1

Higher Education Academy of Sciences

of Ukraine

GEORGIA AND CAUCASUS

BETWEEN THE BALKAN-PONTIC

AND THE NEAR EAST

In honor to

Thamaz V. Gamkrelidze

and

Rismag V. Gordeziani

Kyiv 2016

2

Georgia and Caucasus between the Balkan-Pontic and the Near East ,

by Iurii Mosenkis. Kyiv 2016

A preliminary version

Printed in Ukraine

Foreword

Author, Iurii Leonidovych Mosenkis, is PhD in general linguistics, DrSc in

the Ukrainian language and general linguistics, Professor of the Kyiv National

Taras Shevchenko University (Ukraine), member of the Presidium of the Higher

Education Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, member of the European Academy

of Sciences, Arts, and Literary (France), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and

Arts, and PEN club (Belgian francophone section)

The author proposes the Swadesh list evidence of ‘Common Caucasian’

lexicon, Tibeto-Burman origin of Sumerian and Afro-Asiatic relations of Hattic.

New facts in favor of G. Whittaker’s idea of Indo-European elite stratum in

Sumerian are also proposed, and Hittite-Luwian elements in Maikop (of possible

Gumelniţa > Serednii Stig/Novodanylivka > Pre-Maikop origin) might be the

source of the Indo-European elements in Sumerian.

Dmytro I. Pereverzev, PhD, member-correspondent of the Higher

Education academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the European Academy of

Sciences, Arts, and Literature

3

CONTENTS

Kartvelian Neolithic: Shulaveri-Shomu and Thessaly? ………………….. 4

‘Common Caucasian’ lexicon: long-time contacts vs affinity between

Kartvelian and North Caucasian ……………………………………….. 4

Kartvelian Neolithic in Greece? ……………………………………… 7

Kartvelian river names in Ukraine …………………………………… 7

Sumerians and Hittite-Luwians in Maikop ……………………………… 9

Sumerian-ruled Hittitized North Caucasian Maikop ………………… 9

Origin of Sumerian …………………………………………………... 9

Indo-Europeanized Sumerian elite …………………………………… 11

Origin of Maikop ……………………………………………………. 13

Uruk in Egypt ………………………………………………………. 16

Uruk traces in Balkans ……………………………………………… 18

Hittite-Luwians in Caucasus ……………………………………….. 19

Hurro-Urartians and Kura-Araxes culture …………………………….. 22

Hurro-Urartian languages: archaic Indo-European and Altaic-like

elements ………………………………………………………………… 22

Kura-Araxes: Daghestanian vs Hurro-Urartian ……………………. 25

Cult Hattic language of West European origin ………………………... 29

Pit Grave/Yamna language changed from North Caucasian to Indo-

Iranian ……………………………………………………………………… 34

4

KARTVELIAN NEOLITHIC:

SHULAVERI-SHOMU AND THESSALY?

‘Common Caucasian’ lexicon:

long-time contacts vs affinity

between Kartvelian and North Caucasian

Kartvelian and North Caucasian languages demonstrate many

parallels in the basic lexicon. It may be interpreted as an evidence of the

affinities between two language families which represent two

hypothetical macro-families, Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian.

Alternatively, the idea of N. Marr and A. Chikobava about the affinity of

the Kartvelian and North Caucasian languages may be revived. See the

Swadesh list evidence:

‘that’ Proto-Kartvelian *ma- : West Caucasian *m(a)-, East Caucasian *ma-1

‘not’ PK *ma : WC *ma, EC *ma2

‘two’ PK *t’q’u-p- ‘twin’ : WC *(t’)q’w(a)- ‘2’, EC *t’q’wa- ‘20’3

‘fish’ PK *čxam- : Proto-North Caucasian *χ_wanħV ‘fish’

‘bird’ PK *čxikw- ‘jaybird’ : PNC *čāmʁā ‘a kind of bird (jackdaw, magpie)’

‘dog’ Georg.-Zan. *xwad- ‘male’4, PK *xwir- ‘male, male dog’ > Swan xwir- : PNC

*χ_Hwe je ‘dog’

‘tree’ PK *biga ‘big stick’ : PNC *bħǝnq_V ‘stick’

‘seed’ PK *te-s ‘to sow’ : WC *ta-s ‘to seed’, EC *ta-s ‘to cast’5; Proto-Nakh *tas- ‘to

cast, to sow’, PAK *taj(ǝ)sa- ‘to sow’6

1 Климов Г. А. О гипотезе внутреннего родства кавказских языков, Вопросы языкознания, 1968, №

6, с. 20. 2 Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 20. 3 Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 24. 4 The reconstruction after: Климов Г.А. Этимологический словарь картвельских языков, М., 1964, с.

