Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
UNIVERSITÀ DI MESSINA
1,1
2000
Rubbettino
Pubblicazione realizzata con i fondi dell' Università degli Studi di Messina
In memoria di Luigi Bernabò Brea
1,1
INDICE
Luigi Bernabò Brea † Longone, con due appendici di Gian Filippo Carettoni † .... 7
Luigi Bernabò Brea † Restauri del Teatro antico di Taormina 19491956 ..... 59
Giorgi Leon Kavtaradze Some Problems of the Interrelation of Caucasian and
Anatolian Bronze Age Cultures ... 107
Vincenzo La Rosa Riconsiderazioni sulla media e tarda età del bronzo nella media
valle del Platani ... 125
Domenica Gullì Nuove indagini e nuove scoperte nella media e bassa valle del
Platani .... 139
Grazia Spagnolo Le terrecotte figurate dall'area della stazione vecchia di Gela e i
problemi della coroplastica geloa nel V sec. a.C. .... 179
Valeria Armagrande I tetradrammi agatoclei Kore/Nike e trofeo ...209
1,2
INDICE
Anna Siracusano Blagina Campagna Domenico Falcone Resti di un complesso
rurale ellenistico sul Monte Gonia, presso Rodì Mitici ... 5
Valentina Calì Santa Carmela Sturiale Eraclea Minoa. Saggi archeologici ... 41
Antonella Polito La circolazione della sigillata italica liscia in Sicilia ... 65
Antonella Polito Resti di un insediamento rurale in vontrada Carboj, nel territorio di
Sciacca ... 103
Direttore Responsabile
Anna Calderone
Redazione
Lorenzo Campagna, Caterina Ingoglia, Grazia Spagnolo
Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichita, Sezione di archeologia Università di Messina
autorizzazione del Tribunale di Messina n. 4/2001, r.s. del 122001
______________________
© 2001 - Rubbettino Editore - 88049 Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro) - Viale dei Pini, 10 - Tel. (0968)
662034
GlORGI LEON KAVTARADZE
SOME PROBLEMS OF THE INTERRELATION OF CAUCASIAN
AND ANATOLIAN BRONZE AGE CULTURES
/p. 107/ 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 coexistence 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, SyroMesopotamian, 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 3rdearly 2nd millennia B.C. [1]
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 [2]. It was pointed
out that the preHittite communities in Central Anatolia was composed of a
variety of ethnic groups which existed together in a «symbiotic» relationship
[3].
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.
Early Bronze Age 1 phase. The first phase of the Early Bronze Age of the
Northern and Central Anatolian cultures (the socalled Late Chalcolithic)
seems to be partly inherited from the SouthEast 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 BalkanoDanubian farming communities, but by some Kurgan
elements, too [4].
_____________________________________________________________
1 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 mtemporary Hellenistic societies to defend the «Caucasian Gate»
through the Great Caucasian mountain range from the penetration of the northern,
nomadic, tribes.
2 STOCKER, 372.
3 ORLIN 1970,233; GORNY 1995, 66.
4 YAKAR 1981, 94103. Gimbutas considers the Cernavoda/Ba
/p. 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
nonIndoEuroperan character [5] (see below). Earlier these farming
communities of the CarpathianDanubeBalkan 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 [6]. 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
nonIndoEuropeans during most of the prehistoric period [7].
It is difficult to believe that the slow penetration of the first IndoEuropean
agriculuralists from Anatolia towards the northwest was responsible for the
introduction of the foodproducing economy in Europe and its
«Neolitization» [8]. It seems quite obvious that AegeanAnatolian 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 [9]. Therefore we more are
inclined to connect the demic diffusion responsible for the introduction of
agriculture in Europe from Asia Minor [10] with the migration of preIndo
European population.
Even today the heritage of the preIndoEuropean 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, 2530%, occur among Basques; comparatively lower in
Northwestern Europe (16% of Rh negative individuals in England) and still
lower, 1215% in Central Europe, 912% in NorthCentral and
Northeastern Mediterranean and Near East [11]. Its frequencies are
unimportant in all other parts of the world [12]. In the Caucasus, mainly in
the western part of Western Transcaucasia, the frequency of Rh negative
phenotype is sometimes even more than 20% [13]. It is quite
____________________________________________
den/Coţofeni and Globular Amphora cultures as formed in consequence of the
merging of two nonIndoEuropean and IndoEuropean social structures and
symbolic systems (GIMBUTAS 1988, 455).
5 GIMBUTAS 1982, 160; GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985c, 181. Except the
evidences, postdating the Neolithic for a nonIndoEuropean substrate in Greece,
shown in place names, personal names and tribal names, the shifts in names of trees in
Greek make a circumstantial case for assuming the later IndoEuropeanization of
Greece (MALLORY 1989, 6669, 161, 180). As it was underlined, the corpus of
inferable nonIndoEuropean loanwords in Greek is so large and pervades so many
parts of the vocabulary, presenting an entire lexical stratum (FURNÉE 1972, 399), that
the normal implication of such a borrowingpattern would be the viewpoint that the
the Greek language was spread by a quite small, probably politically dominant
minority of settlers to a far larger and previously longestablished majority population
(EHRET 1988, 573). Crete was a country of ninety languages still at Homer's times
(Od. 19, 172177), and the writers of Classical times mentioned many parts of Greece
still inhabited by Pclasgians (II., II,840843, X,429; Herod., I,57,II,51, IV,145, V,26,
VI,137, VII, 94f., Strabo, V,II,4, XIII,III,3).
6 D'IAKONOV 1985, 109.
7 ZVELEBIL/ZVELEBIL 1988, 576.
8 Cf. RENFREW 1987 passim. In Gimbutas' opinion, the European linguistic
substratum is not Mesolithic, but reflects a Neolithic economy and technology: most
of the names for cereals and legumes were taken over by the IndoEuropeans from the
local European substrata; domesticated animals and birds in IndoEuropean languages
of Europe often have two sets of names, nonIndoEuropean and IndoEuropean
(GIMBUTAS 1988, 454). As it was stressed by Bernabò Brea thirty years ago, on all
shores of the Mediterranean which even after many thousand years could be
considered least as IndoEuropeans, the earliest Neolithic cultures with impressed
pottery, closely akin to each other, were distributed by the sea presumably from the
South AnatolianNorth Syrian region (BERNABÒ BREA 1957, 3941).
