The Caucasus and Anatolia, the eastern and southern parts of the common Circumpontic zone, i.e.   territories around the Black Sea, were and are important as «bridges» connecting the Near East and Europe.   This has determinated the common nature of the distinguishing features of the development of both above regions.   Their historical, cultural, social and economical development is characterized by their intermediate position in Near Eastern and European evolutional models.   In Anatolia and the Caucasus we have confirmations of the existence of «symbiotic cultures» which are based not only on the the Near Eastern, but also on European traditions.   E.g.   the Kurgan cultures of the Caucasus and the culture of the «Royal tombs» of Anatolia.

The Caucasus and Anatolia have much in common with regard to the regional diversity of their topographic, climatic peculiarities and special richness in metal ore deposits.   The detached character of separate parts of both regions created good conditions for the co-existence of the populations of quite different nature.

The Caucasus, like Anatolia, was characterized by the same «Anatolian model» of the formation of a class society with the slow rate of its development and low productivity in agriculture; the economical differentiation and development of the crafts were stimulated in both areas by the neighbouring, Syro-Mesopotamian, civilizations.   At the same time, a number of distinctive features have caused the emergence of a class society and the formation of statehood in Anatolia much earlier than in the Caucasus - i.e.   in the late 3rd-early 2nd millennia B.C.

This qualitative leap required many variables to combine and interact, but in Central Anatolia warlike conditions were the major means of achieving a state level of social organization for competing chiefdoms.   It was pointed out that the pre-Hittite communities in Central Anatolia was composed of a variety of ethnic groups which existed together in a «symbiotic» relationship.

Those warlike conditions had been ultimately the consequence of the infiltration of several streams of the new population into Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age, particularly into its central part.   Their origin or subsequent development was connected with the Caucasus or with the regions adjacent to it.

I. - Early Bronze Age 1 phase.

The first phase of the Early Bronze Age of the Northern and Central Anatolian cultures (the so-called Late Chalcolithic) seems to be partly inherited from the South-East European immigrants.   The impetus of this migration of the farming communities from the Balkan Peninsula is not yet clear, but it is most probable that the displacement of North Pontic pastoralists to the west was the cause of this phenomenon.   As it was pointed out at, by that time Anatolia was being infiltrated not only by displaced Balkano-Danubian farming communities, but by some Kurgan elements, too.

In various societies of the world we have different models of the emergence of early states.   In a much later period (the 4th century B.C.) the emergence of the Iberian (East Georgian) state in the Caucasus was, in our opinion, mainly connected with the urgent need for the temporary Hellenistic societies to defend the «Caucasian Gate» - through the Great Caucasian mountain range - from the penetration of the northern, nomadic, tribes.

[ page 108 ]

After the disappearance of the ancient Balkan culture of farmers, it survived, as to some prehistorians, in the southern part of the Balkans and the Aegean Sea, on Crete and the Cyclades, clearly revealing everywhere its non-Indo-Europeran character (see below).   Earlier these farming communities of the Carpathian-Danube-Balkan area were also mainly exposed to the invasions from the west which, in the period prior to Indo-Europeans times, was populated by tribes speaking languages of a different linguistical background like Ligurian, Pictish, Basque, Aquitani, Etruscan, Iberian, Tartesian, Rhaetic, East Italic, Messapic and Sicel.   We must agree with prehistorians that virtually the population of the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, Southern France, the West European Atlantic coast and large parts of Italy and Britain were probably non-Indo-Europeans during most of the prehistoric period.

It is difficult to believe that the slow penetration of the first Indo-European agriculuralists from Anatolia towards the north-west was responsible for the introduction of the food-producing economy in Europe and its «Neolitization».   It seems quite obvious that Aegean-Anatolian influences played the most important role in the creation of the Neolithic and Palaeometallic civilizations of the Central and Western Mediterranean matriarchal societies with the cult of fertility.   Therefore we more are inclined to connect the demic diffusion responsible for the introduction of agriculture in Europe from Asia Minor   with the migration of pre-Indo-European population.

Even today the heritage of the pre-Indo-European world can be distinguished throughout Europe by the distribution of the Rh negative blood group which is a characteristic trait exclusively of the European population.   The highest percentage, 55%, of the gene of Rh negative and of the Rh negative individuals, 25-30%, occur among Basques; comparatively lower in Northwestern Europe (16% of Rh negative individuals - in England) and still lower, 12-15% - in Central Europe, 9-12% - in North-Central - and Northeastern Mediterranean and Near East.   Its frequencies are unimportant in all other parts of the world.   In the Caucasus, mainly in the western part of Western Transcaucasia, the frequency of Rh negative phenotype is sometimes even more than 20%.   It is quite clear that later immigrants, presumably bearers of Indo-European languages, had predominantly Rh positive.

[ page 109 ]

By the consideration of the ABO blood group system, once again the Pyrenees (together with «Celtic» Western Europe and the Mediterranean islands) and Western Transcaucasia show a high frequency of O group.   The average estimates of gene frequencies of the markers demonstrate the unique genetic position of both of these regions among the peoples of Europe, Near East and the Mediterrannean.   As such data as the Rh factor or ABO system suggest that historical events might have played an important role in their geographic distribution, we are inclined to explain the above picture by the genetical survival of the pre-Indo-European population in these areas what is also reflected in the linguistic data; though it is not yet possible to identify more exactly to which linguistic groups these data must belong.   In reality the pre-Indo-European world was by no means homogeneous.   It consisted of quite various elements, sometimes more different from each other than someone of them from «Indo-European's».
   At the same time, some clear lexical resemblances and important similarities in verb conjugation between the South Caucasian (Kartvelian) and Basque languages, side by side with the above data of genetic analysis', indicates a certain prehistoric relationship of South Caucasians with Basques, despite the considerable geographic distance between the Caucasus and the Iberian Peninsula.

Regardless of the scepticism concerning the value of the ABO system in the genetical reconstructions, it was noticed that there is a general agreement between the distribution of physical types of serological characters and of language, as well as between these and the expectations raised by the rather scanty data of early history and archaeology.   There is a temptation to connect the O gene with the pre-Indo-European population of Europe (including the Caucasus), the A gene with the dispersal of Indo-Europeans and the B gene with the migrations of the Uralo-Altaic peoples to the west.

