans is complemented by neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Kurds, Armenians, Iranians, Jews, Lebanese and other (Eastern and Western) Mediterranean groups seem to share a common ancestry: the older "Mediterranean" substratum. No sign of a postulated "Indo-European invasion" at 1200 B.C. is detected by the genetic analysis. It is concluded that this invasion, if it occurred, had relatively few invaders in comparison to the already settled populations, i.e. Anatolian Hittite and Hurrian (Mitanni) groups (older than 2000 B.C.). These may have given rise to the present-day Kurdish and Armenian populations.

And this statement appeared next to its reference: Hittites are now Kurds and Armenians

All of this started with a user at IP address I felt since the study referenced Hittites that it would be more difficult to try and take it out so I tried to salvage it according to what the article actually said. However this caused a furry of activity from another IP address (same user?) and again it seemed absolutely pivotal to separate Turks from everyone else. Regardless the right decision was made and since its too controversial at this point it should be left out. Thanks for your help. Geog1 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with using Arnaiz-Villena, a geneticist who has a history of using genetics to promote fringe theories concerning ethnic identities and language. It's not the genetics that are the problem, but the claims he make on the basis of the evidence; There is is also currently a dispute concerning the page dedicated to him; see Antonio Arnaiz-Villena Paul B (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Paul. It seemed reasonable that most of the population of Anatolia are genetically "Near Eastern/Mediterranean" and can thus be generally regarded so geographically since the haplogroups of present day Turkey seem to more or less coincide with this. I know that Y-chromosome C3, Q and N are present which would likely indicate the "steppic" presence in the country though these are found at low frequencies. Most Turkish males seem to be from J2, I, E3B, G all of which are more indicative of the Near East/Med/Caucasus. I think other studies alluded to the "European" influence stemming from R1b and maybe R1a1(M-17) but this is hard to say for both of these lineages since R1b may have first appeared in Anatolia according to some but also R1a1's over debated status. I can't remember if mtDNA genetic patterns coincided with a Near Eastern geographic designation or not. Also can't remember if I came across an mtDNA paper for Anatolia or not that referenced this. Regardless I wasn't the one who put the study in there. I just tried to make sense of it.Geog1 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is no study ostensibly examining Hittite DNA, I see no reason to refer to any genetics study in this article. Geog1, why do you keep trying to discuss the modern populations of Anatolia here at Talk:Hittites? It is off topic. There are articles dedicated to these things, this is not it.

I appreciate it wasn't you who insisted "Hittites are now Kurds and Armenians", but this is exactly the sort of nonsense we want to keep out of Wikipedia. The internet is full of messageboards for teenage nationalists where such notions thrown around all day long, but the entire point of this project is to create a space on the internet where the quality of information is higher than in your average forum posting. As far as I am concerned, all these racialist and ethnic essentialist non sequiturs can be purged with prejudice, except in articles where they are themselves the topic, based on academic investigations. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. Besides I was merely replying to Paul. I discuss these things so at least people know what the processual studies have to say. I also try and recieve info on articles that I am not aware of to fill knowledge gaps.

I wasn't aware that there were specific guidelines for what can and cannot be discussed on talk pages (could you please refer me?). Regardless the whole physical anthro section and what not was an attempt to try and salvage quotes that were thrown around because when you try and remove something it just creates an edit war. If these things can be purged with prejudice great! But admin intervention is needed and you need to be made aware of what's going on. I use talk pages to document the case as best I can.Geog1 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What amazes me is certain modern "scientists" who try to get across a vague unscientific notion that all modern peoples came out of a vacuum, and not from ancient peoples. Of course, they can't say this right out, because sensible people would think about it for a second and realize how silly it is. But what they can do, is very unscientifically laugh anyone to scorn who dares to suggest the shocking idea that modern peoples are descended from ancient peoples. Methinks these teenagers alluded to, maybe know more about how the birds and bees work than these paid "scientists". (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with dab. Up to now there exist no studies in Hittite-DNA, and the population in Asia Minor has been mixed by migrations ever and ever since arrival of modern humans. Thus stop these coffe-cup guesses. HJJHolm (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
sheesh, 68.238, "modern scientists" will tell you that modern people ultimately derive from Homo habilis. But even though all the Hittites are undisputedly descended from H. habilis, we are not going to carry a section discussing details about H. habilis and his adventures in this article. There is a reason Wikipedia has separate pages (known as "articles") dedicated to separate topics. There is no denying that topics are going to be related with one another, but this doesn't excuse you from sticking to the topic at hand in every article you edit. Genealogy is a difficult topic, my friend. Do you understand about pedigree collapse? Do you understand about the difference between the last common ancestor and the identical ancestors point? You are not descended from "an ancient people", you are descended from lots and lots of individuals, most of them prehistoric. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We could do with an English version of the map[edit]