9 We ought to support the standpoint that, because of the early date of the
agricultural dispersal in Europe, it is most unlikely that this language group would
have survived in a recognizable form down to historical times and that the
resemblance between surviving members of this group would be radically different
from the very specific correspondences of the IndoEuropean family
(SHERRATT/SHERRATT 1988, 586).
10 SOKAL/ODEN/WILSON 1991, 143145.
11 AMMERMAN/CAVALLISFORZA 1984, 87, 92, 156n.4; CAVALLISFORZA
1991,73.
12 AMMERMAN/CAVALLISFORZA 1984, 86f.
13 INASARIDZE et al 1990, Table 1. By the information of Dr. Z. Inasaridze, in some
regions of Western Georgia the frequency of the Rh negatives reaches 2530% (pers.
comm.). With respect to the Rh system, the frequency of the d gene in Georgians is
higher than in other Caucasian ethnic groups, and also higher than in most parts of the
population of the Near East and Europe, e.g. in the Zugdidi district of Western
Georgia it is more than 48% (NASIDZE et al. 1990, 612; Table 2; INASARIDZE et al.
1990, 718, Table 2).
/p. 109/ clear that later immigrants, presumably bearers of IndoEuropean
languages, had predominantly Rh positive.
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 [14].
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 [15]. As such data as the Rh
factor or ABO system suggest that historical events might have played an
important role in their geographic distribution [16], we are inclined to
explain the above picture by the genetical survival of the preIndoEuropean
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 [17]. In reality the preIndoEuropean 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 [18], 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 [19]. There is a temptation to
connect the O gene with the preIndoEuropean population of Europe
(including the Caucasus) [20], A gene with the dispersal of IndoEuropeans
and the B gene with the migrations of the UraloAltaic peoples to the west
[21].
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 [22]. 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 [23]. From the widespread viewpoint, the
area between the Dnieper and the Ural and the northern shores of the Black
and Caspian Seas,
___________________________________________________
14 MOURANT 1954, 10, 4453,57f.; MOURANT/KOPEC/DOMANIEWSKA
SOBCZAK 1976, 6365, 7074, 144, 176, Table 1.1. As a whole, a highest frequency
of the O gene, 69% (in Western Georgia 7278%, with the frequency of phenotypes
5462%), and a lowest frequency of the B gene, 8% (in some parts of Western Georgia
24%), are observed in Georgia (A gene 22.6%) with respect to the ABO system
(NASIDZE et al. 1990, 611f., Table 1; INASARIDZE et al. 1990, 715718, Tables 1
and 17).
15 Cf., AMMERMAN/SCAVALLISFORZA 1984, 86f. and INASARIDZE et
al.1990,722.
16 AMMERMAN/CAVALLISFORZA 1984,136. It is worth to recall that many years
ago, on the basis of anthropological data, it was believed that a linguistic family which
vanished in Europe still survived in the Caucasus among the population speaking old
Caucasian languages, Georgian (Kartvelian) and others (UNGNAD, 1936, 15).
17 As it was emphasized by Renfrew, «linguistic data are not directly applicable to
genetic data, nor vice versa, just as they are not directly applicable to the
archaeological record» (RENFREW 1993, 44).
18 ALLIÈRES 1986; CAVALLISFORZA 1988, 129, 132f.
19 MOURANT/KOPEC/DOMANIEWSKASOBCZAK 1976, 91. In the opinion of
CavalliSforza, «it is perhaps surprising that so much of the expected correlation
between languages and genes remains, despite the blurring caused by gene or
language replacement (CAVALLISFORZA 1991,78).
20 The high frequency of blood group O, as well as of the Rh negatives, seems to be a
characteristic trait of the relic populations of Europe driven from their homelands by
newcomers from the east (MOURANT/KOPEC/ DOMANIEWSKASOBCZAK
1976, 6365, 74).
21 The fact must be taken into account that Transcaucasia repeats the picture
characteristic of Europe: In the western part, of the «preIndoEuropean» Georgians,
the O gene is most characteristic; in the south, of the IndoEuropean Armenians the
A gene (MOURANT/KOPEC/ DOMANLEWSKASOBCZAK 1976, 75); in the
eastern part, of the Azerbaijanians, belonging to the Altaic family, the B gene, though
not dominant, is much more higher than in other parts of Transcaucasia (v.
NERSISYAN/DELANYAN/DANELYAN/BADUNTS 1994, Tables 1 and 2).
22 EHRET 1988,573. As it was underlined by Gimbutas, from the beginning of
agriculture to the Christian era Europe consists of two very different strata, Old
European and IndoEuropean, and what is understood today as «Western civilization»,
is derived from the merging of the two strata, the substratal and superstratal, from the
collision of two ideologies, two religions, and two social systems (GIMBUTAS 1988,
454).
23 MOURANT 1954, 54; MOURANT/KOPEC/DOMANIEWSKASOBCZAK 1976,
69.
/p. 110/ the homeland of the socalled Kurgan cultures, may have been an
early and active centre of IndoEuropeanspeaking communities too, and
their wavelike dispersals from there were not a uniform and continuous
process, but a punctuated, multistage and repetitive one24. The immigrated
warlike stockbreeders imposed themselves upon the preceding peaceful
agricultural population of the Neolithic Europe25. 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. [26]
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
ProtoColchian or the socalled Ispanitype 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. [27]
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 AnatolianNorth 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. [28]
The consensus among prehistorians refers to the fact that after the
infiltration of the IndoEuropeans into Southeastern Europe, the preIndo
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 preIndoEuropeans. 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 preIndoEuropean Old European, culture. [29]
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 nonIndoEuropean and nonSemitic, but in
fact a developed and written form of the 3rd millennium Cretan language
the language as it was at the Troy I times. [30]
Archaeological connections between Western AnatolianNorthern Aegean
area and Crete on the one hand and between Northwestern Anatolia and
Western Transcaucasia on the other, have a linguistic parallel, since, as
______________________________________________________
24 GIMBUTAS 1982; ZVELEBIL/ZVELEBIL 1988, 580f. Mallory and Antony
highlited the importance of innovation in transport as a catalyst in fundamental social
changes, including the initial IndoEuropean migrations from the North Pontic steppe.