258. 5 Климов Г.А. О гипотезе…, с. 20. 6 http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-

bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Ckart%5Ckartet&first=1&off=&text_

proto=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rus

mean=on&text_meaning=sow&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_gru=&method_gru

=substring&ic_gru=on&text_grmean=&method_grmean=substring&ic_grmean=on&text_egrmean=&

method_egrmean=substring&ic_egrmean=on&text_meg=&method_meg=substring&ic_meg=on&text_

mgmean=&method_mgmean=substring&ic_mgmean=on&text_emgmean=&method_emgmean=substr

ing&ic_emgmean=on&text_sva=&method_sva=substring&ic_sva=on&text_svmean=&method_svmean

=substring&ic_svmean=on&text_esvmean=&method_esvmean=substring&ic_esvmean=on&text_laz=

5

‘skin’ PK *qam-l- ‘skin (of goat, sheep)’ : WC *txam- ‘skin’, Daghest. ham, t’om

‘skin’7; PNC *χʕāmV > PWC *t-q:amǝ ‘skin’

‘flesh’ PK *leγw- ‘meat (in Swan), fig’ : WC *ly ‘meat’, EC dik’ ‘meat’8; PNC *räƛ _ɨ

‘meat’

‘horn’ Svan. mič’v ‘horn’9, muč’v- ‘horn’10 : PNC *mučU ‘stick’

‘tail’ PK *kwad- ‘tail’ : PNC *kwV[c]V ‘tail’

‘feather’ PK *ɣlia- ‘armpit’ : PNC *q_ɨlʔi ‘elbow; arm, wing’

‘hair’ PK *cwer- ‘beard’ : PNC *cħwǝrǝ ‘hair’

‘eye’ PK *(s)twal- ‘eye’ : PNC *ʡwi lʡi ‘eye,’ PNC *ʔiŁ_V ‘to look’ > Proto-Nakh *t-

all-

‘mouth’ PNK *bĕk’wэ ‘a part of face, mouth’ (Nakh *bak’a etc.) (НС, с. 289) : Georg.

baga ‘lip’; PNK *pŭrV ‘a part of face under the nose’, ‘nose’ (НС, с. 876) : Georg. piri (<

Proto-Karthv.) ‘mouth’; PNC *be kwǝ ‘part of face, mouth’ > Chechen baga, Ingush

bage ‘mouth,’ Lezghian group ‘lip’

‘tooth’ PK *cal- ‘one thing’ : WC *ca ‘tooth’, EC *cer ‘tooth’11; PNC *cɨɫɦV ‘tooth’ >

Proto-Nakh *ca, Proto-Avaro-Andian *colu, PWC *c:A

‘hand’ PK *qel- ‘hand’ : PNC *kwīlʡɨ ‘hand’12; PNK *b[э]cV «лапа, часть руки или

ноги» (Avar-And. *bic:V, цезск. *bisV и др.) (НС, с. 291)13 – Georg. biča «отросток»14

– Basq. b-eso «рука»15

‘heart’ PK *gu-l- ‘heart’ : PNC *je rkwi ‘heart’ > Proto-Nakh *do-k, PWK *gʷǝ : Basq.

bi-hotz ‘heart’16

‘sun’ PK *d-eɣ- / *d-ɣe- ‘day’ : PNC *wirǝq_A ‘sun’ < PNC *hwēri ‘day’ and *Hwīq_

‘day, Sun’17;

‘moon’ PK *mze- ‘Sun’ : PNC *wǝmc_o ‘moon’18;

‘star’ PK *ʒegw- ‘thorny bush’, PK *cxw- ‘thorn, arrow’, Georg. džvari ‘cross’, Zan

cognates ‘stick, prick’19 (cf. ‘arrow’ and ‘star’ in Indo-European) : Basq. isar ‘star’20;

‘rain’ PK *zγwa > чан. zuγa-, Svan zuγwa ‘sea’ (K. Bouda proposes Proto-Karthv.

reconstruction *zuγwa)21 : PNC *ʒigV ‘hail; rain’