It is known that the time from the late 5th to the 3rd millennia B.C. - at first in Eastern Europe and eastern part of Central Europe and then later in other regions of Europe - was widely and commonly marked by patterns of change in material culture which can be attributed only to widespread shifts in ethnicity and language.   The impetus of this change must be located in the North Pontic steppes which even now are marked by the high B and A frequencies and low O frequency.   From the widespread view-point, the area between the Dnieper and the Ural and the northern shores of the Black and Caspian Seas...

[ page 110 ]

... The homeland of the so-called Kurgan cultures, may have been an early and active centre of Indo-European-speaking communities too, and their wave-like dispersals from there were not a uniform and continuous process, but a punctuated, multi-stage and repetitive one.   The immigrated war-like stock-breeders imposed themselves upon the preceding peaceful agricultural population of the Neolithic Europe.   Specialists underlined that maybe such a view is still a hypothesis, but most plausible one, based on the interpretation of a whole range of data.

Certain successive connections are observed between the aforementioned Northern and Central Anatolian cultures of the first phase of Early Bronze Age and the later cultures of Georgia and the Caucasus.   We have in mind the Kurgan cultures of the South Caucasus and nearly all the West Georgian cultures of the Palaeometallic Age.   One of the earliest of them, the pre-Proto-Colchian or the so-called Ispani-type culture of the Black Sea littoral, has some traits in common with Northern and Central Anatolian sites such as Büyük Güllücek, Alaca IV, Demirci Höyük (near Sinope), Ikiztepe, Kumtepe Ib, Troy I etc.

Besides it is interesting that, at the same time, the latest Neolithic and Early Minoan I assemblages in Crete have numerous varied links with the North-West Anatolian-North Aegean cultures; especially many of the Early Minoan I ceramic features have explicit parallels with Troy I, Thermi and the immediately preceding cultures - the signs of infiltration of the northern population to the South Aegean.

The consensus among prehistorians refers to the fact that after the infiltration of the Indo-Europeans into Southeastern Europe, the pre-Indo-European population was partly assimilated, partly driven south to the shores of the Aegean and further into the islands and that the rise of the Cycladic culture was related to the migration of pre-Indo-Europeans.   The Cretan civilization, coming to the existence in consequence of the appearance of new settlers there who reached the island during the course of the 3rd millrnnium B.C., is considered as the youngest and most vital offspring of the pre-Indo-European Old European, culture.

As there is no archaeological evidence whatever for a new immigration of people to the island throughout the whole Bronze Age down to the arrival of Mycenaen who were using the Linear B writing about the middle of 2nd millennium B.C., Linear A would be, as it was underlined, from an archaeological point of view non-Indo-European and non-Semitic, but in fact a developed and written form of the 3rd millennium Cretan language - the language as it was at the Troy I times.

[ page 111 ]

Archaeological connections between Western Anatolian-Northern Aegean area and Crete on the one hand and between Northwestern Anatolia and Western Transcaucasia on the other, have a linguistic parallel, since, as it is stated by some linguists, the pre-Greek language, which spread in Crete at the times of Linear A, reveals certain common features with the Kartvelian languages.   At the same time, it should be mentioned, that the toponyms with the ending of -s(s); -nth-/-nd-, widespread in the Northern Mediterranean and frequently considered as belonging to the pre-Indo-European substrate languages, are characteristic of Kartvelian, too.   If we also bear in mind the existing linguistic parallels between Kartvelian-Basque (see above) and Kartvelian-Etruscan languages and if we would make an attempt not to be solely dependent on the linguistical data for the reconstruction of the preliterate world, we should try to provide data for their archaeological substantiation.

It is tempting to connect this problem with the above mentioned «Neolitization» of Europe by the early Anatolian farmers.   On the other hand, there are archaeological evidencies in Anatolia and Greece for the infiltration of «Late Neolithic» people from the regions to the north of the Balkan range.   It also seems that Anatolian cultures of the Troy I circle are related to the Central European Baden culture.   Yet, as the Troy I group is contemporary with a late stage of the Baden horizons, it is possible that there occured an infiltration of the bearers of the Baden culture into the south-east direction and ultimately to Anatolia and not vice versa.   There is no reason to regard these changes as a result of a complete displacement of the native groups by an alien population.   The main bulk of newcomers were peaceful agriculturalists, and there is no indications of a radical break of cultural continuity.

The notion about the ties of the Transcaucasian population with the Mediterranean world was already maintained by Classical authors.   As to Megasthene, Abydenus, Eusebius (Praep. ev., IX,41,1), Flavius Josephus (Ant.   Jud., 1,124,125), Dionisius Perieget (695-699) and Appian (Mithr., 101), the Caucasian Iberians were resettled in the Caucasus from the Iberian Peninsula of West Europe.   The Georgian chronicle of Early Medieval times, «The Christening of Kartli», contains the information about the immigration of the ancestors of Georgians from their old homeland Arian-Kartli (Kartli is the Georgian name of Eastern Georgia, of «Iberia» of the Classical times).   In the Georgian historiography the opinion was expressed that Arian can be a distorted form of the «Pyrenees», At the same time, the information by Herodotus (11,102-105), Strabo (1,11,21) and Valerius Flacus (V,418-421) about the descent, of the Western Georgian tribe of Colchians from Egyptians is explained as a reflection of the Late Bronze Age immigration of the population of Shardan or Sardinia, belonging to the Sea Peoples of the Egyptian written sources, to the Caucasus.

We are far away from the possibility to admit any kind of straight migration of the Mediterranean population from the Iberian Peninsula, Sardinia or Egypt to the Caucasus at any time, but the special closeness of the West- and Central Transcaucasian population to the Mediterranean world is without any doubt.   This cultural, ideological, psychological and anthropological closeness is so great throughout the Prehistorical, Classical and Medieval times that it seems possible to consider West and Central Transcausian regions together with the neighbouring Northeastern Anatolia as parts of the Mediterranean world.

