The Pre-history of the Armenian People
The History of the Armenian Highlands
in the Middle Bronze and Early Iron Ages
We have more detailed data about the historical events of the 14th century B.C. Unfortunately the chronicle of the campaigns of Tuthalias III (c. 1400-1380 B.C.) and his son, Suppiluliumas I (c. 1380-1340 B.C.), compiled by order of the latter's son, Mursilis II, have come down to us in a fragmentary state (37) Nevertheless from the fragments we can tentatively establish the following course of events in the east of the Hittite Empire. Tuthalias III succeeded in temporarily bringing Haiasa to obe- thence. Samuha was not only reoccupied by the Hittites but also served as their base for further campaigns to the north. Shortly thereafter , however, Suppiluliumas, who was then still crown prince, decided to carry out a punitive campaign against Haiasa. However having started on the campaign, he collided with the large tribal militia of twelve united tribes of the Kaska , which led to a long war with the latter. Although by that time the Kaska had already been ousted from central Asia Minor, they remained a dangerous and mighty enemy of the Hittites, who were constantly on the offensive. Only after having achieved a certain success against the Kaska thd Tuthalias III again move against Haiasa and fight with their king, Karannis or Lannis (the reading of the name is uncer- tain). The text says that the battle took place "below Kummaha." However Tuthalias III evidently thd not gain a decisive victory over Haiasa, especially since the Kaska were still far from being pacified, and the struggle with them required many more campaigns both under Suppiluliumas and after (38).
 The most important event during Suppiluliumas I's rule was the war with Mitanni. In the course of preparation for this war there apparently occurred another confrontation of the Hittites with Haiasa, and probably it was after this that a treaty was concluded between Suppiluliumas and the king Hukkanas of Haiasa (39). By the terms of this treaty the king of Haiasa swore an oath of allegiance to the Hittite king and was in future obliged to render him military aid, as well as to keep the Hittite state secrets which might have become known to him (it is possible that this refers to the preparations for the campaign against Mitanni). In addition he was to turn over, then and in the future, persons who had fled from the Hittite Empire to Haiasa. The Hittite king gave Hukkanas his sister in marriage. In this connection the following curious conditions are stated:
This my sister, whom I, the Sun, have given to you in matrimony, has many sisters, both of one womb (?) with her, and of one seed with her, but now they are also yours, for you have received their sister. But in the country of Hatti there is an important law: a brother may not know his sister, it is not right. And whoever acts in this manner shall die! But your country is barbaric, in it it is customary that a brother know his sister and cousin, while in Hattusas this is not permitted. And when a sister of your wife, by womb (?) or by seed, comes to you, then give her to eat and to drink, and eat and drink and be happy; but do not dare to wish to know her, this is punishable by death. And if anyone else incites you to such an act, do not listen to him and do not act thus: this be a sworn responsibility for you. And beware of a palace woman, whether she be free or a concubine (?), do not approach her and do not come near to her and do not speak a single word to her; and do not let your male slave or female slave come near to her, be very cautious of her. When a palace woman goes by, flee discreetly out of the way and free the path for her.The text also relates how a certain Marias (*2) was executed because a Hittite king had seen him looking at a palace woman.
And when you set off for Haiasa, in the future you may not know the wife of your brother (or) your sisters--in Hattusas this is not permitted. And when you come to the palace (of the Hittite king), such an act is not permitted. And do not any more take a wife from the country of Azzi, and the one [ ...] whom you have, must by right be considered your secondary wife, do not make her your chief spouse. And take away your daughter from Marias and give her to the brother.The Marias mentioned here is not, of course, the same one who was executed for his conversation with the harem woman (40);  apparently it is the co-ruler of Hukkanas, since later it is said: "If you, the people of Haiasa, will defend me (the Hittite king) as a friend in the coming days, then I will defend you, the people of Haiasa and Marias, as friends, and the other relatives (by marriage, Hitt. LU2kaenes) of Haiasa, and (also) Haiasa I will defend as friends." Further on the treaty says that if they do not want their country plundered, this treaty is an obligation for "the people of Haiasa and for Marias."
