QUADERNI DI ARCHEOLOGIA

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 p. 7

Luigi Bernabò Brea

Restauri del Teatro antico di Taormina 1949-1956 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 1-2-2001

_______________________
© 2001 - Rubbettino Editore - 88049 Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro) - Viale dei Pini, 10 - Tel. (0968) 662034

Nel momenta in cui mi accingo ad assumere la responsabilità della direzione dei Quaderni di Archeologia èdoveroso che mi rivolga a chi ha seguito e segue con interesse questa rivista. Pondata e diretta con particolare impegno da Ernesto De Miro, essa ha iniziato la sua pubblicazione nel 1985, con il titolo Quaderni dell'Istituto di Archeologia della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia della Università di Messina, con fascicoli annuali giunti fino al numero 9. In tutti questi anni è stata sostenuta dalla Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Messina e dall'Assessorato Regionale Siciliano ai BB.CC.AA.

Oggi la rivista riprende la sua pubblicazione con un titolo lievemente modificato, rispetto al precedente. Il nuovo titolo, oltre che per ragioni editoriali, si deve al fatto che, coerentemente alle innovazioni universitarie, I'lstituto di Archeologia si è sciolto ed è confluito nel Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità.

Pur con queste parziali modifiche, la linea programmatica della "nuova" rivista sarà di continuità con la tradizione della precedente. Riferirsi alla tradizione della precedente significa riferirsi al direttore uscente e fondatore della stessa, Ernesto De Miro, al quale voglio qui esprimere un caloroso ringraziamento che non è solo di natura personale, ma anche e specificatamente di natura professionale. Sia chiaro, I'attività e la figura di Ernesto De Miro sono ben note, e non richiedono certo ulteriori riconoscimenti da parte mia. Nel momenta in cui ne raccolgo questa impegnativa eredità, tuttavia, mi sembra utile ricordare qui brevemente ciò che ha significato per tutta la comunità scientifica la rivista che mi avvio a dirigere.

Ricordo che la rivista è nata come riflesso dell'intensa attività, sia nella direzione degli approfondimenti teorici che in quella della ricerca empirica, nella quale é stato impegnato I'lstituto di Archeologia. Di questa attività i Quaderni hanno costituito una testimonianza, attraverso una costante documentazione dell'intensità, dell'ampiezza e della varietà degli interessi e dell'impegno scientifico. Al centro dei temi trattati nella rivista sono stati gli aspetti storico-archeologici, artistici, economico-sociali della Sicilia

e della Magna Grecia. Su questo tema si sono distinti i contributi di numerosi studiosi italiani e stranieri che hanno arricchito il patrimonio di conoscenze di questa area del Mediterraneo così ricca per la conoscenza e la ricostruzione del mondo antico. La varietà dei settori affrontati - storia, archeologia, storia dell'arte, storia delle religioni, numismatica, epigrafia - ne ha fatto un costante punto di riferimento per tutta la comunità scientifica.

La rivista ha costituito, poi, punto di riferimento di tanti giovani laureati che, parte attiva delle attività di ricerca dell'Istituto, hanno contribuito con i loro studi alia crescita e alia visibilità dei Quaderni.

Oggi, questa "nuova" veste della rivista non intende assolutamente allontanarsi dalla linea e dagli obiettivi della precedente. In questa direzione, il mio auspicio è quello di poter continuare a mantenere alto il livello raggiunto e il suo prestigioso significato culturale, confidando nell'appoggio di quanti possono e vogliono facilitate questo obiettivo.

Ed è proprio nell' incamminarsi in questa direzione che abbiamo scelto di inaugurare questi nuovi Quaderni di Archeologia dedicando il primo numero ad uno studioso che ha profondamente segnato, nel corso della seconda metà del secolo XX, il percorso degli studi di archeologia: Luigi Bernabò Brea. A Lui, maestro di umanità e di scienze, si deve il merito di aver portato alla ribalta internazionale il ruolo della Sicilia e dell'ltalia nel Mediterraneo antico. A Luigi Bernabò Brea siamo profondamente grati per avere già a suo tempo scelto la nostra rivista come sede per pubblicare i due articoli che presentiamo.

Un ringraziamento, infine, va all'Universitá di Messina, al cui generoso contribute si deve la stampa del primo numero della "nuova" rivista, e che ne ha assicurato il costante sostegno per il mantenimento dell'annualità della pubblicazione.

Anna Calderone

Messina, luglio 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p. 107

 

GlORGI LEON KAVTARADZE

 

SOME PROBLEMS OF THE INTERRELATION OF CAUCASIAN

AND ANATOLIAN BRONZE AGE CULTURES

 

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.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 chiefdoms2. 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» relationship3.

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 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, too4.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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, 94-103. 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 non-Indo-Europeran character5 (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 Sicel6. 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 period7.