In Antony's opinion, the ProtoIndoEuropean community was bounded by the
Dnieper River in the west and by the Volga or Ural Rivers in the east (ANTONY 1991,
216). Mallory is predisposed to assume that the ProtoIndoEuropeans were situated,
broadly speaking, in a territory extending from Central or Northern Europe in the west
across the PonticCaspian steppe and possibly into Southern Siberia. As to him, in the
4th millennium B.C. the PonticCaspian steppe had all the attributes of a putative,
reconstructed from linguistic evidence, IndoEuropean society which seems to have
originated in the eastern steppe, perhaps in the VolgaUral region. At the same time,
Mallory excludes Western Europe, Mediterranean Europe, the Balkans or the Near
East as possible homeland areas for IndoEuropean (MALLORY 1989, 147, 177, 183).
Antony dates the IndoEuropean dispersal no earlier than 3300 B.C. and no later than
2200 B.C. (ANTONY 1991, 214f.). Mallory assigns a notional date of about 4500
B.C. as the earliest probable time for the culture reconstructed from the inherited
vocabulary of the IndoEuropean languages and 2500 B.C., or somewhat earlier, as a
terminal date for the ProtoIndoEuropean (MALLORY 1989, 127, 145, 158).
25 Crossland emphasized that migrants might not always have had revolutionary new
techniques of warfare, e.g. the warchariot, but, sometimes, seem to have dominated
mainly by an efficient social and military organization. He recalls the well known fact
that at historical times, populations living in ecologically marginal areas such as
mountains or deserts, have regularly supplemented their resources by raiding more
prosperous settled neighbours and by moving into their territories (CROSSLAND
1992, 251).
26 MEID 1989, 303.
27 In Yakar's opinion, Troy's influence can be traced to Eastern Anatolia (YAKAR
1979, 54; MERPERT 1987, 128).
28 WARREN 1973, 41,43.
29 GIMBUTAS 1974, 236239; HAARMANN 1989, 252f. Gimbutas emphasized that
«O1d European traditions continued only in nonIndoEuropeanized southern Europe
and reached their zenith in the Aegean islands and Crete» (GIMBUTAS 1988, 454).
30 WARREN l973, 43, 45.
/ p. 111/ it is stated by some linguists, the preGreek language, which spread
in Crete at the times of Linear A, reveals certain common features with the
Kartvelian languages [31].
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 preIndoEuropean substrate
languages, are characteristic of Kartvelian, too [32]. If we also bear in mind
the existing linguistic parallels between Kartvelian Basque (see above) and
Kartvelian Etruscan [33] 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 [34]. 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 [35], it is possible that
there occured an infiltration of the bearers of the Baden culture into the
southeast direction and ultimately to Anatolia and not vice versa [36]. 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 [37].
The notion about the ties of the Transcaucasian population with the
Mediterranean world was already maintained by Classical authors [38]. As
to Megasthene, Abydenus, Eusebius (Praep. ev., IX,41,1), Flavius Josephus
(Ant. Jud., 1,124,125), Dionisius Perieget (695699) 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 ArianKartli (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» [39], At the same time, the information
by Herodotus (11,102105), Strabo (1,11,21) and Valerius Flacus (V,418421)
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 [40].
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 [41].
____________________________________________________
31 There is a remarkable common component between Kartvelian and the nonIndo
European preGreek vocabularies, its total stock having three hundred presumably
isomorphic elements formants and words (FURNÈE 1982; GORDEZIANI 1985).
The assumption about the IndoEuropean character of the preGreek, «Pelasgian»
language during the last years was given up (cf. BEEKES 1995, 32).
32 GORDESIANI 1978, 225228.
33 GORDESIANI 1985 passim.
34 EVANS 1973, 19; cf. YAKAR 1981, 96.
35 HOWELL 1973,91.
36 Cf. MERPERT 1987, 128; MALLORY 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 an
northwestern outpost of the Anatolian civilization against the invasions of the steppe
people from the steppes (SOCHACKI 1988, 189191).
37 SHERRATT 1973, 100.
38 KAVTARADZE 1985a, 1640, 146153; KAVTARADZE 1996, 205208.
39 MELIKISHVILI 1965, 16. It must be also taken into account that in the Georgian
literature of the Early Medieval times the name of the CeltIberian tribe of Spain is
usually translated as «CeltKartvelians».
40 GORDESIANI 1975, 3543. 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 SardinianCorsican 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).
41 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.
/p. 112/ On the other hand, it seems likely that the striking isomorphism
between IndoEuropean and Kartvelian languages, as linguists emphasize,
can possibly be explained by the close contacts between the ProtoIndo
European and ProtoKartvelian languages which besides could be
considered as members of a common Sprachbund [42]. Some scholars also
assume that this similarity between IndoEuropean and Kartvelian languages
must be traced back to their common origin. Diakonov is even inclined to
admit the existence of the PreProtoIndoEuropeanKartvelian community
in Central Asia Minor at Çatal Höyük times [43].
In the opinion of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, though ProtoIndoEuropean and
ProtoKartvelian show a similarity in lexical and structuraltypological
features, to presume a «preprotolanguage unity» between them requires the
establishment of strict phonological correspondences and the separate
reconstruction of protoforms for each of these two linguistic systems [44].
Nevertheless, we must agree with the «traditional» standpoint of Diakonov
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 IndoEuropean 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 wordformation show genetic collateral relationship between
two protolangueges and point to the existence of KartvelianProtoIndo
European preprotolanguage [45].
As it was emphasized by Mallory, although some lexical evidence has been
often cited, the primary case for IndoEuropean Kartvelian relations is
typological [46], 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 ProtoIndoEuropean existence [47].