We could do with an English version of the map on the English wikipedia. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Cognate words elsewhere[edit]

The article uses the name "Kheta" to call the Hittites, this name has connections with a word that was used in the Iberian peninsula to name the Goths->"Jeta" (Also in Wikipedia). However, the Goths may have been more uniform in their physical appearance than the people described as "Hittites" that were not genetically homogeneous (Also in Wikipedia), while the Goths may have had a classic "Germanic" or "Northern European" look. No need to say that the name of the Hittite deity "Tarhunt" is identical to the name of an ancient deity of the Gauls: "Taranis", that the Romans described as a bloody deity, and also the word is analog to or is in the roots of the English word for "Thunder", the German "Donner", the Spanish "Trueno", the Latin idiom "Jupiter tonans", the French word "Tonnerre" and perhaps even the Classical Greek "γανωματής".--Jgrosay (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are these your own personal speculations? Because on wikipedia, we can't attribute such speculation to you (read WP:OR). We can only consider attributing speculation that has appeared in a previously published source. Sorry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
There are thousands of specialist articles about Indo-European "cognates", deities, and religion. Jgrosay obviously never read any of these. HJJHolm (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture of a non-Hittite artifact[edit]

The image used under Archaeological discovery section (as of Nov 15, 2012) belongs to pre-Hittite period. This and all other similar standards come from Hattian (not Hittite) period graves dating to 3rd millennium, mainly from Alaca_Höyük. I am not aware of any such standard being used by Hittite priests. As a matter of fact, I see the same picture used in Alaca_Höyük page with a note indication it dates to Early Bronze Age (i.e. 3rd mill.). Kahrbela (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why we should merge it[edit]

Merging the two would make navigation of the article much much easier. Its just as absurd as putting "History of Calculus" and "Calculus" as 2 different articles. You might as well make a "History of History" and "History" 2 different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADAstudint (talkcontribs) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed less known connections for the Hittites[edit]

As it seems an agreement exist about 'Hattusa', the capital of the Hittite empire, meaning: 'The high town', similarities can be found in places besides the ones cited: probably, when in the Gospel Jesus Christ Himself proposes: 'You can't hide a town placed in the heights', He was referring to Hattusa, or a town built in the same rationale, thus, likely by the same culture, if the place Christ cited was not Hattusa itself, even when Hattusa was destroyed and abandoned many centuries BC, the Hittite imprint in the Hebrew culture is repeated, from the references of marriages between Hebrews and Hittites, to the fact proposed by archeologists that Hittites taught the Hebrew to build the war chariots, and also horseback riding. As warriors, Hittites had a reputation of being very precise in throwing arrows from an arch while riding, and the fact is recorded in the Bible that when Hebrew abandoned an idolatric cult, probably introduced by the Hittites along with horseback riding, in order not to keep on contaminating their minds with the idolatry, they abandoned horseback riding 'forever'. No need to say that 'Acropolis', the high part of the Classical Athens, has exactly the same meaning as 'Hattusa', and 'Town in the heights', thus making the cultures in one and other place almost the same. From Genetical analysis, it can be proposed that Hittites were not an ethnically homogeneous group, the connection between the concept 'Hittis', and the cognate word: 'Guests', linked to the ancient European: 'Gastiz', equivalent to 'Hosts' and 'Guests', 'Gäste' in German, would yield the image of a people of an homogeneous ethnicity in the ruling positions of society, bound to the traditions of teaching their kids: 'austerity', 'horseback riding', and: 'always saying the truth', and to this 'Elite', other peoples voluntarily adscribing to obtain the advantages of the proven ability to make good decisions of the ruling group, thus gaining a higher degree of welfare, but the powerful class maintaining a certain 'mistrust' to their 'subordinates', as proved by the Latin word: 'Hostis'='Enemy', ('hostility' comes from this), having an etymology in the concept 'guests', or in the Hittites' words: 'Hittis'; in this line, 'Hittis'/'Hittites' may be considered the men who implemented the policies designed by their authorities, authorities named also: 'Hittites', as their force was based on the 'Hittis' they accepted as 'employees'. 'Si non e vero, e ben trovato'.--Jgrosay (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, Christ referred to Hattusa in the Gospels? And to whom are we to attribute these "proposed less known connections for the Hittites"? Have you read WP:NOR? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Could the indistinct "dotted arrow" in the third map be corrected/improved?[edit]

