 Originally Posted by sumskilz
Regarding the destruction of Hattusa, the archaeology isn't consistent with a foreign invasion. There were makeshift reinforcements made to its defenses, suggesting there was a sense of insecurity, the potential of an impending attack, but there is no evidence of a battle – no weapons, etc. There is no evidence of destruction in the lower city or in the residences of the upper city. Only temples, the palace, and the city gates were burned after having been meticulously emptied of all valuables. There is no evidence of destruction prior to the burning. A small percentage of the population remained in the city and in nearby settlements. There is no local disruption in the continuity of the Hittite material culture into the Iron Age. This is consistent in my opinion with the hypothesis Oda mentioned, that Suppiliumas II simply relocated the capital, probably to the southeast.
With regards to Cyprus and Ahhiyawans
I mentioned the Hittite naval campaign against Cyprus above. The record apparently indicates nothing which we would associate with the Sea People, unless Cypriots were part of the Sea People. Also relevant the fact that the people of Cyprus are not associated with the Mycenaeans or Cretans by either the Egyptians or the Hittites. The Hittites do not use the term "Ahhiyawan" in any context relating to Cyprus either. The only time they mention Ahhiyawa (whoever they are) is in the context of Anatolia... presumably in a dispute over the ownership of Millawanda. What is important is that the campaign takes place just prior to or at the start of the reign of Suppiluliumas II, allegedly the last Hittite ruler.
However I am also inclined to think that the insertion of Millawanda by scholars into the Ahhiyawa narrative is wishful thinking on the part of scholars who want to connect Mycenaean finds in that area with the Ahhiyawans. The record is not clear about who the Ahhiyawans are nor what territory they inhabit, only a dispute with Wilusa and ultimately that the Ahhiyawans are allowed to claim Millawanda. But if Millawanda was controlled by the Mycenaeans it is rather awkward that the city is already ruled by a governor called Atpa. All we know about the land of Ahhiya is that they are to the west of the Astarpa and the Kastaraya Rivers (the boundary between Hatti and west Anatolia)... which doesn't give a lot of leeway in determining where this is (same with the location of Wilusa actually, though it is assumed that Wilusa is the Troad, or Tarusiyah as it is called by the Hittites... but why would they have two names for the same place?).
About the Sea People and their raids
Another thing worth mentioning. Carlos J. Moreu and others argue that the inscription of Ramesses III might have a slight spelling mistake or a mistranslation. When it mentions the places destroyed by the Sea People, supposedly, "Arzawa" (a region in Anatolia) is the place mentioned, where as others argue it is the city of Arvad (the Egyptians use "Yereth/Yeres"). Arvad being a coastal city in Amurru would be an easy target. Although Arzawa is also a region in western Anatolia so it isn't like that area was inaccessible to the Sea People. If anything it would have been ground zero for pillaging and raiding. Despite that I don't know about wars being fought in that area at the time, we should assume that generally Anatolia had a lot of conflicts as the Hittites mention not only massive coalitions against Hittite rule but also wars in which the Hittites intervened in favour of an ally. This generally being the pragmatic method by which the Hittites expanded their hegemony into Anatolia, but also explains how and why the Anatolians coalesced against Hittite hegemony, which they resented for the most part (as these coalitions, but also Hittite treaties, indicate). However, if Ramesses III actually means Arvad then this is probably further evidence that the Sea People did not invade Anatolia en masse and therefore it is extremely unlikely that they destroyed Hatti.
Records discovered in Ugarit indicate that the Sea People actually invaded the Levant and attacked the region of Mukish (roughly Latakia and Lebanon, also where Ugarit is located). In these records they describe an invasion of the region and a battle being fought near Mount Amanus. Due to fragments it is not clear who the invaders were, nor the outcome of the campaign. One of these records being written on the orders of an Ewir-Sharruma, a military official in Ugarit: "and behold, the enemy who is in Mukish... to Mount Amanus... behold, the enemy is destroyed... the enemies oppress me, but I shall not leave my wife and children...". Another record discovered next to that one and is of an unknown author but which says "If the Hittites mount, I will send a message to you, and if they don't I will certainly send a message. My mother, don't be afraid...", implying that they are expecting Hittite reinforcements in Ugarit. The assumption is that this describes an invasion by the Sea People but it could be a civil war... or even an Egyptian invasion.
