|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Nov 22, 2005 16:31:00 GMT -5
Hittites were either an IE or a pre-IE people. 1) Geographical repartition over Ancient Anatolia of the major hittite cities (Map taken from Encarta's article on the hittites) :  2) If the first hittite communities were Neolithic/Agricultural settlements, It would be logical to think the above cities developed due to a steady population dispersal/slow migration from an Original Settlement (OS). In the following map, I tried to 'geometrically' determine the possible location of that OS, supposing that the population dispersal has been linear (simple/Gross assumption). I obtained a northern homeland which was possibly just an intermidiary site where the hittites settled on their way from a farther northern homeland (located North of the Capsian Sea!?) to mainland Anatolia.  |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Nov 22, 2005 23:22:29 GMT -5
Hittites were IE but people which inhabited the region before them, the Hattians, and whom they've absorbed were not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Nov 23, 2005 13:26:40 GMT -5
Hittites were IE but people which inhabited the region before them, the Hattians, and whom they've absorbed were not. Yes, I'm speaking of this people (-- called Hittites) which absorbed Hattians. There is no certainty whether Hittites were IEs or pre-proto-IEs, although their relation (at least linguistical) to proto-IEs is well established. |
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Nov 23, 2005 14:13:30 GMT -5
Couldnt these Red Lines on the second map correspond to old water lines (Rivers, Linear series of lakes, F.e) or to rich valleyes!?. The development of new settlements (Villages or towns) wasnt implied by the same considerations as we have today but rather by vital ones.
N.B. The blue lines on Map n°2 are modern rivers of Turkey, not exactely identical to the old ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Nov 23, 2005 15:29:08 GMT -5
Hittites were IE but people which inhabited the region before them, the Hattians, and whom they've absorbed were not. Yes, I'm speaking of this people (-- called Hittites) which absorbed Hattians. There is no certainty whether Hittites were IEs or pre-proto-IEs, although their relation (at least linguistical) to proto-IEs is well established. What's pre-proto-IE? Hittites were either IE or another proto-IE branch parallel to IE. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 23, 2005 16:13:25 GMT -5
The Chatti were no IE, they formed the bulk of the later population, but the Hittites were IE and brought IE language and culture to Anatolia.
One idea I read was, that they came like the later Mitanni probably as mercenaries from the North first, saw the chance and weakness and came with more power and people back or made a coup with relatively small numbers. In any case its quite clear that the non-IE population was very numerous, most likely much bigger than the IE at the beginning...
|
|
|
|
Post by olympian on Nov 23, 2005 18:34:14 GMT -5
and according to most anthropologists they were
mostly of alpine stock
|
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 23, 2005 18:53:28 GMT -5
and according to most anthropologists they were mostly of alpine stock Yep. That's what QVP or whatever the crap his name was, was trying to say all along. |
|
|
|
Post by olympian on Nov 23, 2005 20:10:57 GMT -5
well maybe he was right about this
i think Bernhard and Choymple(spelling?) considered them alpine since they were brachycranic but no hypsicranic nor planoccipital with a facial index around 51-52
|
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Nov 26, 2005 13:32:25 GMT -5
What did the Hittities look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 27, 2005 12:33:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 28, 2005 3:57:13 GMT -5
The Anatolian plateau cotninues the disturbed and mixing Neolithic population elements (A3, B1, D3, C5) with enough strength in the Eastern Alpine elements to anticipate the dominance of a short- and low-headed, somewhat hawk faced mode in the Hittite period. (Angel)
The "Eastern Alpine" is a pre-Armenoid type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 28, 2005 4:01:04 GMT -5
Also, there is no evidence that the Hittites were intrusive to Anatolia. It is possible that they relocated _within_ Anatolia at the beginning of the historical period, but there is zero evidence that they came from elsewhere. Linguistics shows that the earliest split in IE languages is between Anatolian languages and the rest, which is one argument strongly in favor of the Anatolian IE hypothesis. According to some, the proto-language should be called Pre-Proto-Indo-European or Indo-Hittite, to distinguish it from Indo-European proper which developed in the Balkans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 1, 2005 15:56:09 GMT -5
But there are proven non-Indoeuropean populations in ancient Anatolia and there are no real evidences for Hittites being autochthonous neither because the evidence is for both theories scarce. Whats clear is that they moved to their later centre, yes, from where is pure speculation indeed. They should analyse the remains of the earlist Hittite elite graves and search for markers...
Thats true, but they splitted earlier doesnt have to mean they lived in Anatolia. Furthermore most other linguistic remains we know are from a later time, we can simply assume that the core developed on - with the core being elsewhere. But that is for sure no proof for Hittites being autochthonous in Anatolia, it just proves they split earlier from the main group - possible influences from others, locals included.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 2, 2005 8:42:06 GMT -5
On the position of the Anatolian subgroup of languages on the IE tree of languages *: www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer96/Computers.html" ... Something like this happened recently to Tandy Warnow, Assistant Professor of Computer and Information Science. Working in computational biology, she and her colleagues used cutting-edge mathematics to produce a variety of computer algorithms that would draw evolutionary trees from biological data. The algorithms would run in a reasonable amount of time and return true evolutionary trees -- each under particular circumstances and according to certain criteria. . Warnow had beautiful research tools that would construct evolutionary trees in a variety of ways. She wondered if they might be applicable to other fields. What sort of tools would be needed in linguistics, for example? Languages are said to "speciate" much as biological species do, and their ramifying branches and development can be pictured as evolutionary trees. Warnow went to the head of the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science and asked if anyone at Penn working in historical linguistics might be interested in her work. The name that came up was that of Associate Professor Donald Ringe.  It took some time and discussion for Ringe to see just how Warnow's mathematical tools might be helpful to him. "It would be idle to suppose that you just crank linguistic data through a computer algorithm, and the Truth comes out," he says ruefully. "At first I hoped it might be that simple, but soon all sorts of questions arose." To get realistic results, Ringe, Warnow, and Ann Taylor -- a Penn Ph.D. in linguistics serving as a co-Principal Investigator on the project -- had to work out a whole new methodology based on linguistic data. It turned out that one of the algorithms was ideal for this kind of data -- an algorithm that had been much less feasible for use in biology. Ringe thinks the new tool is more than promising. He can use it to test linguists' hypotheses about the development of particular language families. One example involves a long-standing dispute among scholars of Indo-European languages about the position of a subgroup called Anatolian. Languages of the subgroup, which include Hittite, are all extinct but were once spoken in what is now Turkey. " Is Anatolian just a subgroup or did the parental language split into two languages, one the ancestor of the Anatolian group and the other leading to all the other Indo-European languages? Do we have that binary split at the top of the tree?" Ringe began by disbelieving in this second view. But the algorithm kept returning trees with exactly that branching at the top :  He is now at least tentatively convinced. "Since I began with a bias against what we got, I have to figure that what we got is probably correct." ..." ------------ * Link posted by Artemidoros in that excellent thread.
|
|