&method_laz=substring&ic_laz=on&text_lzmean=&method_lzmean=substring&ic_lzmean=on&text_e

lzmean=&method_elzmean=substring&ic_elzmean=on&text_notes=&method_notes=substring&ic_not

es=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on 7 Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 24. 8 Климов Г. А. Кавказские языки, М., 1965, с. 71. 9 Kakha Naveriani’s personal communication with O. V. Malovichko. 10 Климов Г. А. Основы лингвистической компаративистики, М., 1990, с. 106. 11 Климов Г. А. Кавказские…, с. 71. 12 Cf.: Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 24. 13 Possible class prefix b-. 14 Old class prefix? 15 Class prefix. 16 Cf.: Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 24. 17 Cf.: Климов Г. А. Кавказские… , с. 71. 18 Cf.: Климов Г. А. Кавказские…, с. 71. 19 Климов Г. А. Этимологический…, с. 269. 20 North Caucasian-Basque after: Чирикба В.А. Баскский… с. 102.

6

‘earth’ Georg. mic’a ‘earth’ : PNC *melʒ_V ‘place, ground’ or rather PNC *mičwV

‘meadow, hill slope’

‘fire’ PK *cx1- : PNC *cajɨ ‘fire’ : Basque su ‘fire’22;

‘yellow’ Kartv. *q’w- ‘yellow’ : WC *γw(a)- ‘dry, yellow’, EC *q’ur- ‘dry’23; PNC

*=e q_wA ‘yellow’

‘night’ Georg. γame ‘night’ : Proto-Lezgi *xIam > Tsakh. xIam ‘night’, Tabas. xIab-

‘evening’, Abkhaz -xa ‘night’ : Basque gau, gaba ‘night’24;

‘hot’ PK *px- ‘warm’ : WC *pxa ‘warm’, EC *px ‘warm’25

So Kartvelian and North Caucasian languages demonstrate many

parallels in the basic lexicon. It may be interpreted as an evidence of the

affinities between two language families which represent two

hypothetical macro-families, Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian.

If the Karyvelian member of the Nostratic macro-family has a

minimal number of lexical parallels with other Nostratic languages and

has prefixes while other Nostratic languages, including Proto-Indo-

European, has no prefixes, and several prefixes and other grammar

features of Kartvelian are similar to the Afro-Asiatic ones, Kartvelian

may be very archaic intermediate link between Nostratic, Sino-

Caucasian, and Afro-Asiatic.

Kartvelian Neolithic in Greece?

The initial Neolithic of Greece might be related to the Kartvelian

languages

Possible Kartvelian influence on Greek was investigated by

N. Ia. Marr, R. V. Gordeziani, E. Furnee.

21 Kartvelian after: Климов Г. А. Этимологический… – С. 89. 22 North Caucasian-Basque parallels after: Чирикба В.А. Баскский и северокавказские языки,

Древняя Анатолия, М., 1985, с. 102. 23 Климов Г. А. О гипотезе…, с. 24. 24 North Caucasian-Basque after: Чирикба В.А. Баскский…, с. 103. 25 Климов Г. А. Кавказские…, с. 71.

7

Round houses of the earliest Greek Neolithic, Mesopotamian Halaf,

Caucasian Shulaveri-Shomu and Kura-Araxes, and Levantine Beer-Sheba

might be related to Kartvelian *bud-, ‘nest’ in contrast to Proto-Indo-

European and Proto-Afro-Asiatic *bud-/t-, ‘house.’ The first European

Neolithic appeared in Thessaly. Greek Thessalia was compared with

Georgian thesli, ‘seed’, i. e. diaspora (Georgian-Zan *thes-, ‘to sew’) by

N. Ia. Marr while the legends about the sewing of humans were known

in Sparta and Colchis. Many other Greek words have Kartvelian

parallels:

Greek dun- ‘force’ : Georgian-Zan *t’win- ‘brain’

Greek peir- ‘end’ : Proto-Kartvelian p’ir- ‘end’

Greek thuella ‘storm wind’ : Proto-Georgian-Zan *thowl- ‘snow’

Greek dine : Georgian m-din-are ‘river’, cf. Maiandros River

Greek thewa : Proto-Kartvelian thvali ‘eye’

Greek schema ‘face’ : Georgian saxe ‘face’, sxe-ul-i ‘body’

Greek diskos : Megrel, Laz dishka ‘wood’

Greek kupar-iss-os and Hebrew gofer ‘cypress’ of unknown origin : Georgian c’ipela,

Megrel c’ipuri, Laz c’ip(u)ri, Swan c’ipra

Greek stakhus : Swan shdik, ‘ear of corn’