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»8. 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 fertility9. Therefore we more are inclined to connect the demic diffusion responsible for the introduction of agriculture in Europe from Asia Minor10 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 East11. Its frequencies are unimportant in all other parts of the world12. 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 - non-Indo-European and Indo-European - social structures and symbolic systems (GIMBUTAS 1988, 455).

5 GIMBUTAS 1982, 1-60; GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985c, 181. Except the evidences, postdating the Neolithic for a non-Indo-European 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 Indo-Europeanization of Greece (MALLORY 1989, 66-69, 161, 180). As it was underlined, the corpus of inferable non-Indo-European 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 borrowing-pattern would be the view-point that the the Greek language was spread by a quite small, probably politically dominant minority of settlers to a far larger and previously long-established majority population (EHRET 1988, 573). Crete was a country of ninety languages still at Homer's times (Od. 19, 172-177), and the writers of Classical times mentioned many parts of Greece still inhabited by Pclasgians (II., II,840-843, 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. RENDREW 1987passim. 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 Indo-Europeans from the local European substrata; domesticated animals and birds in Indo-European languages of Europe often have two sets of names, non-Indo-European and Indo-European (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 Indo-Europeans, the earliest Neolithic cultures with impressed pottery, closely akin to each other, were distributed by the sea presumably from the South Anatolian-North Syrian region (BERNABÒ BREA 1957, 39-41).

9 We ought to support the stand-point 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 Indo-European family (SHERRATT/SHERRATT 1988, 586).

10 SOKAL/ODEN/WILSON 1991, 143-145.

11 AMMERMAN/CAVALLI-SFORZA 1984, 87, 92, 156n.4; CAVALLI-SFORZA 1991,73.

12 AMMERMAN/CAVALLI-SFORZA 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 25-30% (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 Indo-European 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 group14. 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 Mediterrannean15. As such data as the Rh factor or ABO system suggest that historical events might have played an important role in their geographic distribution16, 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 belong17. 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 languages18, 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 archaeology19. There is a temptation to connect the O gene with the pre-Indo-European population of Europe (including the Caucasus)20, A gene with the dispersal of Indo-Europeans and the B gene with the migrations of the Uralo-Altaic peoples to the west21.

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 language22. 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 frequency23. From the widespread view-point, the area between the Dnieper and the Ural and the northern shores of the Black and Caspian Seas,

___________________________________________________

14 MOURANT 1954, 10, 44-53,57f.; MOURANT/KOPEC/DOMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK 1976, 63-65, 70-74, 144, 176, Table 1.1. As a whole, a highest frequency of the O gene, 69% (in Western Georgia - 72-78%, with the frequency of phenotypes - 54-62%), and a lowest frequency of the B gene, 8% (in some parts of Western Georgia - 2-4%), 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, 715-718, Tables 1 and 17).

15 Cf., AMMERMAN/SCAVALLI-SFORZA 1984, 86f. and INASARIDZE et al.1990,722.

16 AMMERMAN/CAVALLI-SFORZA 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; CAVALLI-SFORZA 1988, 129, 132f.

19 MOURANT/KOPEC/DOMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK 1976, 91. In the opinion of Cavalli-Sforza, «it is perhaps surprising that so much of the expected correlation between languages and genes remains, despite the blurringcaused by gene or language replacement (CAVALLI-SFORZA 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/ DOMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK 1976,63-65, 74). 

21 The fact must be taken into account that Transcaucasia repeats the picture characteristic of Europe: In the western part, of the «pre-Indo-European» Georgians, the O gene is most characteristic; in the south, of the Indo-European Armenians - the A gene (MOURANT/KOPEC/ DOMANLEWSKA-SOBCZAK 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 Indo-European, 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/DOMANIEWSKA-SOBCZAK 1976, 69.

 

 

 

 

p. 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 one24. The immigrated war-like stock-breeders 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 data26.

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 etc27.

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 Aegean28.

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, culture29.

As there isno 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 times30.

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

 

______________________________________________________

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 Indo-European migrations from the North Pontic steppe. In Antony's opinion, the Proto-Indo-European 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 Proto-Indo-Europeans were situated, broadly speaking, in a territory extending from Central or Northern Europe in the west across the Pontic-Caspian steppe and possibly into Southern Siberia. As to him, in the 4th millennium B.C. the Pontic-Caspian steppe had all the attributes of a putative, reconstructed from linguistic evidence, Indo-European society which seems to have originated in the eastern steppe, perhaps in the Volga-Ural region. At the same time, Mallory excludes Western Europe, Mediterranean Europe, the Balkans or the Near East as possible homeland areas for Indo-European (MALLORY 1989, 147, 177, 183). Antony dates the Indo-European 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 Indo-European languages and 2500 B.C., or somewhat earlier, as a terminal date for the Proto-Indo-European (MALLORY 1989, 127, 145, 158).