   There is a remarkable common component between Kartvelian and the non-Indo-European pre-Greek vocabularies, its total stock having three hundred presumably isomorphic elements - formants and words (FURNÈE 1982; GORDEZIANI 1985).   The assumption about the Indo-European character of the pre-Greek, «Pelasgian» language during the last years was given up (cf. BEEKES 1995,32).
   GORDESIANI 1978, 225-228.
   GORDESIANI 1985 passim.
   EVANS 1973, 19; cf.   1981, 96.
   HOWELL 1973,91.
   Cf. MERPERT 1987,128; 1989, 29.   At the same time, the Ezero culture (Karanovo VII) of Eastern Bulgaria, an ethnic amalgam of autochtons, Anatolians and possibly a small number of steppe people is considered as a northwestern outpost of the Anatolian civilization against the invasions of the steppe people from the steppes ( 1988, 189-191). 
   SHERRATT 1973, 100.
   KAVTARADZE 1985a, 16-40, 146-153; KAVTARADZE 1996, 205-208.
   MELIKISHVILI 1965, 16.   It must be also taken into account that in the Georgian literature of the Early Medieval times the name of the Celt-Iberian tribe of Spain is usually translated as «Celt-Kartvelians».
   GORDESIANI 1975, 35-43.   It is interesting that in the very high M frequencies (combined with very high O gene) there is a close resemblance between the Caucasian and Sardinian-Corsican populations (in Georgians - 67%, in Sardinians - 70%, in Corsicans - 65%) (MOURANT 1954, 68f., MOURANT/KOPEC/DUMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK 1976, 71,74; nasidze et al.   1990, 612, Tables 4 and 5; inasaridze et al.   1990, 718f., Tables 5 and 17).
   Even today there is an easily detectable but yet unexplained closeness between Corsican and East Georgian (Kakhetian) polyphonic songs, as well as similar intonations between Tirolian and West Georgian (Gurian) ones.

[ page 112 ]

On the other hand, it seems likely that the striking isomorphism between Indo-European and Kartvelian languages, as linguists emphasize, can possibly be explained by the close contacts between the Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian languages which besides could be considered as members of a common Sprachbund.   Some scholars also assume that this similarity between Indo-European and Kartvelian languages must be traced back to their common origin.   is even inclined to admit the existence of the Pre-Proto-Indo-European-Kartvelian community in Central Asia Minor at Çatal Höyük times.   In the opinion of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, though Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian show a similarity in lexical and structural-typological features, to presume a «pre-proto-language unity» between them requires the establishment of strict phonological correspondences and the separate reconstruction of proto-forms for each of these two linguistic systems.

Nevertheless, we must agree with the «traditional» standpoint of that such words as «land», «to lay», «to put», «to plant», «to pluck», «to gather», «to hear», «to understand», «blood», «breast», «strong, sturdy, large», «to be born», constituting the list of Indo-European-Kartvelian similarities, are as a rule not loanwords.   A set of such words can only be borrowed if there is a social merger of the speakers of two languages or if the existence of a number of similar roots and the structural isomorhism of the root- and word-formation show genetic collateral relationship between two proto-langueges and point to the existence of Kartvelian-Proto-Indo-European pre-proto-language.

 As it was emphasized by Mallory, although some lexical evidence has been often cited, the primary case for Indo-European - Kartvelian relations is typological, and, in such a case, it is far easier to argue for very distant genetic links between the two families rather than for some historical associations during the period of Proto-Indo-European existence.

Actually the list of loan-words betwen Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European, as presented by and Ivanov, is only directed from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Kartvelian and not vice versa.   This fact contradicts their assumption about the co-existence of these proto-languages in one and the same locality which must of course imply the existence of mutual influencies and not only of one-sided.

Other linguists assign Kartvelian, as was already mentioned above, to the pre-Indo-European-Mediterranean or, traditionally, to the Caucasian linguistic family.   But nowadays linguists are rather sceptical about the genetical ties between Kartvelian and North Caucasian languages.   In their opinion this kinship is even improbable, and numerous shared isoglosses must be explained by the influence of a North Caucasian substratum.

To sum up, the recent trends in archaeology, anthropology and linguistics are giving favourable opportunities to reconsider the ethnogenetical developments of the old Near Eastern-Mediterranean area.   From the view-point of the interrelationship of the Proto-Languages, the above-mentioned events which took place in Anatolia and the Caucasus in the first phase of the Early Bronze Age, or during the fourth-early third millennia B.C., are of special importance.

[ page 113 ]

II. - Early Bronze Age 2 phase.

The characteristic feature of the following second phase of the Early Bronze Age culture of Central Anatolia, as well as of the Maikop / Maykop culture of the North Caucasus, is the appearance of «Royal tombs» - a real sign of the class-formation process.

Nevertheless, the similarity between some features of the funeral rites of Central Anatolian «Royal tombs» and the burials of the northern stock-breeding tribes and their total difference from earlier and contemporary Anatolian burials as well as the certain similarity to the burial inventory of these tombs with the elements of the Kurgan cultures of the North Caucasus, North Pontic steppes and the Crimean Peninsula, allows to assume the infiltration and settling of tribes of northern origin in Central Anatolia.

It is very important that in the Northwestern Caucasus, near the hamlet Pavlograd in the burial-mound of the early stage of the Maikop culture, remains of four-wheeled vehicles were found.   The use of this transport must have given the northern pastoralists an excellent possibility of their mass migrations far and wide.

We ought to take into account the fact that there is a good deal of evidence about the large-scale movements of people westward across the Aegean from Anatolia, namely at the end of Early Helladic II or in Early Helladic III.   These movements may have been due to pressure by other peoples who were invading Anatolia from the north, possibly across the Caucasus, at this time.

The newcomers expanding the role of stock-breeding, their main trade, and forming a new ruling class, must have favoured further economical and social differentiation of the local society.

The functional explanation of a cultural and, as a consequence of it, of a linguistic change can be the necessity to speed up a process of the stratification of a society, a general phenomenon of the Near East and its periphery at the Palaeometallic times.   In the 3rd-2nd millennia B.C.   this function was carried out by approximately mobile stock-breeding tribes mainly of northern provenance and at the same time of Indo-European origin.   But such a function was not only the prerogative of the Indo-European tribes.   As it was emphasized, there is no reason to deny that the ancestors of the other tribes having had the same burial habits; sometimes barrows are found in regions which later demonstrated the presence of non-Indo-European populations.   Apart from other areas of the world, we can recall the role of the southern, Semitic stock-breeders in the various areas of the Near East or, much later, at the Early Medieval times, of the northeastern (for the Near Eastern-Meditteranean area) Altaic nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes who were even characterized by the same kurgan-type burial rite.   Equally, it seems possible to ascribe the same social function and also the burial rite characteristic of the stock-breeders to other tribes of different origin, too.   Some traits typical of the burial rite of «Maikopeans» can be detected even in the kurgans of Belorechensks of the 14-15th centuries A.D., belonging to the Northwestern Caucasian Adighe-Circassian tribes.