So the initial Neolithic of Greece might be related to the Kartvelian

languages

Kartvelian river names in Ukraine

Ukr. Skaronynka (Скаронинка, right tributary of Southern Bug, of

unclear origin) : Georg. c’q’aro ‘well’;

Ukr. Ingul / Ingul’ (Інгул/Інгуль, a river in the Kirovograd and

Mykolayiv oblast’, the tributary of Southern Bug : Georg. Inguri /

Enguri, a river in Western Georgia;

Ukr. Khorol (Хорол) or Korol, frequency form Khorol-richka, ‘Khorol-

river’ (Хорол-річка, a river in the Sumy and Poltava oblast’, the right

tributary of Psel : Georg. Q’orolis-cq’ali (literally ‘Q’orol-water, Q’orol-

river’), a river in Western Georgia, cf. also Q’orul-dash, Korul-dash, a river

in Georgian Swaneti, Q’orolis-tavi, ‘Q’orol peak’, a mountain in Western

Georgia;

8

Ukr. Vorskla (Ворскла) without etymology, with the tributary of

Poluzirya (Полузір’я), ‘half-star’ (then main river may be ‘whole star’) :

Georg. varskulavi > varskvlavi > varsklavi ‘star’, cf. vercxli ‘silver’;

Ukr. Rostavytsia (Роставиця, a river in the Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, and

Kyiv oblast’) : Georg. rustavi < ru-s tavi, ‘beginning of stream’, literally

‘head of stream’), Rustavi, a river in Racha, Georgia.

9

SUMERIANS AND HITTITE-LUWIAN

IN MAIKOP

Sumerian-ruled Hittitized North Caucasian Maikop

If pre-Maikop was North Caucasian (see below) which might be

partially Indo-Europeanized/Hittitized, Maikop was strongly related to

Uruk or (via Berikldeebi-Leylatepe) even Ubaid and might be Sumerian

or rather Sumerian-ruled Hittitized North Caucasian.

G. J. Stein and R. Özbal underline that ‘the Ubaid expansion took place

largely through the peaceful spread of an ideology’ while ‘the Uruk

expansion was an actual colonial phenomenon’; Uruk is recently dated

to 4200-3000 BCE26

Origin of Sumerian

The Sumerian language was initially of Tibeto-Burman origin.

According to A. R. Bomhard, ‘Sumerian does not bear a special

relationship to Elamo-Dravidian. Moreover, it does not appear to be

a Nostratic daughter language in its own right either. Rather, the

evidence seems to indicate that Sumerian is related to the Nostratic

languages as a group, that is to say that it is a relative of Nostratic.’27

However, J. Braun, following C. J. Ball, V. Christian, and

K. Bouda, proposed the most detalized investigation of Sumerian as

Sino-Tibetan close to Tibetan and Burmese.28 The hypothesis was

confirmed by the Swadesh lists and the S. A. Stasrostin’s

reconstructions of Proto-Sino-Tibetan forms.

26 Stein, G. J., Özbal, R. A tale of two oikumenai: variation in the expansionary dynamics of ‘Ubaid and

Uruk Mesopotamia, Settlement and society, E. C. Stone (ed.), Cotsen Institute of archaeology (Los

Angeles; Chicago 2007), p. 329, 330, 339,

https://www.academia.edu/1515099/A_Tale_of_Two_Oikumenai_Variation_in_the_Expansionary_Dy

namics_of_Ubaid_and_Uruk_Mesopotamia 27 Bomhard, A. R. On the origin of Sumerian, Mother Tongue III (December 1997), p. 9,

https://independent.academia.edu/AllanBomhard 28 Braun, J. Sumerian and Tibeto-Burman, Agade (Warszawa, 2001); Braun, J. Sumerian and Tibeto-

Burman: Additional studies, Agade (Warszawa, 2004).

10

‘one’ Sum. aš : Burmese ac

‘small’ Sum. gi : Tibetan zi

‘woman’ Sum. mu : Tibetan mo

‘fish’ Sum. ku : Proto-Sino-Tibetan *CU

‘tree’ Sum. ŋish PST *ŋūt ‘stump, tree trunk’

‘leaf’ Sum. pa : PST *phak

‘skin’ Sum. su : PST *CVk > Kiranti SVk

‘bone’ Sum. gag, kak : PST *rāk > Chinese *krāk

‘egg’ Sum. nuz : PST *nu k

‘feather’ Sum. pa : PST *Pi w

‘mouth’ Sum. ka : PST *Qa

‘tooth’ Sum. zu : PST *CVj

‘claw’ Sum. umbin : PST *min

‘foot’ Sum. ŋiri : PST *k(h)rej > Burmese khrij

‘knee’ Sum. dug : PST *t(r)u H > Burmese duh

‘hand’ Sum. šu : PST *ƛu H / *ƛu k > Modern Chinese sho u, Middle Chinese

sǝ w ‘hand’, Tibetan sog ‘wing’

