The first suggestion of the Hittites' presence in central Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age is the occurrence in the Kültepe tablets of Indo-European personal names in the correspondence of the Assyrian merchants and local rulers of central Anatolia (the “Land of Hatti”), whose non-Indo-European language is known as Hattian (Khattian, Hattic, or Khattic). Although it is now known that these Indo-Europeans called their language Nesite (after the city of Nesa), it is still, confusingly, called Hittite.
As can be readily ascertained: The root cause of all these problems is the "linguist" (language specialist): With all their Indo-this and Indo-that. It is also readily apparent; the fact that the language was written in a so-called "Semitic" language (Akkadian), would have been a red flag for someone with pure motives. See Sumer-3 for Akkadian <<Click>>
The fact is; there is no such thing as an Indo-European people: save for the Indians of northern India, who are a mix of Dravidian and Arian. The fact that people speak a similar language is no indicator of genetic or ethnic affinity. Britain is a small country, yet because of it's prior Empire, millions of people around the world speak english, all the while, having no genetic or ethnic affinity with the British.
It is also apparent that these crude artifacts: mostly unidentifiable, could have been done by anyone at any time.
Besides Nesite, two other Indo-European dialects were found in Anatolia: Luwian (Luvian), spoken by immigrants into southwest Anatolia late in the Early Bronze Age and later written with the pictographs commonly called Hittite hieroglyphs; and the more obscure Palaic, spoken in the northern district known in classical times as Paphlagonia.
The first knowledge of the Hittites then, depends upon the appearance of typically Nesite names among the predominant Assyrian and Hattian names of the texts.
The problem of the origin of the Hittites has been the subject of some controversy and has not yet been conclusively resolved. On linguistic grounds, some scholars were at first disposed to bring them from lands west of the Black Sea, but it subsequently was shown that this theory conflicts with much archaeological evidence. One authority argues for their arrival in Anatolia from the northeast, basing his theory on the burning or desertion during the 20th century BC of a line of settlements representing the approaches to Cappadocia from that direction.
The evidence from the cities near the Kizil (Halys) River and Cappadocia, however, does not support this picture of an invading army, destroying settlements in its path and evicting their inhabitants. The impression is rather one of peaceful penetration, leading by degrees to a monopoly of political power. From their first appearance among the indigenous Anatolians, the Hittites seem to have mingled freely, while the more flexible Nesite language gradually replaced Hattian. It has even been argued that Anatolia was the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans and that they gradually spread east and west after about 7000 BC, carrying with them not only their language but also the invention of agriculture. There are, however, good grounds for rejecting this theory.
|Click for Realhistoryww Home Page|