Actually the list of loanwords betwen ProtoKartvelian and ProtoIndo
European, as presented by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, is only directed from
ProtoIndoEuropean to ProtoKartvelian and not vice versa [48]. This fact
contradicts their assumption about the coexistence of these protolanguages
in one and the same locality which must of course imply the existence of
mutual influencies and not only of onesided [49].
Other linguists assign Kartvelian, as was already mentioned above, to the
preIndoEuropeanMediterranean 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 [50].
To sum up, the recent trends in archaeology, anthropology and linguistics are
giving favourable opportunities to reconsider the ethnogenetical
developments of the old Near EasternMediterranean area. From the view
point of the interrelationship of the ProtoLanguages, the abovementioned
events which took place in Anatolia and the Caucasus in the first phase of
the Early Bronze Age, or during the fourthearly third millennia B.C., are of
special importance.
________________________________________________
42 GAMKRELIDZE 1967a, 707717.
43 D'IAKONOV 1985, 154.
44 GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985c, 177.
45 D'IAKONOV 1985, 118f. Diakonov is more inclined to regard above isoglosses,
«as evidence of a collateral kinship between ProtoIndoEuropean and Proto
Kartvelian going back to a common ProtoKartvelianIndoEuropean dialect
continuum» (D'IAKONOV 1990, 61). It is characteristic that the same author excludes
Kartvelian from a direct contact with, Semitic at any time (D'IAKONOV 1985, 124).
46 Diakonov also underlines the striking similarity between the typology of the
Kartvelian and IndoEuropean word structures (D'IAKONOV 1990, 61).
47 MALLORY 1989, 150f.
48 GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985a, 20f.
49 D'IAKONOV 1985, 118. In Melikishvili's opinion, expressed more than thirty years
ago, among all IndoEuropean languages the Kartvelian languages reveal lexical
parallels concerning the basic fund of language, not with such languages as Hittite,
Armenian, Greek or IndoIranian with which they had historical and also obviously
prehistoric ties, but some ties can be detected, quite unexpectedly, with BaltoSlavo
Germanic languages (MELIKISHVILI, 1965, 206, 240). Generally, among the earliest
Kartvelian IndoEuropean lexical parallels the lack of the phonetical reflexes, typical
of the satemic area of the IndoEuropean linguistic groups, is to be noticed (KLIMOV
1986, 155).
50 D'IAKONOV 1985, 174 n.l7. Recently it was assumed that the North Caucasian
languages are related to the Ket on the Yenissey River and to SinoTibetan. In
D'iakonov's opinion, it is not improbable that the North Caucasian languages had been
spread from the north or northeast at an early date (D'IAKONOV 1990, 62).
/p. 113/ 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 culture of the North Caucasus, is the appearance of
«Royal tombs» a real sign of the classformation process [51].
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 burialmound of the early stage of the Maikop culture,
remains of fourwheeled vehicles were found [52]. 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 largescale 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
[53].
The newcomers expanding the role of stockbreeding, their main trade [54],
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 3rd2nd millennia B.C. this
function was carried out by approximately mobile stockbreeding tribes
mainly of northern provenance and at the same time of IndoEuropean
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
IndoEuropean populations [55]. Apart from other areas of the world, we
can recall the role of the southern, Semitic stockbreeders in the various
areas of the Near East or, much later, at the Early Medieval times, of the
northeastern (for the Near EasternMeditteranean area) Altaic nomadic
tribes from the Eurasian steppes who were even characterized by the same
kurgantype burial rite. Equally, it seems possible to ascribe the same social
function and also the burial rite characteristic of the stockbreeders to other
tribes of different origin, too [56]. Some traits typical of the burial rite of
«Maikopeans» can be detected even in the kurgans of Belorechensks of the
1415th centuries A.D., belonging to the Northwestern Caucasian Adighe
Circassian tribes [57].
_____________________________________________________
51 KAVTARADZE 1979, 8392.
52 NIKOLAEVA/SAFRONOV 1983, 63.
53 HOOD 1973,61.
54 In the layers of another Central Anatolian site, Alishar Höyük, which are
contemporary with the «Royal tombs» of Alaca Höyük, the increase of cattleraising
is noticable. In all other periods of the Early Bronze Age at the same site, the leading
role of the sheepbreeding is quite obvious (v. OSTEN VAN 1937, 302).
55 At the same time, the evidence of kurganrelated burials is generally absent from
one of the earliest IndoEuropean, or Luwian, territories of Southern and Western
Anatolia (MALLORY 1989, 30).
56 In Diakonov's opinion, such a rite was spread among the ProtoKartvelian tribes
(cf. D'lAKONOV 1985, 120f.). He thinks that the first speakers of Kartvelian arrived
in Transcaucasia from the north and considers the Maikop culture of the North
Caucasus and the tumuli in Kakhetia, Eastern Georgia, as a probable archaeological
nucleus (D'IAKONOV 1990, 62). As to another viewpoint, the introduction of this
rite in Transcaucasia must be attributed to the IndoEuropeans. In Dzhaparidze's view,
this fact found its reflection in the existence of the IndoEuropean elements in the
Kartvelian languages (DZHAPARIDZE 1993, 489). Mallory assumes that a similarity
between «royal» burials north and south of the Caucasus may be is rather due to the
need to develop more impressive forms of entombment for the hierarchies of both
regions during the Early Bronze Age, who participitated in mutual exchangenetworks
of prestigious goods. As to him so long as the KuraAraxes culture could be expected
to have evolved into a more ranked society which would have promoted the symbolic
expressions of power and wealth, the social changes can be regarded as locally
inspired rather than intrusive (MALLORY 1989, 30, 233).
57 E.g. FEDOROV 1975, 80f. As it was underlined by Mallory, «arguments that... the
appearance of the royal tombs at Alaca Hüyük in Central Anatolia were the result of
IndoEuropeans... seem to me to be idle», though, at the same time, he admits that
continuing contacts or migrations are employed to explain subsequent similarities
between the royal tombs of northcentral Anatolia, such as the thirteen graves
/p. 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 [58]. 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 AbkhazoAdighéan languages [59]
to the culture of Central Anatolian «Royal tombs» [60] 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 stockbreeders,
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 «postMaikop» time [61].