‘neck’ Sum. gu : PST *ŋoŋ

‘breast’ Sum. gaba : PST *[ʒh]aw

‘to hear’ Sum. ŋeštug : PST *nV(n) > Kiranti *ni(-s)

‘to die’ Sum. gam ‘death’ : PST *ghuam ‘to die’

‘to fly’ Sum. barV : PST *phjVr

‘to lie down’ Sum. nu : PST *ŋjuāl

‘to sit’ Sum. suš, tuš : PST *thVt

‘to give’ Sum. ba : PST *pi j

‘to say’ Sum. me : PST *mɨH

‘moon’ Sum. itud : PST *ʔʷa t ‘light, moon’ > Tibetan od ‘light’

‘star’ Sum. šun : PST *sēŋ

‘rain’ Sum. šeng : PST *[ʒā]ŋ

‘stone’ Sum. lag ‘clod, piece’, lagab ‘block, slab (of stone)’ : PST *ƛɨāk ‘stone’

‘sand’ Sum. sahar : PST *srāj

‘earth’ Sum. kin ‘earth’, kanam ‘land’ : PST *CVŋ

‘cloud’ Sum. imi : PST *mujH

‘fire’ Sum. nu ‘fire’, uru ‘watch fire’ : PST *nV t ‘burn, set fire’, *wa r ‘fire, burn’

‘burn’ Sum. bil : PST *pi

‘mountain’ Sum. kur : PST *ŋ(r)ōk

‘red’ Sum. sa, si, su ‘red’, sig ‘reddish yellow or gold’ : PST *cak ‘red (metal),

gold’

‘white’ Sum. bar : PST *Prǝw

‘black’ Sum. ŋig : PST *nǝk

11

‘hot’ Sum. šeŋ PST *cha

‘cold’ Sum. šeg : PST *chi k

‘full’ Sum. de, lum : PST *dh[ǝ]mH, *ƛ[ǝ]m

‘good’ Sum. dug : PST *tīkʷ > Tibetan sdug ‘pretty, nice’

‘round’ Sum. kar : PST *qʷār

‘dry’ Sum. had ‘dry’, šeŋ ‘to dry’ : PST *Kr[a]t, *sVŋ

‘name’ Sum. mu : PST *miǝŋ

‘man’ Sum. lu : PST *law ‘body’ > Tibetan lus, Lepcha lu ‘body’

Many parallels between Sumerian and Tibeto-Burman in the basic lexicon

(about a half of the 100-word Swadesh list) confirmed the idea of Sino-Tibetan

origin of Sumerian.

J. Braun’s investigation presented also common cultural lexicon of

Sumerian and Tibeto-Burman including the words for ‘sheep’, ‘goat’,

and ‘copper’ while B. Hrozný compared the Sumerian and Tibeto-

Burman names of bull29 and mentioned the Sumerian myth about the

coming from the land of Aralu.30 This lexicon might reflect the first

Mesolithic-Neolithic cultures of Zagros.

Alternatively, Tibeto-Burman Sumerians might arrive in Mesopotamia

from Burma via ocean (D. I. Pereverzev, pers. comm.).

Indo-Europeanized Sumerian elite

Indo-European stratum in Sumerian may be identified.

G. Whittaker suggests Proto-Indo-European parallels to Sumerian

words, e. g.:

Sum. hu ‘bird’ (with a possible correlate of IE laryngeal) : PIE *hau-i- (Luwian

huwa-),

Sum. sah ‘pig’ (with a possible correlate of IE laryngeal) : PIE *s(e)uh-,

Sum. ner, nir ‘lord, prince, hero’ : PIE *h2nēr ‘man, hero’ as a Graeco-Aryan word,

Sum. igi ‘eye’ : PIE *hoku- ‘eye’ etc, including grammar elements:

Sum. in ‘in, to; from’ : PIE *en,

Sum. ana ‘to, for, at, according to’ : PIE *ana ‘on, up, according to’.

29 Даниленко В. Н. Энеолит Украины, К., 1974, с. 116 30 Даниленко В. Н. Неолит Украины, К., 1969, с. 238.