The campaigns of Ramesses III in Amurru
The element which is not considered is that of the Egyptians. Ramesses III's own inscriptions mention that he campaigned in Syria and took the city of Tunip (among others). Some of these depict him fighting Amorites but also Hittites. In another campaign Ramesses III also defeated the Sea People in a naval battle near Arvad, captured them and deported them to Canaan. What we can reconstruct is that the Hittites were hard pressed everywhere. Either the Sea People took some cities in Syria, and so Ramesses III campaigned against the Sea People there... but that does not appear to be the case as the Medinet Habu inscriptions do not depict the Sea People. Ramesses III opportunistically invaded Amurru, taking advantage of troubles in Anatolia. How the Ugarit records fit in to this is hard to say. Ramesses III does not appear to have fought the Hittite army in a pitched battle nor any mentions of the Hittite King but rather tribute and treaties with individual cities in Amurru. So either the Hittite Empire is bursting at the seams, so much so that Ramesses III is able to campaign in Amurru with impunity or Suppiluliumas II is busy fighting someone else.
The collapse of the Hittite Empire
Certainly there is a decent picture of the internal problems within the Hittite Empire. I don't see why we ought to assume that the Empire outright collapsed or that Suppiluliumas II was killed. It is just the assumption made due to there not being other records available to us. If anything Hattusa seems to have been abandoned gradually or destroyed afterwards. Perhaps some of the Hittite people migrated southwards, but most likely many of them remained and gradually turned into the Phrygians and Cappadocians, perhaps also with other migrants within Anatolia that settled in those areas.
As I see it all of these internal conflicts within the nobility of Hatti, as well as revolts by the Anatolians, are the main culprit for the fall of the Hittite Empire. At some point around 1180 BC Suppiluliumas II moved his capital southwards. The records which we do have are merely the ones which survived or have been discovered as a result of this disorganized retreat. Abandoning Hattusa would not have been done lightly, but Hattusa was always in danger of being raided by the Kaska tribes. The precedent for both exists in the reign of Muwatallis. Muwatallis moved the capital from Hattusa south into western Cilicia, to the city of Tarhuntassa which he constructed. At the same time the north, which included Hattusa, was threatened by attacks from the Kaska tribes of the Pontic regions and so Muwatallis appointed his brother Hattusili as vassal king of Hakpish, in charge of the defense of the north and of Hattusa, and to pacify the Kaska peoples. To this end Hattusili was also given command over his own army, which later fought at Kadesh and no doubt included many veteran troops. Meanwhile Muwatallis had thoroughly relocated to Tarhuntassa, which would become a major city. But this would be undone by his son Mursili III and brother Hattusili III, since Hattusa was a center of cultural importance, this precedent by Muwatallis is actually rather strange. Suppiluliumas II (or his unknown successor) appears to have followed the precedent out of necessity. Perhaps the damage in Hattusa is consistent with an uprising by the populace (most likely a bread riot given the circumstances). Or perhaps it was a retreat followed by a scorched earth policy.
As we know Suppiluliumas II defeated the vassal king Hartapu of Tarhuntassa and sacked the city. I doubt that he would have moved the capital back to Tarhuntassa, as he damaged the city but he would have moved it southwards where it was out of the reach of these invaders and rebels. Possibly somewhere within Hatti or perhaps east to Sharazzi Udne (Cappadocia) or to Kizzuwatna (Cilicia). What happened after that would just be a guess, but most likely central authority was gone by 1120 BC. The Empire being in the state that it was could not control the Anatolian vassals and so they easily asserted their independence. While gradually the Hittite lords would have asserted their own power as the Empire broke down into a series of city states. Most likely one of these Neo-Hittite city states was the final center of power for the Great King of Hatti. Hence it would not be surprising if one of these city states was ruled by a descendant of Suppiluliumas II centuries later.
Some of the cities' rulers are attested to in records as having been descendants of the vassal kings from the Imperial/New Kingdom era. Such as Carchemish which was a Syrian city ruled by the Mitanni, conquered by Suppiluliumas I in the 1300's and which retained its Hittite ruler after the collapse. Kuzi-Teshub was the son of the vassal king Talmi-Teshub (contemporary of Suppiluliumas II) and was himself the descendant of Suppiluliumas I. For a time Carchemish was one of the most powerful Hittite states in Syria, indeed Kuzi-Teshub is recorded as having used the title "Great King". This supports my theory of a gradual erosion of central authority, the idea of a Hittite Empire and peoples did not suddenly disappear. Despite the invasion of Amurru by Ramesses III the Neo-Hittites had an overwhelming presence in Kizzuwatna and Amurru. Egypt reasserting its control over Amurru must not have lasted long after the reign of Ramesses III because immediately after these cities are independent. Somehow Hittite cultural and ethnic dominance over Amurru remained, however local cultures and religions also gained even more traction among the Hittites.