[ page 114 ]

The investigators of the Maikop culture are identifying the bearers of this and certain subsequent cultures mainly with the ancestors of Abkhazo-Adighéan tribes.   Because of that we think it possible to relate the Hatti population of Central Anatolia - whose language displays definite features of structural and material similarity to the Abkhazo-Adighéan languages   - to the culture of Central Anatolian «Royal tombs»   which for its part shows some features of structural and material similarity (the arrangement and contents of these tombs) to the kurgans of the northern stock-breeders, and, at the same time, the appearance of the Hattians in Central Anatolia to the assumed migration from the North Caucasus at the «Maikop», or, more probable, at the early «post-Maikop» time.

To solve the above stated problems it is necessary to correlate the Caucasian and Anatolian chronological constructions.   For the chronological definition of the cultural layers in the sea-shore regions of the Caucasus and Anatolia, the estimation of the sea-level variations is of decisive significance.   The definition of the chronological place of Anatolian and Caucasian Paleometallic cultures is of special importance not only for the Circumpontic zone, but also for the Ancient World in general.   Due to the particular geographical position, the dating of the Caucasian and Anatolian Palaeometallic cultures is, at the same time, of definite significance for the establishment of European chronology.   It seems to be possible to bring closer both sides of the «fault line», resulting from the correction of radiocarbon dates in these regions, when areas with approximate historical dates are separated from other areas dated mainly by the 14C technique.

A highly favourable possibility to establish the absolute and relative chronology of both regions is granted by the fact that the material of Anatolian and Caucasian provenance is dated by means of historical chronologies in the Syro-Mesopotamian sites and because the Syro-Mesopotamian material has been spread in Anatolia and the Caucasus.   We have in mind the results of recent excavations in East Anatolian sites of the 4th-3rd millennia B.C.   where Eastern and Central Anatolian materials were found together with archaeological specimens of Syro-Mesopotamian and Caucasian origin.   The dates obtained for the above mentioned layers by correlation with the historical chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, consitute per se an important argument to demonstrate the necessity of a considerable shifting back of accepted dates for the archaeological cultures of the northern fringe of the ancient Near Eastern civilizations, including the Northern Caucasus.   Therefore it seems now possible that the so-called «North Caucasian culture» of the post-Maikop period which at the same time retained many traits of the preceding culture, must be synchronous with the «Royal tombs» of Central Anatolia.

The inrusive character of the population belonging to the Alaca Höyük «Royal tombs» can be deduced considering the cranyological differences between the brachycephalic corpses of these tombs and the dolichocephalic native population of Central Anatolia.   It must be al taken into account that the Northwestern Caucasus of the late 3rd millennium B.C.   is characterized as a centre of a comparative brachycrany among all other regions of the Caucasus.   But such morphological characteristics can be influenced by the environmental or nutritive factors, as well as by artificial manipulation.   The results the biochemical studies which are not available are much more reliable.

[ page 115 ]

The question arises as to the ethnic affinity of the Central and Northern Anatolian pre-Hatti population.   In this connection the non-Indo-European stratum in Hittite, which has no explanation in Hattic, should be considered.   It is probable that the language of the population which appeared to be substrative for Hittite and possibly as well as, for Hattic, was preserved in it.   Considering the above stated linguistic parallels and also the existing similarities between the Hattic and Kartvelian languages, we can suggest the probable settlement of Proto-Kartvelian tribes in Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age.

At the first glance such a proposal about the Anatolian homeland of Proto-Kartvelians must receive corroboration by the results of recent studies which reckoned Hattic language directly to the Northwestern Caucasian, and Hurro-Urartian to the Northeastern Caucasian groups of the North Caucasian linguistic family.   In such a case there would be no place for Kartvelian not only in the Caucasus but also in the regions south-west and south of it, inhabited then correspondingly by the Hattian-Northwestern Caucasian (Abkhazo-Adighean) and Hurro-Urartian-Northeastern Caucasian (Nakho-Dagestanian) entities.   But in reality it seems that Western Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia represented contact zones between three important cultures of the northern periphery of the Near East, in the late 4th-early 3rd millennia B.C.: the «Büyük Güllücek culture», the Maikop culture and the Kura-Araxes culture, which can be identified, in very diffused outlines, with the ancestors of the bearers of South (Kartvelian), Northwestern and Northeastern   Caucasian languages.

It is possible that the Kartvelian entity was formed in Anatolia at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age as a result of the amalgamation of the native Anatolian and the newly-arrived western tribes.   This was followed by periodical infiltrations of Kartvelian tribes from Anato-

Recently it was noticed that, though the process of linguistic reconstruction, focusing back on postulated common ancestral forms, inevitably produces a «family tree» structure as the only representation of the historical processes and considers the divergence as the principal form of language change, the convergence seems to be an equally common phenomenon, and by such processes as pidginization or creolization it could become an increasingly important feature of language change in the historical circumstances of increasing inter-regional trade which characterizes the Bronze Age (SHERRATT/SHERRATT 1988, 585).   In reality the importance of the fusion of various tribes as the consequence of the invasions of newcomers and the enslavement of some tribes by others, seems to have been a more decisive factor for the societies of the early stage of the class-formation processes than inter-regional trade.

[ page 116 ]

lia to Transcaucasia - their historical homeland.   It must be also taken into account that a certain part of Hittite-Armenian lexical parallels, which, only with a few exceptions, are of non-Indo-European origin and presumably derived from the vocabulary of the indigenous inhabitants of Asia Minor, can also be found in Kartvelian languages, which, together with other Caucasian languages, are the living relics of the ancient Near Eastern-Meditteranean world.

Early Bronze Age 3 phase. There is a universal agreement that Hittite tribes must have come to Anatolia from other regions in the later part of Early Bronze Age and that Anatolia can not be their original homeland.   A non-Indo-European substratum is well represented in «Hittite» (Indo-European-Anatolian) languages.   The Hattic as the most relevant of the local Anatolian languages is considered to be a true substratum in the Hittite imperial area.   If we suppose that Anatolia was indeed never the Indo-Europcan homeland, immediately the problem arises: when did tribes speaking Anatolian-Indo-European languages appear in Anatolia and by which route they came there?