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 seashore regions of the Caucasus and Anatolia,
the estimation of the sealevel 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 [62].
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 SyroMesopotamian 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
4th3rd millennia B.C. where Eastern and Central Anatolian materials were
found together with archaeological specimens of SyroMesopotamian 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 [63],
including the Northern Caucasus. Therefore it seems now possible that the
socalled «North Caucasian culture» of the postMaikop 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 [64]. 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 [65]. But such morphological characteristics can be
influenced by the environmental or nutritive factors, as well as by artificial
manipulation [66]. The results the biochemical studies which are not
available are much more reliable [67].
__________________________________
of Alaca Hüyük, with tombs formally similar or possessing related grave goods
known north of the Caucasus» (MALLORY 1989, 30, 168).
58 MARKOVIN 1960, 116, 147; FEDOROV 1975, 74.
59 DUNAEVSKAYA 1960, 7377; D'IAKONOV 1967, 173.
60 V. KAMMENHUBER 1969, 329.
61 Cf. KAVTARADZE 1978 passim. This activity of the northern stockbreeding
tribes should not be considered as their first attempt to penetrate the Near East via the
Caucasus (cf. LOON VAN, 1978, 711, 5762; WINN 1981, 113118; MALLORY
1989, 30; MUNCHAEV 1994, 169).
62 Cf. RENFREW 1973, 104f., figs.20f.; KAVTARADZE 1985, 34f.
63 E.g. KAVTARADZE 1983, 86105. At the same time, the urgent need to use new
chronological dimensions, based on the improved archaeometrical techniques on the
one hand, and the correlation of the Near Eastern data with the materials obtained
from the sites of its northern periphery on the other, will permit to see a number of
ethnogenetic, linguistic, cultural, historical, social and economical events in an
absolutely new light not only in connection with the study of the early periods of the
Caucasian Anatolian area, but also from the point of view of revising the nature of
interrelationships between the Near Eastern and European ancient societies.
64 SENYÜREK 1956, 207f; MELLAART 1966, 155.
65 DEBETZ 1948, 104, 108, 175, 275f. 66 E.g. in the Caucasus still the habit exists to
round a child's head by binding it up in the cradle. 67 In the near future, as to Renfrew,
the success of the molecular genetics based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and
the possibili
/p. 115/ The question arises as to the ethnic affinity of the Central and
Northern Anatolian preHatti population. In this connection the nonIndo
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 [68], we
can suggest the probable settlement of ProtoKartvelian 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
HurroUrartian 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 southwest and
south of it, inhabited then correspondingly by the HattianNorthwestern
Caucasian (AbkhazoAdighean) and HurroUrartianNortheastern Caucasian
(NakhoDagestanian) 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 KuraAraxes culture, which can be identified, in very diffused
outlines, with the ancestors of the bearers of South (Kartvelian),
Northwestern and Northeastern [69] 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 newlyarrived western tribes [70]. This was
followed by periodical infiltrations of Kartvelian tribes from Anato
___________________________________
ties to establish sequences received from human remains to detect past genetic
relationships will contribute to the emergence of a new discipline «historical genetics»
(RENFREW 1992, 446; RENFREW 1993, 40f., 44). The insufficiance of the
morphological criteria for the interpretation of the anthropological data was already
obvious for Lawrence Angel nearly half a century ago, who, discussing the compex
and diversified racial connections of the ancient Trojan populaton, stressed that «...
the discussion of these distinctions displays both the relative incompetence of present
metrical and observational methods to analyze thoroughly the genetic relationships of
different populations, and the need for the study of combinations of traits which can
be shown to depend on multiple effects of single genes and chromosome linkage
groups in order to clarify their recombinations exposed now in a bewildering web of
«types»» (LAWRENCE ANGEL 1951, 30).
68 D'IAKONOV 1967, 175f.; KONDRAT'EV/SHEVOROSHKIN 1970, 154; GIRBAL
1986, 160163; MALLORY 1989, 26; GRAGG 1995, 2177. Girbal even attributes
Hattic to Kartvelian languages, but he operates exceptionally with the lexical data.
69 Not only the territories inhabited by the bearers of the Northeastern Caucasian
languages were coincided with the area of distribution of the KuraAraxes culture, but
also even Hurrians, inhabiting upper Mesopotamia already in the late 3rd millennium
B.C., had their earliest homeland probably in Eastern Anatolia, in one of the earliest
centers of the same culture (cf. BURNEY 1958, 157209; BURNEY 1989, 45, 48,
50f.; D'IAKONOV 1990, 63; WILHELM 1995, 1244f.). Later the material culture of
the Hurrians became difficult to be differentiated from other Near Eastern peoples of
the regions they inhabited (POTTS 1994, 21). The painted ware, characteristic of them
in this period, was similar to other contemporary, Near Eastern types of pottery,
bearing one and the same touch of time the preference to painted pottery. The
Transcaucasian origin of Hurrians was already proposed by Speiser (SPElSER l941).
70 In the linguistic the convergence, different from the divergence processes, is
usually overlooked; the historical linguistics deny that languages or their families can
be formed this way, but, as Renfrew underlines, the genetic counterpart of the
convergence the «gene flow» which arises from interbreeding, can be a creative
force as well as a constraining force in promoting change and the formation of new
species (RENFREW 1992, 448, 453). As to Trubetskoy's tentative proposal, there was
never a single ancestral ProtoIndoEuropean, but rather genetically unrelated
languages interacted long enough to form the loosely hinged Sprachbund which was
reconstructed as ProtoIndoEuropean (TRUBETSKOY 1939, 8189; FRIEDRICH
1975, 67). As it seems, convergence and divergence were «two sides of one and same
coin» and very often they had taken place simultaneously in the process of linguistic
development.
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 interregional 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 classformation processes than interregional trade.