25 Crossland emphasized that migrants might not always have had revolutionary new techniques of warfare, e.g. the war-chariot, 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, 236-239; HAARMANN 1989, 252f. Gimbutas emphasized that «O1d European traditions continued only in non-Indo-Europeanized 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 pre-Greek language, which spread in Crete at the times of Linear A, reveals certain common features with the Kartvelian languages31. 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, too32. If we also bear in mind the existing linguistic parallels between Kartvelian - Basque (see above) and Kartvelian - Etruscan33 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 range34. 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 horizons35, 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 versa16. 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 continuity57.

The notion about the ties of the Transcaucasian population with the Mediterranean world was already maintained by Classical authors38. 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»39, 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 Caucasus40.

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 world41.

____________________________________________________

31 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).

32 GORDESIANI 1978, 225-228.

33 GORDESIANI 1985passim.

34 EVANS 1973, 19; cf. YAKAR 1981, 96.

35HOWELL 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, 189-191).

37 SHERRATT 1973, 100.

38 KAVTARADZE 1985a, 16-40, 146-153; KAVTARADZE 1996, 205-208.

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 Celt-Iberian tribe of Spain is usually translated as «Celt-Kartvelians».

40 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).

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 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 Sprachbund42. Some scholars also assume that this similarity between Indo-European and Kartvelian languages must be traced back to their common origin. Diakonov is even inclined to admit the existence of the Pre-Proto-Indo-European-Kartvelian community in Central Asia Minor at Çatal Höyük times43. 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 systems44.

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 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-language45.

 As it was emphasized by Mallory, although some lexical evidence has been often cited, the primary case for Indo-European - Kartvelian relations is typological46, 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 existence47.

Actually the list of loan-words betwen Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European, as presented by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, is only directed from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Kartvelian and not vice versa49. 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-sided49.

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 substratum50.

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.

________________________________________________

42 GAMKRELIDZE 1967a, 707-717.

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 Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Kartvelian going back to a common Proto-Kartvelian-Indo-European 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 Indo-European 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 Indo-European languages the Kartvelian languages reveal lexical parallels concerning the basic fund of language, not with such languages as Hittite, Armenian, Greek or Indo-Iranian with which they had historical and also obviously prehistoric ties, but some ties can be detected, quite unexpectedly, with Balto-Slavo-Germanic languages (MELIKISHVILI, 1965, 206, 240). Generally, among the earliest Kartvelian - Indo-European lexical parallels the lack of the phonetical reflexes, typical of the satemic area of the Indo-European 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 Sino-Tibetan. In D'iakonov's opinion, it is not improbable that the North Caucasian languages had been spread from the north or north-east 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 class-formation process51.

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 found52. 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 time53.

The newcomers expanding the role of stock-breeding, their main trade54, 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 populations55. 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, too56. 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 tribes57.

_____________________________________________________

51 KAVTARADZE 1979, 83-92.

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 cattle-raising is noticable. In all other periods of the Early Bronze Age at the same site, the leading role of the sheep-breeding is quite obvious (v. OSTEN VAN 1937, 302).

55 At the same time, the evidence of kurgan-related burials is generally absent from one of the earliest Indo-European, or Luwian, territories of Southern and Western Anatolia (MALLORY 1989, 30).

56 In Diakonov's opinion, such a rite was spread among the Proto-Kartvelian 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 view-point, the introduction of this rite in Transcaucasia must be attributed to the Indo-Europeans. In Dzhaparidze's view, this fact found its reflection in the existence of the Indo-European 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 exchange-networks of prestigious goods. As to him so long as the Kura-Araxes 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 Indo-Europeans... 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 north-central 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 tribes58. 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 languages59 - 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 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» time61.

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 technique62.

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 civilizations63, 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 Anatolia64. 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 Caucasus65. But such morphological characteristics can be influenced by the environmental or nutritive factors, as well as by artificial manipulation66. The results the biochemical studies which are not available are much more reliable67.

__________________________________

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, 73-77; D'IAKONOV 1967, 173.

60 V. KAMMENHUBER 1969, 329.

61 Cf. KAVTARADZE 1978passim. This activity of the northern stock-breeding tribes should not be considered as their first attempt to penetrate the Near East via the Caucasus (cf. LOON VAN, 1978, 7-11, 57-62; WINN 1981, 113-118; MALLORY 1989, 30; MUNCHAEV 1994, 169).

62 Cf. RENFREW 1973, 104f., figs.20f.; KAVTARADZE 1985, 34f.

63 E.g. KAVTARADZE 1983, 86-105. 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 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 languages68, 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 Northeastern69 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 tribes70. 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, 160-163; 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 Kura-Araxes 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, 157-209; 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 Proto-Indo-European, but rather genetically unrelated languages interacted long enough to form the loosely hinged Sprachbund which was reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European (TRUBETSKOY 1939, 81-89; 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 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.