By 1109 BC Tiglath Pileser I had received the submission of Neo-Hittite city states along the Euphrates which is sufficient proof that the Hittite Empire no longer existed as a political entity within the century. Hittites remained as a group until around 700 BC when they were conquered by Neo-Assyria and supplanted culturally in Amurru by the fusion of Aramean with the local culture. What happened to the Neo-Hittites remaining in Anatolia is unknown. How Phrygia or Cappadocia were formed in the first place and how the Kizzuwatna states became Cilician.
The fact that Suppiluliumas II succeeded his brother Arnuwanda III after only an extremely short reign indicates that the Hittite Empire was predisposed to experience some internal troubles. Whether Arnuwanda III had not sired an heir, or perhaps he was killed, or maybe Suppiluliumas II capitalized on his unexpected demise by removing his brother's children. Given the clear Hittite records of both ethnic revolts, civil war, raids by the Sea People and in the Egyptian records of their invasion of Amurru the cause of the Empire's collapse seems clear. Famine, plague, constant wars and having to maintain such an empire in the topographical nightmare that was Anatolia, caused the Empire (or central authority rather) to have an extreme lack of resources and be overstretched. This perhaps could have been dealt with but simultaneously infighting by the Hittites directly led to the collapse. As such I am fairly sure that we can rule out the Sea People as the reason for the Empire's destruction and by extension as the reason for the poorly named "Bronze Age Collapse".
Bronze Age Collapse with relation to Troy and Mycenae
While there was indeed plenty of destruction at the end of the Bronze Age there was very little actual collapse. There was certainly much conflict in western Anatolia as well (whether by the Sea People or otherwise) which may clue us in as to the tale of the actual Trojan War, or at least give us an unrelated explanation for the destruction of Troy VII (Michael Wood believes Troy VIIb1 and VIIb2 were destroyed by war). I am adamant that the Trojan War was in fact multiple conflicts in western Anatolia, in which the Mycenaeans took part both as mercenaries (to the aforementioned Assuwa (Asia?) coalitions against the Hittites and their allies), as well as conquerors and raiders in their own right as the material remains in Miletos may indicate. Later on the Greeks wove together their own oral traditions into a single epic narrative which depicted themselves as the protagonists and their Asian allies as only minor collaborators (many elements within the Iliad are anachronistic). However the actual connection between the Sea People and the Mycenaeans is rather tenuous. Perhaps the Odyssey is a reference to these Sea People raids (interestingly Odysseus says that he raided Egypt, failed and served their king as a mercenary... cultural memory of the Sea People???) but to know for sure one would have to establish the connection between the Peleset, Tjekker, Denyen and Ekwash with the Mycenaeans.
As for the collapse of Mycenaean civilization I am unsure what to make of it. Not really my area but from what I have been told the destruction at many of these sites is consistent with much of the destruction in Anatolia and the Levant at the time. There seems to have been very little attributed to warfare. What warfare is recorded only mentions fighting against a threat from the north. While some might enthusiastically claim this is evidence of a Pelasgian invasion, from what I have been told, the physical evidence more likely implies warfare between Greek states as the reason for destruction in places like Thebes, Tyrins and Mycenae, or maybe internal conflicts within these cities. The Pylos records mention naval attack but this cannot be attributed to the Sea People because it specifically says that the threat comes from the north rather than the east or south. For some reason scholars try to connect these events with the Sea People invasions but really it doesn't make much sense to ascribe all of this to pirates. Perhaps the collapse of Mycenaean civilization led to piracy but this is tenuous. Maybe the Ahhiyawans and their identity may provide an idea as to why these developments occurred (although the Madduwatta Letter which mentions Attarsiya "man of Ahhiya" as having an army of 100 chariots and invading Lycia and Cyprus, it is dated to the 1400's or 1300's and the Tawagalawa Letter which mentions Ahhiya and Millawanda are dated to the mid-1200's). No clue as to how all of this fits with the myths of Doric/Pelasgian invasions. To my knowledge there is actually an unspoken disagreement as to whether Mycenaean civilization collapsed at all. The actual collapse is with regards to historiography. There is a void in the understanding of Anatolia and Greece due to a lack of records, but that in itself might not even indicate any civilizational collapse. |
POTF 2 - Winner and Runner-Up
THE BEARDED MACE
Primicerius
Posting Permissions