According to the point of view prevailing among scholars, there is much evidence that Hattic was spoken in at least a large part of Central Anatolia within the Kizil Irmak (Marassantia of Hittites, Halys of Classical times) bend, including Khattuša (later, Hittites capital), before Nesite-Hittite came into use there; several prominent deities of the Hittite pantheon have Hattian names; special features of the Nesite and Palaic languages can be convincingly attributed to the influence of Hattic; the Hittites called the language not their own, but Hattians hattili (i.e.   - the «language of Hatti»), refering to it by an adjective based on the name Hatti - which they used for their own territory and which seems to have been adopted from a preceding, Hattic-speaking, population.   The «economical» conclusion, as Crossland emphasizes, is that Hittite arrived in Central Anatolia later.   We also must take into account the above mentioned fact that the main part of Hittite-Armenian lexical parallels are of a non-Indo-European character.

The earliest speakers of Indo-European languages can be traced back by anthroponyms and singular lexemes detected from the data of the so-called Cappadocian tablets of the Old Assyrian archives in the city of Kaneš, the same as Neša (Kültepe near Kayseri, ancient Mazaca).   Even the «Hittite» language was named after this city, «Nesite» - viz.   nisili - language of Neša.   Therefore

[ page 117 ]

specialists usually suggest that the Hittites (Nesites) settled themselves first in the south and south-east of the Central Anatolian plateau before they expanded across the Kizil Irmak and reached the Khattuša area, further to the north, which afterwards became their political center instead of Neša.   By the data of historical records they conclude that the area between Kaneš and the Upper Euphrates was the former homeland of the Hittites at the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C., and probably even much earlier.   By the extrapolation of the data of the Assyrian texts of the beginning of 2nd millennium B.C.   it seems possible to presume that the «Hittites» already were represented in the southern part of Central Anatolia in the second part of the 3rd millennium B.C.

As the opponents of the Hattians of Khattuša were princes of Kussara, of territories located in the south-east part of the Central Anatolian plateau, they must be regarded if not as the representatives of Hittite population, but at least as their allies, leaning mainly on them and expressing primarily their interests.

The important arguments in favour of the Hittites immigration from the east is the exemption of several towns located in the eastern part of Central Anatolia from certain services at the time of the Old Hittite Kingdom and the special cultural-economical ties with the east.   The same can be deduced from the preference of cuneiform writing of the pre-Old-Babylonian type to the Old-Assyrian type; the second one was used in Central Anatolian Assyrian colonies and it could be used by Hittites if they would be natives of Central Anatolia and not newcomers from the more eastern regions where they could have borrowed the pre-Old-Babylonian type of writing.

The linguistic data which witness to the prolonged relations between Anatolian-Indo-European and Caucasian languages, together with the fact of the more northwestern location - compared to Hittite - of Palaic, also one of Anatolian languages and even more archaic than Hittite - must be considered as an additional argument in favour of the eastern route of the Hittite's arrival in Anatolia.

It is significant that certain innovations shared by Anatolian and Indo-Iranian languages make it possible to speak of connections and contacts between these languages during a period after their separation from the common Indo-European as of independent linguistic units.   We must also bear in mind that the Indo-European contacts with the Finno-Ugric (Uralic) and Altaic languages are old and not restricted to the European branch of the Indo-Europeans.   In Pulleyblank's opinion, there is no compelling reason from the point of view of either lingui-

[ page 118 ]

stics or archaeologists to rule out the possibility of a genetic connection between Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European.

In the opinion of prehistorians, the Indo-European proper names from the archives of Kaneš do not belong to Proto-Hittite-Luwian, but to Hittite, its descendents.   It is believed that populations speaking languages of the «Anatolian» branch of Indo-European must have separated themselves from other Indo-European «peoples» at the beginning of the third millennium B.C.   or earlierand that they must have been differentiated from each other already outside of Anatolia.

As at least at the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.   Hittites were already a relevant part of a sedentary population in an important urban settlement of Kaneš/Neša, they must be considered as a people mainly sedentary and apparently peacefull as well as engaged in commerce.   It is difficult to recognize in them near descendants of the war-like people of the Alaca Höyük «Royal tombs», located more to the north, in the «Hattian territory».   The evidence of the Hittite language and the character of the Hittite culture as a whole, also do not make it possibile to connect them with the burial rite typical of the «Kurgan culture».   At the same time, the Hattian roots of the Hittite religous philosophy, on the one hand, and the existence of the rather developed religious cults, reflected by the burial-rite and inventory of the Early Bronze Age Central Anatolian «Royal tombs», on the other hand, must indicate the Hattian and not Hittite character of these tombs.

One of the theories reads that the only real indication of the presence of the Indo-European-Anatolian population in Anatolia is their language, however attention must be paid to every fact of the cultural innovations in Central Anatolia and adjacent areas during the Early Bronze Age.

If by the evidence of the Old Assyrian texts it is obvious that the speakers of Indo-European-Hittite (Nesite) language were dominant among the population of Kaneš/Neša, on the other hand this city was the main center of the production of a new type of painted pottery, the so-called «Cappadocian ware (Louvites)» of the third phase of the Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age (EBA III).   A possible eastern origin in Northwestern Iran and even in Central Asia for this pottery had been proposed.

This change in the cultural development of Central Anatolia might be connected with the appearance of a population coming from the east and speaking Indo-European-Anatolian languages in this area.

For the understanding of the processes which took place in the western part of the Near East and particularly in Anatolia, it is very important to take into account the data still preserved in the Caucasus - in the «museum of peoples and languages».   As Gragg assumed, the natural question

[ page 119 ]

arising after the study of the ancient Near Eastern languages is to determine what connections are between these languages and any other known languages? In his opinion, this question taken either in a typological or in a genetic sense, can be answered in both cases on the basis of the Caucasian material, and if hypotheses about the connec tions of the old Near Eastern and modern Caucasian languages should turn to be tenable, this would point to a prehistoric situation in which the northern part of the Near East was divided among the same groups of the population who occupy Caucasus till today.

Thus, the interaction within the whole Circumpontic zone of its ingredient parts and the need for the population of different origins of various cultural and economical backgrounds and social degrees of development to coexist, has lead to the emergence of a state in the most advanced part of this zone - Anatolia.   This was only possible on the basis of the already existing developed city-system of the Mesopotamian type.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Ernesto De Miro for giving me the possibility to write this article for the Papers of the University of Messina and Dr. Gisela Burger who checked and improved the text and helped me constantly in my work.