If we consider, in the first place, that the king of Haiasa had up to that time taken his wife from the country of Azzi and in the second place, that Marias is apparently viewed as the head of "the relatives (by marriage) (of Haiasa)," we may conclude that Marias was the chieftain of Azzi, and that Azzi and Haiasa, or at least their royal clans were connected by sororal polygyny. And it is not only that Haiasa takes wives from Azzi and vice versa, but there still prevails the system whereby a husband receives marital rights to all the sisters of his wife and other women of the same age category of that family with which he is connected through matrimonial relations (41). It is precisely to this custom that the Hittite king objects. He is afraid to create a popular misapprehension that the king of Haiasa, by receiving his daughter in marriage, is entitled to other women of the Hittite royal family and harem. The Hittite wife is to be the chief spouse, i.e., the queen of Haiasa. Why is it necessary to dissolve the marriage of Marias with the daughter of the king of Haiasa? Probably to disrupt a probable reciprocal right of Marias to marry his daughter into the royal family of Haiasa and thus to endanger the position of the new queen. To which "brother" Marias's former wife should now be given is unclear; the publisher of the text, J. Friedrich, suggests that it was the brother of Marias who was meant here. However what the point of such a measure would be is not understandable. Perhaps the king of Haiasa is supposed to give his daughter in marriage to the brother of the Hittite king in order to establish between the Haiasan and the Hittite royal families the same kind of matrimonial relations which formerly existed between Haiasa and Azzi (42)?
It is characteristic that in the text of the treaty Suppiluliumas addresses not only Hukkanas, the king of Haiasa, but also the "people of Haiasa." Probably he means the popular assembly or the council of elders.
In the light of what has been said above, we may conclude that Haiasa, in spite of the presence of a "king," was still on the level of pre-urban (pre-class) society. It is clear from the text that the Haiasans were an agricultural tribe, since in case of a breach of the treaty on their part, the king treatens to destroy "you  yourselves, your wives, your children, your brothers, your sisters, your clans, your houses, your fields, [your villages], your vineyards, your meadows, your cattle, your sheep. ..." From another text it is known that Azzian warriors subsequently served as charioteers in the Hittite army; thus the horse and chariot were also known to them.
First there was a confrontation of the Hittites with Isuwa, the pretext being that the NAM.RA captured by the Hittites and forcibly settled in their territory had fled to Isuwa. The Hittite army followed them there, and the fugitives had to continue on their way to Haiasa, which led to the above-mentioned war with that country.
Suppiluliumas having conquered Isuwa, its people fled to Mitanni. The Hittite king then demanded their return, and when Mitanni refused, began an attack down along the Euphrates towards the major Mitannian centers, Carchemish and Wassukkanne. The Hittites also allied themselves with the king of A1zi, Andaratlis, which allowed them to enlarge the front of their military activity. The fortress Kutmar (either Isuwian or Mitannian) (45) was occupied by the Hittites and surrendered to Alzi (46). This opened the way for the Hittites to the Mitannian plains.
The war with Mitanni was a long one and led to the complete defeat of that empire, which became a vassal of the Hittites. After the Hittites occupied Carchemish, Kizzuwadna was surrounded and soon became merely a se1f-governing ict of the Hittite Empire. This made it unnecessary for the Hittites, as they penetrated further into Syria and Palestine, to use the detour "corridor" which Suppiluliumas had laid through the valley of the Upper Euphrates. From that time the countries of the Upper Euphrates valley  apparently were only technically "allies" of the Hittite Empire (with the obligation of supplying military contingents), or perhaps they even maintained complete independence.
The Assyrians also took part in the civil war in Mitanni, on the side of Artadama's son. The defeat of Mitanni allowed the ruler of the city of Assur, Assuruballit I, to expand his own possessions. One of the Hittite texts informs us that "Mitanni no longer exists, the people of Assur and Alse (i.e., Alzi) have divided it " (47). Apparently Alzi acquired the areas of the lower part of the Upper Euphrates valley and the foothills of the Armenian Taurus Mountains along the left bank of the Tigris, while the Assyrians acquired the eastern part of northern Mesopotamia and the right bank of the Upper Tigris. Of Mitanni there remained only a small nucleus. Later the Assyrian king Adadnerari I (c. 1310-1280 B.C.) not only secured the valley of the Upper Tigris (the province of Kadmuhi or Kudmuhi) and the important strongholds of Taith and Irrith to the north and south of its upper reaches, but he also captured in Irrith the family of the Mitannian king (Wasasatta); he also occupied the capital Wassukanne. At one time he reached the Euphrates near Carchemish. In this way Assyria turned into a major power, presenting an even greater danger to the surrounding tribes than the Mitannian Empire before it (48).