12

The presence of possible correlates of laryngeals can give us a

possibility of dating of the Indo-European influence on Sumerian as

Proto-Indo-European or Hittite-Luwian. Hurro-Urartian, perhaps Kura-

Araxes, had also laryngeals. Basing on the parallels, G. Whittaker

proposes the reconstruction of the ‘Euphratic society’ of the Late Uruk

period.31

The list of parallels between Sumerian and Indo-European might be

extended.32

Many Sumerian words have common Indo-European parallels (anzud ‘a mythical

giant bird, vulture, eagle’ : PIE *ghans- ‘goose’, Latin anser; dim ‘to build’ : PIE *dem-;

dim ‘bond, tie, rope’ : PIE *dem- ‘to bind’; temen ‘special place’ : PIE *tem- ‘to cut’; ugun

‘lady, mistress; to beget, bear; natural, genetic’ : PIE *gen- ‘to give birth; woman’).

Several Sumerian words may be similar to Hittite-Luwian (eg ‘to water’, ‘to speak,

say’ : Hittite eku- ‘to drink’, kishib ‘hand’ : Hittite kessar ‘hand’; sup ‘to bless’ : Hittite

shuppi ‘pure’), including non-Indo-European Hittite elements (nitah ‘man’ : Hittite

antuhshash ‘man’), Indo-Iranian (apa, ap ‘lake, sea’, but cf. Hittite hap- and Egyptian

Hapi; gigir ‘wheel’ : Vedic çakra-; kam ‘to desire’ : Vedic kama ‘love’; gašan ‘lady’ :

Iranian xšain- ‘lady’), archaic Indo-Eupopean poetisms (ara, ar, ra ‘to shine’ : Vedic

ravi-, Armenian arev ‘the sun’).

Some Sumerian words correspond with Indo-European suffixal forms (alim ‘wild

ram, bison, aurochs’ : PIE *el-n- ‘deer’; hu-ri-in, urin ‘eagle’ : PIE *or-n- ‘eagle’ or :

Akkadian urinnu; shun ‘star, to shine brightly’ : PIE *su-n- ‘the sun’; tan ‘to become

clean, clear, light’ : PIE *de-n- ‘day’).

The word structure of Sumerian is more complete than the word structure of the

language of pre-Sumerian Ubaid writing (kush, kus ‘skin, leather’ : Hittite kursa-; guza,

Old Sumerian *kusa : Semitic *kursiy). Indo-European diphtongs are hard to write in

the Sumerian script (dih ‘to sting, point’ : PIE *deik- ‘to show, finger’; lah ‘shine’, luh

‘to be clean’ : PIE *leuk-). Indo-European consonant groups are the same case (ngig

‘night’, ngansis, ngasis ‘darkness’, ngissu, ngizzu ‘shadow’ : PIE *ne-kt- ‘night’; sheg4

‘frost’, sheg8/9 ‘snow, ice’, amagi ‘ice’ : PIE *sneigh- ‘snow’). The aspirate consonants are

not reflected in the script (dag ‘resting-place, dwelling’ : PIE *dhegh-om ‘earth, land’;

tumu ‘wind’ : PIE *dhum- ‘to blow’); labialized consonants reflected specifically

(duruna, durun, duru, dur ‘anus; dwelling’ : PIE *duer- ‘door’). Several words might be

shortened CVC > CV as many ones in Sumerian (lu ‘man, men, people’ : PIE *leudh-,

cf. Urartian lutu ‘women’; ma4 ‘to leave’ : PIE and Nostratic *man-) or be simple roots

(su4 ‘to grow, to multiply’ : PIE *su- ‘to give birth’)

31 Whittaker, G., The case for Euphratic, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences: Humanities

and social sciences: Linguistics and grammatology, vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, p. 164 32 Several words mentioned below have also Sino-Tibetan parallels.

13

Sumerian conserved pre-grammaticalized forms (da ‘arm’, ‘to hold’, ‘to be near’,

‘with, and’, comitative -da ‘with’, ablative -ta ‘from’ : PIE *da- ‘give’ and Nostratic da

‘and’; Nostratic case marker -da is independent word in Sumerian da, ta ‘from’, ‘to’;

sam ‘equivalent’ : PIE *sem ‘1’ and prefixe).

Sumerian pronoun morphems (possessive suffixes -ngu ‘my’, -me ‘our’, -zu ‘your’,

-ani ‘his, her’) are Indo-European rather than common Nostratic (while men ‘I,

myself’ is Nostratic) and resemble F. Bopp’s agglutinative theory.