 

 

p. 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 Minor71, 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 homeland72. A non-Indo-European substratum is well represented in «Hittite» (Indo-European-Anatolian) languages73. The Hattic as the most relevant of the local Anatolian languages is considered to be a true substratum in the Hittite imperial area74. 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 names75; 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, population76. The «economical» conclusion, as Crossland emphasizes, is that Hittite arrived in Central Anatolia later77. 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 Neša78. 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 non-Indo-European substrate (MALLORY 1989, 64f.).

73 So far as the Hittite language shows deep marks of the influence of a non-Indo-European substratum and Hittite religion and literature display only faint traits of Indo-European character, it was assumed that there was probably no more than a thin layer of Indo-European speakers, a superstratum above Anatolian population who largely managed to retain their own culture (ZIMMER 1990, 325). The number and pervasiveness of apparent early loan-words argues that Asia Minor, alike the pre-Greek Aegean and the pre-early Italic Apenines, had a substantial, settled, non-Indo-European population before the bearers of Anatolian and Armenian languages of the Indo-European 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 pre-Hittite deities as a means of legitimizing their authority and avoiding conflicting ideological claims; often they succeeded in downgrading the pre-Hittite 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 title-bearers, 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 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 earlier79. 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.C80.

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 interests81.

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 east82. 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 writing83.

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,alsoone 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 units84. 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-Europeans85. 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 north-east to south-west, 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, Proto-Anatolian 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 Proto-Anatolian speakers were an integral element of the Hattic society (DREWS 1988, 54f.). It is well-known that Hittite and Palaic borrowed a large number of ritual and social terms from the Hattic (KAMMENHUBER 1969, 431-436; GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1985b, 51). Mallory also emphasizes that the Indo-European Anatolians had already undergone a considerable assimilation to the culture of the non-Indo-European 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, 1-8.

83 Cf. KAVTARADZE 1985, 9.

84 GAMKRELIDZE 1970, 140; GAMKRELIDZE 1967b, 120; Cf. GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1972. Due to one of the view-points the spread of the Anatolian group was perhaps associated with massive expansion eastward which carried Indo-European 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 Finno-Ugric family who borrowed a convincing number of loan words from the Indo-European 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 Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European86.

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 descendents87. 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 earlier88 and that they must have been differentiated from each other already outside of Anatolia89.

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 commerce40. 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 tombs91.

One of the theories reads that the only real indication of the presence of the Indo-European-Anatolian population in Anatolia is their language42, 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» of the third phase of the Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age93. A possible eastern origin in Northwestern Iran and even in Central Asia for this pottery had been proposed44.

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 area95.

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 Dnieper-Donetz region (which she identifies as her Kurgan I and II cultures ca. 4500-3500 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 Indo-European 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 «Indo-Hittite» hypothesis (STURTEVANT 1962, 105f.; DREWS 1988, 50f.; JONES 1995, 41f.;) - on the other hand, Hittite is regarded as an unmistakably Indo-European 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 Indo-European 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 stock-breeders - characteristic of other «Indo-European» 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, so-called «Hittite Ware», typical of the predominantly «Indo-European» Kaneš II, was the first wheel-made pottery, different from the pre/supceding hand-made «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 potteryofKaneš/Neša (KAVTARADZE 1985, 4-6; cf. SCOTT 1956, 403-405).

94 SETON WILLIAMS 1953, 60, 64; cf. KAVTARADZE 1985passim.

95 V. KAVTARADZE 1985, 3-20. 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 today96.

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

 

ALLIÈRES, J. 1986. Les Basques, Paris.

AMMERMAN, A.J. - 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.

CAVALLI-SFORZA, L.L. 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).

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 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 andOver 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. Ostrukturnom skhodstve khattskogo yazyka s yazykami severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza, in: Issledonaniya po istorii kul'tury narodov Vostoka. Moscow-Leningrad, (in Russian).

___________________________________________________

96 GRAGG 1995, 2177.

 

 

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. 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.

GAMKRELIDZE, TH.V. 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, 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 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.

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 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.

GIORGADZEG.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.

 

 

p. 121

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.

KAVTARADZE, G. 1978. Centraluri anatoliisa da chrdilo-dasavlet 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 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.

 

 

p. 122

MOURANT, A.E. 1954. The Distribution of the Human Blood Groups. Oxford.

MOURANT, A.E. - 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.

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 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.

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 Indo-Europeans 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 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

 

 

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 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:

http://www.geocities.ws/komblege/index.html

or

http://www.geocities.ws/komblema/index.html

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1p