In the beginning the Hittites' main enemy was one Pihhunias, the chieftain of the Kaska country of Tibia, a neighbor of Haiasa. This Pihhunias was the one who "ruled. ..not in the manner of the Kaska, but suddenly, while there never had been a one man's power in the community (lit. 'city') of Kaska, this Pihhunias began to rule accorthng to the custom of royalty" (49). Under these circumstances the people of Haiasa again began to shelter the fugitive NAM.RA from the Hittite territory, and, while Mursilis II was occupied with the struggle against Tibia, Annias (son of Marias), the chief of Azzi, attacked the Hittite district of Tankuwa and took captives and cattle from there to Haiasa (50). Annias refused  Mursilis's request to return them, so the Hittites began a war and laid siege to the impregnable Azzian fortress of Ura. The major military operations unfolded in the following years. The Hittite troops were commanded by the king's brother, because Mursilis himself was engaged in a war on the other borders. The people of Haiasa had promised to turn over the captives, but they thd not fulfill their promise, pointing out that neither had the Hittites turned over the Haiasan captives. Military activity dragged on, and the Haiasans captured the Hittite fortress of Istitina and laid siege to the fortress of Kannuwara. The Hittites sent reinforcement troops of 10,000 infantry and 700 chariots, but their main forces were pinned down near Carchemish on the Euphrates, which was threatened by the Assyrian king. On the Haiasa front the Hittites had to retreat to Tegarama, and they lost a number of districts in the Upper Halys valley. It goes without saying that the Hittites also lost control of the Euphrates valley above Tegarama.
Only in the fourth year of the war (in the tenth year of his reign) was Mursilis II able to personally set off against Azzi; the Haiasans took cover in the mountain strongholds, planning to attack the approaching Hittite forces by night. But Mursilis, leaving most of the mountain strongholds in the rear, reached Aripsa (probably passing over the Pontus Mountains to the Black Sea) and took it, and then immethately turned toward Tukkama, which seems to have been the center of Azzi. The inhabitants of Tukkama surrendered to the mercy of the conqueror, and Mursilis recruited 3,000 men of Azzi into his own troops as infantry and charioteers. Negotiations were conducted not with the "king," but with the council of elders of Azzi; the country was annexed to the Hittite Empice. Further negotiations were also conducted with a certain Muttis, the ruler of the fortress of Haliman, through whom Mursilis succeeded in gaining the release of 1,000 Hittite captives from the people of Azzi (51).
The Hittites were not successful, however, in maintaining Azzi and Haiasa under their rule (52). Their influence in Isuwa and the other countries of the Euphrates valley was also very precarious. Judging by a letter which has come down to us (to the kings of Carchemish and Isuwa from an unknown person--Forrer suggests that it may be from a former king of Mitanni), (53) a country allied with the Hittites (probably Alzi--its king is called "a Subarean"--Shubriu) continued its attack on Mitanni, and at one point the king in question even seized the Mitannian throne.
We also have the text of a treaty between an unknown Hittite king (Hattusilis III?) and the king of the country of Mehri, which lay in the neighborhood of or perhaps was identical with the  country of Alzi. In the treaty are mentioned the Hittite-Mehrian campaign from Neheria and a second Hittite campaign from Alatarme in Isuwa, both apparently against Assyria. The king of Mehri was obligated in the future to fight against Assyria on the side of the Hittites (54).
From these documents we see that the countries of the Armenian Highlands at the end of the 14th and in the 13th century B.C. were allied with the Hittite Empire but were not included in it.
Just like his predecessor, Adadnerari I, Shalmaneser I conducted a campaign against Mitanni and reached Carchemish on the Euphrates. Apparently the Assyrian threat forced the Hittite king, Hattusilis III, to conclude a treaty of peace with Egypt about 1250 B.C. after more than a century of war with Egypt for the possession of Syria and Palestine. Palestine went to the Egyptian pharaoh, Ramesses II, and the greater part of Syria went to Hattusilis III (56).
Subsequently Shalmaneser I again campaigned in the Armenian Highlands, apparently in regions further to the west than the first time: "from the borders of Uruatru to Kadmuhi" [the valley of the Upper Tigris]. The next Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1260- 1230 B.C.), also raided the Highlands. His inscriptions, like those of Shalmaneser I, are very brief, but apparently there were three or four campaigns against the mountaineers.