/p. 116/ lia to Transcaucasia their historical homeland. It must be also taken
into account that a certain part of HittiteArmenian lexical parallels, which,
only with a few exceptions, are of nonIndoEuropean origin and presumably
derived from the vocabulary of the indigenous inhabitants of Asia Minor
[71], 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 [72]. A
nonIndoEuropean substratum is well represented in «Hittite» (Indo
EuropeanAnatolian) languages [73]. The Hattic as the most relevant of the
local Anatolian languages is considered to be a true substratum in the Hittite
imperial area [74]. If we suppose that Anatolia was indeed never the Indo
Europcan homeland, immediately the problem arises: when did tribes
speaking AnatolianIndoEuropean 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 NesiteHittite came
into use there; several prominent deities of the Hittite pantheon have Hattian
names [75]; 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,
Hatticspeaking, population [76]. The «economical» conclusion, as
Crossland emphasizes, is that Hittite arrived in Central Anatolia later [77].
We also must take into account the above mentioned fact that the main part
of HittiteArmenian lexical parallels are of a nonIndoEuropean character.
The earliest speakers of IndoEuropean languages can be traced back by
anthroponyms and singular lexemes detected from the data of the socalled
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
[78]. Therefore _________________________________________________
71 GREPPIN 1975, 89.
72 E.g. PUHVEL 1994, 253. As it was underlined, we have too many evidences for
unanalyzable place and personal names across Anatolia to suspect anything other than
a nonIndoEuropean substrate (MALLORY 1989, 64f.).
73 So far as the Hittite language shows deep marks of the influence of a nonIndo
European substratum and Hittite religion and literature display only faint traits of
IndoEuropean character, it was assumed that there was probably no more than a thin
layer of IndoEuropean speakers, a superstratum above Anatolian population who
largely managed to retain their own culture (ZIMMER 1990, 325). The number and
pervasiveness of apparent early loanwords argues that Asia Minor, alike the pre
Greek Aegean and the preearly Italic Apenines, had a substantial, settled, nonIndo
European population before the bearers of Anatolian and Armenian languages of the
IndoEuropean family arrived (EHRET 1988, 573).
74 FRIEDRICH 1975, 48. At the same time, Kaškaeans of the later times are
considered as one of the ethnical remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which
was pushed northward by the Hittites (cf. GIORGADZE 1961; SINGER 1981, 123).
75 As to Gorny, after the subjugation of Central Anatolia, the Hittites, as they did in
many spheres of life, resorted to coopting or reconfiguring the cults of preHittite
deities as a means of legitimizing their authority and avoiding conflicting ideological
claims; often they succeeded in downgrading the preHittite identity of these deities
with purpose to bring them more in link with a Hittite tradition (GORNY 1995, 69).
But the fact must be taken into account that the throne names of Hattusilis I and all his
successors were not Hittite, but Hattic; Hattic gods became the main gods of the
Hittite state, they were addressed in Hattic; Hattic festivals provided the pattern for
early Hittite worship, and Hattic myths articulated the earliest formal Hittite theology
(cf. DREWS 1988, 66; McMAHON 1995, 1984f.).
76 As it was emphasized, in view of the influence exerted by Hattic on Hittite and
Palaic, it seems appropriate to regard the Hittite core region inside and around the
IIalys curve and in Paphlagonia, as well as the eastern Pontus Mountains, as having
been the settlemen area of the Hattians (HOUWINK TEN GATE 1995, 261). At the
same time, the absence of such an influence in Luwian, south of the Halys, limits the
disribution of Hattic in above regions (GRAGG 1995, 2175). In D'iakonov's opinion,
the substratum of the Luwians and the rest of Asia Minor, including Cyprus, Lemnos
etc. was apparently Eastern Caucasian (D'IAKONOV 1990, 63).
77 CROSSLAND 1957; CROSSLAND 1973, 277. As it is often stressed by linguists, a
number of substratic words, a heritage from earlier periods, are embedded in the later
Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite vocabularies (cf. HALLO/SIMPSON 1971, 17).
78 In Kaneš/Neša not only the large majority of the native population spoke Nesite,
but also most of the important titlebearers, including the rulers, had Hittite names
(SINGER 1981, 126).
/p. 117/ specialists usually suggest that the Hittites (Nesites) settled
themselves first in the south and southeast 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 [79]. 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 [80].
As the opponents of the Hattians of Khattuša were princes of Kussara, of
territories located in the southeast 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 [81].
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 culturaleconomical ties with the east [82]. The same can be
deduced from the preference of cuneiform writing of the preOld
Babylonian type to the OldAssyrian 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 preOldBabylonian
type of writing [83].
The linguistic data which witness to the prolonged relations between
AnatolianIndoEuropean 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 IndoEuropean as of independent linguistic units [84]. We must
also bear in mind that the IndoEuropean contacts with the FinnoUgric
(Uralic) and Altaic languages are old and not restricted to the European
branch of the IndoEuropeans [85]. In Pulleyblank's opinion, there is no
compelling reason from the point of view of either lingui
___________________________________________________
79 SINGER 1981, 129. It was noticed that a division between the Hattian and Hittite
zones existed approximately on the two sides of a strip which ran from northeast to
southwest, nearly parallel to the Halys river (SINGER 1981, 125).
80 From Anatolian onomastics of the Cappadocian tablets Gamkrelidze and Ivanov
conclude that the various Anatolian languages underwent an extremely long period of
development and formation after they had become distinct from one another
(GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985a, 5). They also assume that the Anatolian tribes
settled in ancient Asia Minor not as a result of the invasion and conquest of new
territories which swept away local cultural traditions, but rather through the gradual
penetration of a newly arrived ethnic element into the local population of these
regions; besides they assume that there was for a long period of time an interaction of
the Hittite and Palaic languages with the Hattic (GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985b,
51). In Drews' opinion, ProtoAnatolian migrants came to Hatti from other areas of
Asia Minor during an extended period in the 3rd millennium B.C., and this movement
certainly was not an invasion as ProtoAnatolian speakers were an integral element of
the Hattic society (DREWS 1988, 54f.). It is wellknown that Hittite and Palaic
borrowed a large number of ritual and social terms from the Hattic
(KAMMENHUBER 1969, 431436; GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985b, 51). Mallory
also emphasizes that the IndoEuropean Anatolians had already undergone a
considerable assimilation to the culture of the nonIndoEuropean Anatolians before
they appeared in history (MALLORY 1989, 25).