In this page's third map -- which has the caption: "Map of Indo European migrations from circa 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model. The Anatolian migration (indicated with a dotted arrow) could have taken place either across the Caucasus or across the Balkans. ..." -- the "dotted arrow" is extremely difficult to discern. There is a dashed arrow with a dark gray background that makes the dashes very difficult to see, even in the larger version.

It would help viewers understand the map and its caption if a) the arrow's gray background was removed, and b) the dotted/dashed word/visual dissonance in the map and caption was corrected, one way or another.

Almadenmike (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis[edit]

Suggest reading somethings and rewriting data related to this subject everywhere it appears. 1.R. Bouckaert, P. Lemey, M. Dunn, S. J. Greenhill, A. V. Alekseyenko, A. J. Drummond, R. D. Gray, M. A. Suchard, Q. D. Atkinson. Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family. Science, 2012; 337 (6097): 957 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669 Gray, Russell D. and Quentin D. Atkinson, “Language Tree Divergence Times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European Origin”, Nature, Vol. 426, 27 November 2003, p. 435. (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a computation based on a (at the time of publication) VERY poor data set (ask any linguist), computed by extremely complicated methods taken from bio-evolution, which nobody outside the authors is able to control in feasable time. Further note that, after having computed the Anatolian languages as the oldest to split off, the alternative Kurgan hypothesis (without attested languages there) naturally resulted in longer migrations and thus lost in the applied model.HJJHolm (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


"opinion of Colin Renfrew, whose Anatolian hypothesis assumes that Indo-European is indigenous to Anatolia[11][12])." As far as I can see, Renfrew in particular held that the Proto-Indo-European language expanded along with the Neolitic expansion ("revolution") out of Anatolia. However, nobody ever has found any signs of a "culture" relatable to the PIEs in Anatolia at the alleged period of the 8th to 7th millennium.HJJHolm (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FACT: The earliest known specimen of Indo-European language is the Anitta text, datable to c.1700 BC, Kanesh Anatolia.
The discussion of anything from 8000 BC being "relatable" to PIE made me smile. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hattians revert[edit]

Exactly because - as correctly noted - Hattic continued to be used in the Hittite kingdom for religious purposes, and there is substantial continuity between the two cultures, the sentence " it is not known whether the Hattic speakers—the Hattians—were displaced by the speakers of Hittite, were absorbed by them, or just adopted their language.[citation needed]" makes no sence, and I insist upon deleting it. How should the high amount of Hattian loans have come into the Hittite language, if these people had been displaced? HJJHolm (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently there are three separate, maybe conflicting statements about this issue spread through the article.
1. In the lede: "... a name received from the Hattians, an earlier people who inhabited the region until the beginning of the second millennium BC and spoke an unrelated language known as Hattic.
2. History section: "The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in the Bronze Age was one of a superstrate imposing itself on a native culture (in this case over the pre-existing Hattians and Hurrians), either by means of conquest or by gradual assimilation
3. Language section: "The latter was the language of the Hattians, the local inhabitants of the land of Hatti before being absorbed or displaced by the Hittites"
2 and 3 are not exactly in contradiction, if "conquest" can imply "displacement". I read it differently because "superstrata" excludes "displacement". :S On the one hand I concure that displacement can't be excluded, but this has nothing to do in the Language section (in fact it makes more sense to read that the language was displaced, but we can only guess what the vernacular was, whereas it was not immediately replaced in lithurgy).
1 bloats the lede. The wording "received from" makes it clear that they are not one and the same, if disambiguation is the broad focus of the statement (which distinguishes it from 2 and 3). It was established early on in the talk page by B. Bryce that the history of the Hattians belongs in their article. I think it's good form to move etymological information to an etymological section, where additional information could go, which is currently (well placed actually) intervowen in the Discovery section.