It seems they did not remain in debt to the Assyrians, because one of the inscriptions of Tukulti-Ninurta (57) speaks about a war in  the beginning of his rule against the Uqumanians, and another against the mountaineers (the inscription uses the Hurrian term pabhi). It seems that the campaign against the mountaineers started to the south of the upper Tigris and continued into the Taurus.
Another (or the same?) campaign was thrected against the pabhi of "the country of the Subareans" (i.e., the Hurrian mountaineers). For Tukulti-Ninurta I these included Kadmuhi, Pusse, Mumme, Alzi (an Alzian king with the Hurrian name Ehli-Tessub is mentioned), Madani, Nihani, Alaia, Teburzi, and Purulumzi. Kadmuhi is the upper valley of the Tigris; Madani and Nihani were probably situated in the mountains near the western sources of the Tigris; we already know Alzi as an important country reaching from the valley of the Arsanias to the sources of the Tigris and the mountains of Sasun; Purulumzzi bordered on Alzi, and "Teburzia" is named by a Hittite source (58) as a "town" near Isuwa. It seems to have lain on the right bank of the Euphrates. Thus the Assyrians penetrated into the valley of the Upper Euphrates to a point where the Hittites also claimed power.
Apparently in yet one more of his campaigns Tukulti-Ninurta I traversed the Armenian Taurus Mountains and fought with a coalition of forty tribal chieftains ("kings") of the Nairi, whose "countries" are not indicated more precisely. It is curious that one of the inscriptions (59) perhaps refers not only to "kings," but also to "queens" (cf. the role of the queen-tawanannas among the Hittites and the role of the "women-kings" of the town communities in Arrapkhe). The Assyrian king succeeded in capturing some of the chieftains and imposing tribute upon them. It is here for the first time that the term "Nairi" appears in the Assyrian texts as a general name for the Highlands.
It is possible that Tukulti-Ninurta also conducted other campaigns into the mountains, but the information of his inscriptions on this point is unclear.
A treaty of the Hittite Empire with Pahhuwa, Isuwa, and other countries of this region has come down to us (60). Unfortunately the name of the Hittite king who concluded this treaty is not preserved in the document, but on circumstantial evidence from the text it can be concluded that he was one of the last kings of the  Hittite state--perhaps Arnuwandas III (c. 1220-1190 B.C.). This treaty is an important source which gives us insight into the relations between the Hittites and the Armenian Highlands on the eve of the fall of the Hittite Empire. The text draws the following picture.
The Azzi-Haiasa confederacy had apparently fallen apart (it is last mentioned under Tuthalias IV), and the text does not make any reference to it; the towns and thstricts of Tukkama, Kummaha, and Patteiarikka(?), formerly subject to Haiasa, now act independently. The countries of Pahhuwa and Isuwa are connected by an alliance with the Hittite Empire; as its vassals they are obliged to supply the Hittites with military forces upon request.
But when the Hittite king conducted a campaign against Kummaha, a king of Pahhuwa, Mitas, who was related by marriage to the enemy chief, not only did not fulfill his treaty obligations, but sheltered fugitives hostile to the Hittites and seized people and cattle from the territory of Isuwa, which was an ally of the Hittites. A certain Kalimunas, another chieftain, acted in conjunction with Mitas. However the Hittite successes forced the "people of Pahhuwa" (its popular assembly?) to conclude peace with the Hittite Empire. The Hittite king stipulated that the people of Pahhuwa turn over to him Mitas and Kalimunas with all their relatives and property and that they also return the fugitives and make restitution to Isuwa for the seized property. If the people of Pahhuwa did not carry out these conditions, the Hittite king ordered Pahhuwa's neighbors to secure their fulfillment by force. Among these neighbors, dependent on the Hittites, is one named Arihpizzi, the ruler of Tukkama. Simultaneously, in accordance with the treaty, the Hittites make the following countries their subjects: Pahhuwa, Isuwa, Zuhma, Maldia, [Patteia]rikka (or [Isme]rikka?), and one more country, possibly Hurri (i.e., either the northern remains of Mitanni or Alzi?). The Assyrian threat must be considered the reason that these countries were willing to be subject to the Hittites. The treaty was concluded not with the "kings" but with the councils of elders of these countries, although the chieftains of the fortresses are named inthvidually. It is not clear whether they are listed as representatives of these countries or as witnesses in guaranty of the treaty. Several of these persons have Luwian names (61).