Bibliography

•    1986.   Les Basques, Paris.
• - CAVALLI-SFORZA, L.L.   1984, The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe, Princeton.
• ANTONY, D.W.   1991.   The Archaeology of Indo-European Origins, JIES 19.
• BEEKES, R.S.P. 1995.   Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
• BERNABÒ BREA, L.   1957.   Sicily Before the Greeks, London.
• BITTEL, K.   1950.   Grundzüge der Vor- und Frühgeschichte Kleinasiens, Tübingen.
• BURNEY, C.A.   1958.   Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Anatolian Studies VIII.
• BURNEY, C.A.   1989.   Hurrians and Proto-Indo-Europeans: the Ethnic Context of the Early Trans-Caucasian Culture in Anatolia and the Near East.   Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç.   Edited by K.Emre, B.Hrouda,M.Mellink, N.Özgüç.   Ankara.
•    1988.   The Basque Population and Ancient Migrations in Europe. Munibe (Antropologia y Arqueologia), Suplemento No.   6.   San Sebastian.
• CROSSLAND, R.A.   1957.   Indo-European Origins: The Linguistic Evidence. Past and Present-12.
• CROSSLAND, R.A.   1973.   Discussions, in: Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Grassland and A.Birchall. London.
• CROSSLAND, R.A.   1992.   When Specialists Collide: Archaeology and Indo-European Linguistics. Antiquity 66.
• DEBETZ, G.R, 1948, Paleoantropologiya SSSR. Moscow (in Russian).
• /    1967.   Yazyki drevnej Perednej Azii. Moscow, 1967 (in Russian).
• D'IAKONOV, I.M.   1985.   On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European. JIES 13.
• D'IAKONOV (DIAKONOFF), I.M.   1990.   Language Contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East, in When Worlds Collide: the Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Euro-peans.   Linguistica Extranea Studia 19.   Edited by T.L.   Markey, J.A.C.   Greppin.   Ann Arbor.
• DZHAPARIDZE, O.   1993.   Uber die ethnokulturelle Situation in Georgien gegen Ende des 3.]ahrtausends v.Chr. in: Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains.   Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica.   Alba Palmie-ri Dedicata.   Edited by M.   Frangipane, H.   Hauptmann, M.   Liverani, P. Matthiae, M.   Mellink.   Roma.
• DREWS, R.   1988.   The Coming of the Greeks.   Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East. Princeton.
• DUNAEVSKAYA, I.M.   1960.   O strukturnom skhodstve khattskogo yazyka s yazykami severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza, in: Issledonaniya po istorii kul'tury narodov Vostoka.   Moscow-Leningrad, (in Russian).    GRAGG 1995, 2177.
• EHRET, CH.   1988.   Language Change and the Material Correlates of Language and Ethnic Shift. Antiquity 62.
• EVANS, J.D.   1973.   The archaeological evidence and its interpretation: some suggested approaches to the problems of the Aegean Bronze Age. Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Crossland and A.Birchall.   London.
• FEDOROV, YA.   1975.   Mesto «maikoptsev» v etnicheskoj istorii Sapadnogo Kavkaza. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, istoriya, 5 (in Russian).
• FRIEDRICH, P. 1975.   Proto-Indo-European Syntax: the Order of Meaningful Elements. JIES Monograph 1.
• FURNÉE, E.J.   1972.   Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen. TheHague, Paris.
• FURNÉE, E.J.   1982.   Beiträge zur georgischen Etymologic I: georgisch-vorgriechische, georgisch-vorromanische und georgisch-vorindogermanische Materialen. Leuven.
•  1967a.   Kartvelian and Indo-European: Typological Comparison of Reconstructed Linguistic Systems, in To Honor Roman Jakobson.   Essays on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, 11 October 1966.   The Hague, Paris.
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V.   V. 1967b.   Anatoliiskie yazyki. Orioni. Tbilisi (in Russian).
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V.   V. 1970.   «Anatolian languages» and the problem of Indo-European Migration to Asia Minor, in Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics.   Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday.   Edited by R.   Jakobson, Sh.   Kawamoto.   Tokyo.
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. 1990.   On the Problem of an Asiatic Original Homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Ex Oriente Lux, in When Worlds Collide: the Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans.   Linguistica Extranea Studia 19.   Edited by T.L.Markey, J.A.C.Greppin.   Ann Arbor.
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. - IVANOV, V.V. 1972.   Problema opredeleniya pervonachalnoj territorii obitaniya i putej migratsii nositelej dialektov obtsheindoevropejskogo yazyka, in Konferentsiya po sravnitel'no-istoricheskoij grammatike indoevropejskikh yazykov.   Moscow, (in Russian).
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. - IVANOV, V.V. 1985a.   The Ancient Near East and the Indo-European Question: Temporal and Territorial Characteristics of Proto-Indo-European Based on Linguistic and Historico-Cultural Data. JIES 13.
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. - IVANOV, V.V. 1985b.   The Migration of Tribes Speaking the Indo-European Dialects from their Original Homeland in the Near East to their Historical Habitation in Eurasia. ]IES 13.
• GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. - IVANOV, V.V. 1985c.   The Problem of the Original Homeland of the Speakers of Indo-European Languages. JIES 13.
•    1974.   The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe 7000 to 3500 B.C.   Myths, Legends and Cult Images. London.
• GIMBUTAS, M.   1982.   Old Europe in the Fifth Millennium B.C.: the European Situation on the Arrival of the Indo-Europeans, in: The Indo-Europeans in the Fourth and Third Millennia.   Ed.   by E.C.Polome.   Ann Arbor.
• GIMBUTAS, M.1985.   Primary and Secondary Homeland of the Indo-Europeans. JIES 13.
• GIMBUTAS, M.   1988.   Archaeology and Language by Colin Renfrew (Book Review). Current Anthropology 29.