Thus, G. Whittaker suggests Proto-Indo-European parallels to

Sumerian words including laryngeal-consisted lexical elements and elite

terms;33 the latter might be added;34 the important rite term may be also

taken into consideration.35 The presence of possible correlates of

laryngeals in the suggested Indo-European stratum of can give us a

possibility to date the Indo-European influence on Sumerian to Proto-

Indo-European or Hittite-Luwian times.36 The elite terms may explain

the mechanism of the influence. The Dereivka-Maikop (N. S. Kotova),

Funnel Beaker-Novosvobodnaya and Baden-Novosvobodnaya

(S. Hansen), and Trypillia-Novosvobodnaya contact zones in the frame

of the Zhyvotylivka-Vovchans’k group might be areas of the Indo-

Europeanization of Sumerian elite.

Origin of Maikop

Tibeto-Burman origin of Sumerian, confirmed by anthropology,37

might be related to East Asian origin of clay pottery and several

cultivated plants. Sumerian shared with Sino-Tibetan not only the names

33 Whittaker, G., The case for Euphratic, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences: Humanities

and social sciences: Linguistics and grammatology, vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, p. … : Sum. hu ‘bird’ (with a

possible correlate of IE laryngeal) : PIE *hau-i- (Luwian huwa-), Sum. sah ‘pig’ (with a possible correlate

of IE laryngeal) : PIE *s(e)uh-; Sum. ner ‘lord’. 34 Sum. gašan ‘lady’ < Indo-Iranian *ksay-in- ‘queen’. Phonetically, cf. Old Pers. xšai-in ‘bright’ > Middle

Pers., New Pers. xašēn ‘blue,’ ВДИ, 1965, № 1, с. 212. 35 Sum. sup ‘to bless’ : Hittite shuppi ‘pure’ of Indo-European origin. 36 Hurro-Urartian, perhaps Kura-Araxes, had also laryngeals. 37 In the A. Wierciński’s opinion, the area of Tibet (or generally Central Asia) may be considered as the

Sumerians’ place of origin, Wierciński, A. Antropologia starożytnej Mezopotamii, Mezopotamia, ed.

J. Braun, Warszawa, 1971, pp. 42–45. The ethnic type of the Sumerians, according to their statues and

reliefs, was Dravidian, Hall, H. R. The ancient history of the Near East, London, 1916, pp. 173-174.

14

of bull and copper but also the name of silver38 as possible evidence of

the Maikop time when silver was firstly spread, possibly from Maikop to

Mesopotamia. Cf. 1) the B. Lyonnet’s hypothesis of the Maikop influence

on Mesopotamia, 2) the south direction of the Indo-European influence

on Sumerian and 3) the hypothesis of the mountainous (Caucasian?)

origin of the Sumerians. Cf. also the East Eurasian influence on the

pricked-pearl ornament of Elshan39 (Maikop-related Pricked Pearls

Pottery was similar) and East Eurasian elements in the Mariupol culture.

The B. Lyonnet hypothesis of the Maikop influence on Mesopotamia,

supported by A. S. Kassian,40 explained the contradiction between

radiocarbon dates of the culture (the first half of the 4th m. BCE) and the

similarity between the Maikop and late Uruk art (late 4th m. BCE)41.

Sumerians created their colonies in the mineral-rich places42 and,

38 Sumerian ŋud ‘bull, ox’: Pre-Classic Old Chinese ŋuǝ, Kachin ŋa ‘bull, ox’; Sumerian ŋiri ‘copper

knife’: Tibetan gri ‘knife’, Burmese krijh ‘copper’; Sumerian kug ‘silver’: Pre-Classic Old Chinese ʔākʷ ,

Classic Old Chinese ʔāuk, Middle Chinese ʔok, Tibetan gag ‘silver’. 39 Вискалин А. В. Культурные процессы на Средней Волге в ранненеолитическую эпоху,

Неолитические культуры Восточной Европы, СПб., 2015, с. 26, 40 Some Mesopotamian pottery styles can be borrowed from Maikop. The bull nose rings (previously

interpreted as psalia) in the Mesopotamian iconography and in Alaca Höyük were influenced by

Novosvobodnaya, cf. the similar Maikop-Alaсa theriomorphic standards. Maikop-Leilatepe tumuli

and sceptres might be of northern origin, Kassian, A. S. Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian language, Ugarit-

Forschungen, 2010, Bd. 41, S. 422.