81 There is a great difference between the attitude of Kussarian princes towards Neša
and Khattuša. Whereas Neša and its population were treated in a peaceful way,
Khattuša was «razed to the ground» and «cursed forever». It has been assumed that a
special attitude towards Neša probably reflects the ethnical closeness between the
populations of Kussara and Neša (ORLIN 1970, 243, n.73; SINGER 1981, 128).
82 SOMMER 1947, 18.
83 Cf. KAVTARADZE 1985, 9.
84 GAMKRELIDZE 1970, 140; GAMKRELIDZE 1967b, 120; Cf.
GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1972. Due to one of the viewpoints the spread of the
Anatolian group was perhaps associated with massive expansion eastward which
carried IndoEuropean languages to India and that therefore it is important to look
more closely at Eastern Europe and the role of the steppes (SHERRATT/SHERRATT
1988, 586).
85 GIMBUTAS 1985, 195. The FinnoUgric family who borrowed a convincing
number of loan words from the IndoEuropean family, exhibits the strongest
relationship with the latter and makes it possibi
[p. 118] stics or archaeologists to rule out the possibility of a genetic
connection between SinoTibetan and IndoEuropean [86]. In the opinion of
prehistorians, the IndoEuropean proper names from the archives of Kaneš
do not belong to ProtoHittiteLuwian, but to Hittite, its descendents [87]. It
is believed that populations speaking languages of the «Anatolian» branch of
IndoEuropean must have separated themselves from other IndoEuropean
«peoples» at the beginning of the third millennium B.C. or earlier [88] and
that they must have been differentiated from each other already outside of
Anatolia [89].
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 [90]. It is difficult to
recognize in them near descendants of the warlike 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 burialrite 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 [91].
One of the theories reads that the only real indication of the presence of the
IndoEuropeanAnatolian population in Anatolia is their language [92],
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
IndoEuropeanHittite (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 socalled «Cappadocian
ware» of the third phase of the Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age [93]. A
possible eastern origin in Northwestern Iran and even in Central Asia for this
pottery had been proposed [94].
This change in the cultural development of Central Anatolia might be
connected with the appearance of a population coming from the east and
speaking IndoEuropeanAnatolian languages in this area [95].
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
__________________________________________________
le to suggest that at a certain time both neighbours were (MALLORY 1989, 148, 151,
179; GAMKRELIDZE 1990, 13).
86 PULLEYBLANK 1993, 106, As an archaeological basis Pulleyblank considers
Gimbutas' theory that the Sredni Stog II culture of the DnieperDonetz region (which
she identifies as her Kurgan I and II cultures ca. 45003500 B.C.) had its source in an
intrusion from an earlier culture further east, connected with the earliest Neolithic in
the Middle Ural and with Central Asia (GIMBUTAS 1985, 191; PULLEYBLANK
1993, 107).
87 D'IAKONOV 1985, 107.
88 STEINER 1990, 204; D'IAKONOV 1985, 85, 115. If on the one hand, there are
doubts that Hittite was an IndoEuropean language at all or that it was not an Indo
European language in the same sense as the others, though related to the Indo
European group as a whole the «IndoHittite» hypothesis (STURTEVANT 1962,
105f.; DREWS 1988, 50f.; JONES 1995, 41f.;) on the other hand, Hittite is regarded
as an unmistakably IndoEuropean language in every respect (MELCHERT 1995,
2152). But it is quite obvious that the Anatolian languages exhibit a number of
features that are markedly different from those found in the other IndoEuropean
languages (HOCK/JOSEPH 1996, 530).
89 STEINER 1990, 204. Though Steiner thinks that this differentiation had happened
in the areas west from Anatolia.
90 STEINER 1990, 202f., 205. It seems that either Hittites quite lost the traits typical
of northern stockbreeders characteristic of other «IndoEuropean» peoples and
totally adopted the Near Eastern «way of life» or never had them.
91 KAVTARADZE 1978, 10f., 17n.63.
92 E.g. PUHVEL 1994, 262.
93 BITTEL 1950, 49; STEINER 1981, 164. As the monochromic, socalled «Hittite
Ware», typical of the predominantly «IndoEuropean» Kaneš II, was the first wheel
made pottery, different from the preceding handmade «Cappadocian Ware», this
change should be explained not by the penetration of a new population, but by the
introduction of the technological achievement in the local pottery of Kaneš/Neša
(KAVTARADZE 1985, 46; cf. SCOTT 1956, 403405).
94 SETON WILLIAMS 1953, 60, 64; cf. KAVTARADZE 1985 passim.
95 V. KAVTARADZE 1985, 320. Goetze noticed that «Cappadocian pottery» was
the first time introduced in Central Anatolia after the catastrophic destruction of the
sites of «Alishar I Alaca III culture» (GOETZE 1957, 44).
[p. 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 [96].
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 citysystem 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.
___________________________________________________
96 GRAGG 1995, 2177.
Bibliography
ALLIÈRES, J. 1986. Les Basques, Paris.
AMMERMAN, A.J. CAVALLISFORZA, L.L. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and
the Genetics of Populations in Europe, Princeton.
ANTONY, D.W. 1991. The Archaeology of IndoEuropean Origins, JIES 19.
BEEKES, R.S.P. 1995. Comparative IndoEuropean 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 ProtoIndoEuropeans: the Ethnic Context of the
Early TransCaucasian Culture in Anatolia and the Near East. Studies in Honor of
Tahsin Özgüç. Edited by K.Emre, B.Hrouda,M.Mellink, N.Özgüç. Ankara.
CAVALLISFORZA, L.L. 1988. The Basque Population and Ancient Migrations in
Europe. Munibe (Antropologia y Arqueologia), Suplemento No. 6. San Sebastian.
CROSSLAND, R.A. 1957. IndoEuropean 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).
D'IAKONOV, I.M. 1967. Yazyki drevnej Perednej Azii. Moscow, 1967 (in Russian).
D'IAKONOV, I.M. 1985. On the Original Home of the Speakers of IndoEuropean.
JIES 13.