I'm only six years late to respond here, and won't do anything about it either.

I want to note that, if "The toponym Kizzuwatna is possibly a Luwian adaptation of Hittite *kez-udne 'country on this side (of the mountains)'", I would try to identify this with "Hit-tite", under the assumption of severe corruption of the southern name. My observation was inspired not the least by the rendition of Egyptian khet for Hatti in this article (but I' m not sure how fo justify z ~ t, or the remaining bit). It is well known that one can derive nearly anything from anything under random assumptions of corruption, so I don't expect there to be an obscure source to corroborate my idea. If I am asking for a qualified hypothesis along those lines, then more or less only as an excuse to mention my spontaniohs speculation on this talk page.

But it also illustrates a neat point: We barely know anything about the Hattians, certainly not what the name meant or where it came from. (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Complete Doc about Hittites[edit]

This is a complete documentary on the Hittites, I am not sure the source but a link to it would be useful. Hittite Doc.--Inayity (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Iron age?[edit]

The article states: "Although belonging to the Bronze Age, they were the forerunners of the Iron Age, developing the manufacture of iron artifacts from as early as the 18th century BC".

Doesn´t this mean that they belonged to the Iron Age? I thought that being able to produce iron was the definition of the change into the Iron Age? --Vitzque (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hittite empire[edit]

Can anyone add the section that describes why Hittite empire is called an empire? Kkddkkdd (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Hittites in Spanish[edit]

Good afternoon. There is a new Wikiproject in the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Wikiproyecto:Hititas. Anybody volunteering to help? Thanks! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Native name[edit]

What exactly is wrong with stating the native name of these people most commonly known as the Hittites? The native name of these people is Nesa, anglified in many sources as Neshites. Nesili is sometimes also stated as the native name. I understand the title of the article is the common name, but there is nothing wrong with stating the native name in the lead. Various articles on the wiki have the common name as a title, but mention one or several native names. Hittites originates as a Biblical term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civciv5 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hittites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hittites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Main Map is in German[edit]

I just noticed that the info box in the top right of the article has a map that taken straight from the German language Wikipedia without translating or changing the text on the map. So basically, the map is in German not English. I don't know how to change the map or where to find a version of the map that is in English. I can try to find one, but I don't even know how to edit it, so if someone could, that would be lovely.

Sir Charms a Lot (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Confused sources for Atkinson[edit]

I tried to correct the confused sources for the Atkinson computations, which originally appeared 2012, with a severe mathematical mistake, which has been corrected in 2013 (as also noted now in the online edition of 2012). The new result, however, lies chronologically between that of Renfrew and of computations favoring the "Steppe" hypothesis (Chang et al. 2015; Holm 2017).2003:DD:F2D:A841:90E5:C4AD:EC0A:60D0 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Final S[edit]

When I was a kid, back in the '60s, most (if not all) of these names ended with an s: Suppiluliumas, Mursilis, Hattusas, &c. Recent articles, however, seem to always spell them without it (though Hattusa, at least, mentions the -s version as an alternative spelling. When and why the change? (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The final -s in these names and elsewhere mark the nominative (subject) singular form of the common (versus neuter) gender (familiar as the nom. sg. masculine forms in Latin, Greek and elsewhere). At some point, people decided it was better to just use the stem, and not a specific case form. But yeah, if you're used to the forms with the endings, it can be a bit confusing. Kind of like suddenly referring to Odysseus as "Odusseu"! Johundhar (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)