• GIORGADZE G.G.   1961.   K voprosu o lokalizacii i yazykovoj strukture kashskykh etnicheskikh i geograficheskikh nazvanij in: Peredneaziatskij Sbornik, Voprosy khettologii i khurritologii.   Moscow (in Russian).
• GIRBAL, CH.   1986.   Beiträge zur Grammatik des Hattischen. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XXI, Bd.50.   Franfurt/Main, Bern, New York.
• GOETZE, A.   1957.   Kleinasiens (zweite, neubearbeitete Au-flage).   München, 1957.
• GORDESIANI, R.   1970.   «Iliada» da egeosuri mosaxleobis istoriisa da etnogenezis sakitxebi. Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
• GORDEZIANI, R.   1975.   Herodotes cnobebi kolxta tsarmomavlobis shesaxeb in: Archaeology, Classical Philology, Byzantine Studies.   Proceedings of Tbilisi University 162.   Tbilisi (in Georgian).
• GORDEZIANI, R.   1985.   Tsinaberdznuli da kartveluri. Tbilisi (in Georgian).
• GORNY, R.L.   1995.   Hittite Imperialism and Anti-Imperial Resistance as Viewed from Alishar Höyük. BASOR 299/300, 1995.
• GRAGG, G.B.   1995.   Less-Understood Languages of Ancient Western Asia, in: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.   J.M.Sasson, editor in chief, J.   Baines, G.   Beckman, K.   S.   Rubinson, associate editors, IV. New York.
• GREPPIN, J.A.G.   1975.   Hitt.-z(a), Arm.z-, und the Theory of Armeno-Hittite Loan Words. JIES, 3.  
• HAARMANN, H.   Writing from Old Europe to Ancient Crete - a Case of Cultural Continuity. JIES 17.
• HALLO, W.W.   - simpson, W.K.   1971.   The Ancient Near East.   A History. New York.
• HOCK, H.H.   -joseph, B.D.   1996.   Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship, in: Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 93.   Berlin, New York.
• HOOD, M.S.F.   1973.   Northern Penetration of Greece at the End of the Early Helladic Period and Contemporary Balkan Chronology, in: Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings or the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Crossland and A.Birchall.   London.
• HOUWINK TEN KATE, P.H.L.   1995.   Ethnic Diversity and Population Movement in Anatolia, in: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.   J.M.Sasson, editor in chief, J.Baines, G.Beckman, K.S.Rubinson, associate editors, I.   New York.
• HOWELL, R.J.   1973.   The Origins of the Middle Helladic Culture, in: Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Crossland and A.Birchall.   London.
• INASARIDZE, Z.P. - NASIDZE, I.S.   - SHENGELIYA, L.A.   - SHNE1DER, YU.V. - ZHUKOVA, O.V. - PETRIASHCHEV, V.M.   - TIKHOMIROVA, E.V. - RYCHKOV, YU.G.   1990.   Genetics of Caucasian Ethnic groups: Distribution of Some Immunological and Biochemical Markers in Western Georgia. Soviet Genetics, vol.   26, no.   6.
• JONES, A.J.   1992.   Language and Archaeology: Evaluating Competing Explanations of the Origins of the Indo-European Languages. JIES 20.
• KAMMENHUBER, A.   1969.   Das Hattische, in: Handbuch der Orientalistik II,2.   Altkleinasiatische Sprachen.   Leiden, Köln.
• 1978.   Centraluri anatoliisa da chrdilo-dasavlet kavkasiis urtiertobis sakitxisatvis adrebrindzhaos xanashi. Archaeology, Classical Philology, Byzantine Studies.   Proceedings of Tbilisi University 183.   Tbilisi (in Georgian).
    - 1979.   «Samepo akldamebis» sociologiuri interpretaciisatvis, in: Masalebi sakartvelosa da kavkasiis arkeologiisatvis.   Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
    - 1983.   K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzy Gruzii. Tbilisi, (in Russian).
    - 1985a.   Centralur anatoliashi xeturi tomebis gamochenis sakitxisatvis, in: Sakartvelos arkeologiis sakitxebi 3.   Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
    - 1985b.   Anatoliashi kartvelur tomta gansaxlebis sakitxisatvis. Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
    - 1996  [E-Text] Probleme der historischen Geographie Anatoliens und Transkaukasiens im ersten Jahrtausend v.   Chr., in: Orbis Terrarum 2, Rivista di Storia Geografica del Mondo Antico.   Stuttgart.
    - 1999 "  [E-Text] The importance of metallurgical data for the formation of a central Transcaucasian Chronology," in: The Beginnings of Metallurgy.   Proceedings of the International Conference "The Beginnings of Metallurgy", Bochum 1995, edited by A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, Th. Rehren and Ü. Yalçin, pp.67-101. Bochum : Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.
• KLIMOV, G.A.   1986.   Ob arealnoj konfiguratsii protoindoevropejskogo v svete dannykh kartvel'skikh yazykov, in: Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3, (in Russian).
• KONDRAT'EV, A.M.   - SHEVOROSHKIN, V.V. 1970.   Kogda mol'chat pis'mena. Moscow, (in Russian).
• LAWRENCE ANGEL, J.   1951.   Troy, the Human Remains.   Supplementary Monograph 1.   Princeton.
• LOON, M.   VAN.   (Editor) 1978.   Korucutepe, vol.   2.   Amsterdam, New York, Oxford.
•  1989.    [E-Text] In Search of the Indo-Europeans.   Language, Archaeology and Myth. London.
• MARKOVIN, V.I.   1960.   Kul'tura plemen Severnogo Kavkaza v epokhu bronzy. Moscow, (in Russian).
• McMAHON, gr.   1995.   Theology, Priests, and Worship in Hittite Anatolia, in: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.   J.M.Sasson, editor in chief, J.Baines, G.Beckman, K.S.Rubinson, associate editors, IV. New York.
• MEID, W.   1989.   The Indo-Europeanization of Old European Concepts. JIES 17.
• MELCHERT, H.C.   1995.   Indo-European Languages of Anatolia, in: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.   J.M.Sasson, editor in chief, J.Baines, G.Beckman, K.S.Rubinson, associate editors, IV. New York.
• MELIKISHVILI, G.   1965.   Sakartvelos, kavkasiisa da maxlobeli aghmosavletis udzvelesi mosaxleobis sakitxisatvis.   Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
• MELLAART, J.   1966.   The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut.
• MERPERT, N.YA.   1987.   Ethnocultural Change, in the Balkans on the Border between the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Proto-Indo-European: the Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem.   Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas.   Edited by S.N.Scomal, C.   Palomé.   Washington.