D'IAKONOV (DIAKONOFF), I.M. 1990. Language Contacts in the Caucasus and
the Near East, in When Worlds Collide: the IndoEuropeans and the PreIndoEuro
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 Palmieri Dedicata. Edited by M.
Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, M. Mellink. Roma.
DREWS, R. 1988. The Coming of the Greeks. IndoEuropean Conquests in the
Aegean and the Near East. Princeton.
DUNAEVSKAYA, I.M. 1960. O strukturnom skhodstve khattskogo yazyka s
yazykami severozapadnogo Kavkaza, in: Issledonaniya po istorii kul'tury narodov
Vostoka. MoscowLeningrad, (in Russian). [p. 120]
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. ProtoIndoEuropean Syntax: the Order of Meaningful
Elements. JIES Monograph 1.
FURNÉE, E.J. 1972. Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des
Vorgriechischen. The Hague, Paris.
FURNÉE, E.J. 1982. Beiträge zur georgischen Etymologic I: georgisch
vorgriechische, georgischvorromanische und georgischvorindogermanische
Materialen. Leuven.
GAMKRELIDZE, TH.V. 1967a. Kartvelian and IndoEuropean: 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, TH. V. 1967b. Anatoliiskie yazyki. Orioni. Tbilisi (in Russian).
GAMKRELIDZE, TH. 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, TH.V. 1990. On the Problem of an Asiatic Original Homeland of
the ProtoIndoEuropeans. Ex Oriente Lux, in When Worlds Collide: the Indo
Europeans and the PreIndoEuropeans. 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'noistoricheskoij
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 ProtoIndo
European Based on Linguistic and HistoricoCultural Data. JIES 13.
GAMKRELIDZE, T.V. IVANOV, V.V. 1985b. The Migration of Tribes Speaking the
IndoEuropean 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 IndoEuropean Languages. JIES 13.
GIMBUTAS, M. 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 IndoEuropeans, in: The IndoEuropeans in the Fourth
and Third Millennia. Ed. by E.C.Polome. Ann Arbor.
GIMBUTAS, M.1985. Primary and Secondary Homeland of the IndoEuropeans.
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 Auflage). 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 AntiImperial Resistance as Viewed from
Alishar Höyük. BASOR 299/300, 1995.
GRAGG, G.B. 1995. LessUnderstood 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. [p. 121]
GREPPIN, J.A.G. 1975. Hitt.z(a), Arm.z, und the Theory of ArmenoHittite 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 IndoEuropean Languages. JIES 20.
KAMMENHUBER, A. 1969. Das Hattische, in: Handbuch der Orientalistik II,2.
Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden, Köln.
KAVTARADZE, G. 1978. Centraluri anatoliisa da chrdilodasavlet kavkasiis
urtiertobis sakitxisatvis adrebrindzhaos xanashi. Archaeology, Classical Philology,
Byzantine Studies. Proceedings of Tbilisi University 183. Tbilisi (in Georgian).
KAVTARADZE, G. 1979. «Samepo akldamebis» sociologiuri interpretaciisatvis, in:
Masalebi sakartvelosa da kavkasiis arkeologiisatvis. Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
KAVTARADZE, G.L. 1983. K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzy Gruzii. Tbilisi,
(in Russian).
KAVTARADZE, G. 1985. Centralur anatoliashi xeturi tomebis gamochenis
sakitxisatvis, in: Sakartvelos arkeologiis sakitxebi 3. Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
KAVTARADZE, G. 1985a. Anatoliashi kartvelur tomta gansaxlebis sakitxisatvis.
Tbilisi, (in Georgian).
KAVTARADZE, G.L. 1996. Probleme der historischen Geographie Anatoliens und
Transkaukasiens im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., in: Orbis Terrarum 2, Rivista di Storia
Geografica del Mondo Antico. Stuttgart.
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.
MALLORY, J.P. 1989. In Search of the IndoEuropeans. 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 IndoEuropeanization of Old European Concepts. JIES 17.
MELCHERT, H.C. 1995. IndoEuropean 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. ProtoIndoEuropean: the Archaeology of a
Linguistic Problem. Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas. Edited by S.N.Scomal, C.
Palomé. Washington. [p. 122]
MOURANT, A.E. 1954. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups. Oxford.
MOURANT, A.E. KOPEC, A.C. DOMANIEWSKASOBCZAK, 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
AzovoKaspijskogo 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 19301932, Part III. Oriental
Institute Publications XXX. Chicago.
POTTS, T. 1994. Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeological and Historical Study
of Foreign Relations ca.34002000 B.C. Oxford.
PUHVEL, J. 1994. Anatolian: Autochton or Interloper? JIES 22.
PULLEYBLANK, E.C. 1993. The Typology of IndoEuropean. JIES 21.
RENFREW, C. 1973. Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon and Prehistoric Europe.
London.
RENFREW, C. 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 IndoEuropean: An
Alternative View. Antiquity 62.
SINGER, I. 1981. Hittites and Haitians in Anatolia at the Beginning of the Second
Millennium B.C. JIES 9.
SOCHACKI, Z. 1988. The Ezero Culture and the Invasions of the Steppe Peoples.
JIES 16.
SOKAL, R.R. 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 IndoEuropeans Reconsidered. JIES
18.
STOCKER, T. 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 IndoHittite 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 [p. 123] 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.
YAKAR, J. 1979. Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Chronology. Anatolian Studies
XXIX.
YAKAR, J. 1981. The IndoEuropeans and their Impact on Anatolian Cultural
Development. JIES 9.
ZIMMER, ST. 1990. The Investigation of ProtoIndoEuropean History: Methods,
Problems, Limitations, in: When Worlds Collide: the IndoEuropeans and the Pre
IndoEuropeans. Linguistica Extranea Studia 19. Edited by T.L. Markey, J.A.C.
Greppin. Ann Arbor.
ZVELEBIL, M. ZVELEBIL, K.V. 1988. Agricultural Transition and IndoEuropean
Dispersals. Antiquity 62.
Back:
http://kavtaradze.wetpaint.com/
See, also,
publications2.htm
&
http://www.geocities.com/komblege/kavta.html