• MOURANT, A.E.   1954.   The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups. Oxford.
•    - KOPEC, A.C.   - DOMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK, K.   1976.   The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups and Other Polymorphisms. London.
• MUNCHAEV, R.M.   1994.   Majkopskaya kul'tura, in: Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza Kavkaza.   Arkheologiya.   Edited by Kushnareva, K.Kh./Markovin, V.I.   Moscow, 1994 (in Russian).
• NASIDZE, I.S.   - INASARIDZE, Z.P. - SHENGELIYA, L.A.   -SHNEIDER, YU.V. - ZHUKOV, O.V. - PETRISHCHEV, V.N.   - TIKHOMIROVA, E.V. - RYCHKOV, YU.G.   1990.   Human Population Genetics of the Caucasus: Distribution of Some Immunological and Biochemical Markers in Eastern Georgia. Soviet Genetics, vol.   26, no.5.
• NERSISYAN, V.M.   - DELANYAN, R.Z.   - DANELYAN, I.B.   -BADUNTS, N.YA.   1994.   Peculiarities of the Distribution of Phenotypes and Genes of ABO and RH Systems in the Nagornyi Karabakh Population. Russian Journal of Genetics, vol.   30, no.   2.
• NIKOLAEVA, N.A.   - SAFRONOV, V.A.   1983.   Problemy poyavleniya kolesnogo transporta v Evrope.   Drevnejshie povozki Vostochnoj Evropy.   Vydelenie Dnepro-Kubanskoj kultury drevnejshikh kochevnikov Vostochnoj Evropy, in: Kochevniki Azovo-Kaspijskogo Mezhdumor'ya.   Ordzhonikidze (in Russian).
• ORLIN, L.L.   1970.   Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia. The Hague.
• OSTEN.   H.H.   van.   1937.   The Alishar Hiiyuk.   Seasons of 1930-1932, Part III.   Oriental Institute Publications XXX.   Chicago.
• POTTS, T.   1994.   Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations ca.3400-2000 B.C.   Oxford.
• PUHVEL, J.   1994.   Anatolian: Autochton or Interloper? JIES 22.
• PULLEYBLANK, E.C.   1993.   The Typology of Indo-European.   JIES 21.
•    1973.   Before Civilization.   The Radiocarbon and Prehistoric Europe. London.
•    1992.   Archaeology, Genetics and Linguistic Diversity. Man 27 (new series).
• RENFREW, C.   1993.   The Roots of Ethnicity. Archaeology, Genetics and the Origins of Europe.   Roma.
• SCOTT, L.   1956.   Pottery.   A History of Technology, I.   Oxford.
• ŞENYÜREK, M.   1956.   A Short Review of the Anthropology of the Ancient Inhabitants of Anatolia from the Chalcolithic Age to the Hittite Empire, in: S.   Lloyd.   Early Anatolia. Harmondsworth, 1956.
• SETON WILLIAMS, M.V. 1953.   A painted pottery of the second millenium from southern Turkey and northern Syria, Iraq 15.
• SHERRATT, A.   1973.   Discussion, in: Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Grassland and A.   Birchall. London.
• SHERRATT, A.   - SHERRATT, S.   1988.   The Archaeology of Indo-European: An Alternative View. Antiquity 62.
• SINGER, I.   1981.   Hittites and Haitians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C. JIES 9.
•    1988.   The Ezero Culture and the Invasions of the Steppe Peoples. JIES 16.
•    - ODEN, N.L.   - WILSON, CH.   1991.   Genetic Evidence for the Spread of Agriculture in Europe by Demic Diffusion. Science, vol.   351.
• SOMMER, E 1947.   Hethither und Hethithisch. Stuttgart.
• SPEISER, E.A.   1941.   Introduction to Human. BASOR 20.
• STEINER, G.   1981.   The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia. JIES 9.
• STEINER, G.   1990.   The Immigration of the First Indo-Europeans Reconsidered. JIES 18.
•    1987.   Conquest, Tribute and the Rise of the State, in: Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions, the V. Gordon Childe Colloquium, Mexico, 1986, Edited by L.Manzanilla.   Oxford, (BAR Internal.   series 349).
• STURTEVANT, E.H.   1962.   The Indo-Hittite Hypotheses.   Language 38.
• TRUBETSKOY, N.   1939.   Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica I.
• UNGNAD, A.   1936.   Subartu.   Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Völkerkunde Vorderasiens. Berlin, Leipzig.
• WARREN, P.M.   1973.   Crete, 3000 - 1400 B.C.: Immigration and the Archaeological Evidence, in: Bronze Age Migrations in Aegean.   Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory.   Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory Scheffield.   Edited by R.A.Crossland and A.Birchall London.
• WILHELM, G.   1995.   The Kingdom of Mitanni in Second Millennium Upper Mesopotamia, in: Civilizations of the Ancient Near East.   J.M.Sasson, editor in chief, J.Baines, G.Beckman, K.S.Rubinson, associate editors, III.   New York.
• WINN, SH.W.W.   1981.   Burial Evidence and the Kurgan Culture in Eastern Anatolia c.3000 B.C.: An Interpretation. JIES 9.
•    1979.   Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Chronology. Anatolian Studies XXIX.
• YAKAR, J.   1981.   The Indo-Europeans and their Impact on Anatolian Cultural Development. JIES 9.
• ZIMMER, ST.   1990.   The Investigation of Proto-Indo-European History: Methods, Problems, Limitations, in: When Worlds Collide: the Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans.   Linguistica Extranea Studia 19.   Edited by T.L.   Markey, J.A.C.   Greppin.   Ann Arbor.
• ZVELEBIL, M.   - ZVELEBIL, K.V. 1988.   Agricultural Transition and Indo-European Dispersals. Antiquity 62.

 

Back:

publications2.htm

or

http://www.geocities.com/komblege/kavta.html

NIL ADMIRARI

---

---

Cette page web N'utilise PAS la police (font/face) appelée ’Transliteration ’ (Download).
- You can link to this page and point to any paragraph ( #p27...), even if their number are not displayed (on/off using "red bar"). - Original web page : www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/4482/Heinsohn.html. - Back :   Caucasus' Index

---

---

• : - ().
• Anatolia. ‘Cappadocian’ painted pottery, characterised by a buff or light red burnished surface with geometric patterns in dark paint

Mingrelian. Harris a. (Hg.): The Indigenous Languages of The Caucasus. Vol. 1: The Karvelian Languages. Delmar, 313–394.