41 See about the art: Рысин М. Б. Проблемы хронологии и периодизации майкопских

памятников, Культуры степной Евразии и их взаимодействие с древними цивилизациями, СПб.,

2012, кн. 2, с. 111, http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/vagnejshije-izdanija/pdf/Kultury_v2_2012.pdf Cf.: ‘В 1990-ых годах с появлением калиброванных радиокарбонных дат Майкопа и Новосвободной,

удревнивших эти памятники на 700 и более лет, археологи [Кореневский 2004; Резепкин 2000]

забыли об аналогиях Майкопа с Уруком IVа и связали Майкоп с концом Убейда, что на 500 лет

раньше Позднего Урука, в котором, на наш взгляд, нет никаких прямых соответствий с

комплексом Большого Майкопского кургана [Николаева 2008]’, с. 15,

https://www.academia.edu/7022074/34._%D0%9D.%D0%90._%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%

D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0._%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-

%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B

F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%

B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0

%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5_%D0%B2_III_-

_II_%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%81._%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%BD.%D1%8D_%D0%B2_%D0%BA%D0%B

E%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%

B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0

%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D0%B8_%D0%91%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B6%D

0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0.%

D0%9C._2011 42 Авилова Л. И. Металл Ближнего Востока: Дисс., М., 2011.

15

according to the poem of Enmerkar and the ruler of Aratta, not only

lapis lazuli but also silver (inherited Tibeto-Burman word in Sumerian)

was imported in Sumer from Aratta; M. Yu. Videiko43 suggests the

possibility of Aratta origin of Sumerians.

The people of Σαννίγαι in ancient West Caucasus (where the Maikop

culture was located) might be related to the Sumerian self-name of saŋ

ŋiga, ‘black-headed’.44 The name may confirm the northern origin of the

Sumerians: perhaps, the Sumerians contrasted himself to a ‘white-

headed’ people, possibly Indo-European elite (it as also the name of

Tocharians). The opposition of ‘black-headed’ (Sumerians) and ‘white-

headed’ (Indo-Iranian elite? name of Tocharians?) might be related to

Caucasus rather than Mesopotamia. The area of the Maikop imports in

Ukraine reached the river of Ingulets and Ingul45 while these names as

well as the Enguri/Inguri River in western Georgia (near the former

Maikop territory) might be named in Sumerian: engur, imgura, ‘subsoil

water, abyssal sea of fresh water’.

Indo-European high stratum in Sumerian included nir, ner, nar,

‘prince, lord; victorious; of prince’46 (from about 2000 BCE!) and g/kašan,

‘lady, queen’ (from about 2000 BCE), ereš, ‘queen’ (from about 3000 BCE),

cf. Indo-Iranian nar-, ‘man’ and Ossetic nar-tae, Ossetic oexsin, ‘queen’,

Indo-Aryan raj-, ‘king’. Other satem forms in Sumerian are, e. g.: máš,

maš, ‘goat’ (from about 3000 BCE), ùz, ‘she-goat’ (from about 3000 BCE),

šeg, ‘deer’ (from about 2000 BCE). Indo-Iranian words in Sumerian might

be belonged to two periods, 1) Novosvobodnaya, about 3000 BCE, and 2)

Mitannian Aryan, about 2000 BCE.

43 Pers. comm. 44 The Ἡνίοχοι might be a Greek variant of the name because of s > h in Greek while Σάννοί / Τζάνοι of

Trabzon might be the Zans which inhabited the region from prehistoric to contemporary times. 45 ‘Целый майкопский сосуд найден также в погребении у сел. Соколовка на р. Ингул вместе с

нижнемихайловской керамикой (Шарафутдинова 1970)’, Шарафутдинова И. Н. Розкопки

курганів поблизу с. Соколовка на Інгулі, Археологічні дослідження на Україні в 1969 р. Вип. 4. Київ,

1970. С. 41–45. Details: Коробкова Г.Ф., Шапошникова О.Г. Поселение Михайловка - эталонный

памятник древнеямной культуры (экология, жилища, орудия труда, системы

жизнеобеспечения, производственная структура), СПб: Европейский Дом, 2005. — 316 с. 46 Whittaker, G. The case for Euphratic, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 2008, vol. 2,

No. 3, pp. 162-163, http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon%20Whitteker.pdf

16

Maikop was dated to the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr time by C14 (about 3900-

2900)47 and to late Uruk-Jemdet Nasr by art48 while distinct Ubaid

influence on pre-Kura-Araxes (Leila-tepe, Beri-Kldeebi etc.) in the late 5th

millennium BCE was identified.49

M. Yu. Videiko underlines the Uruk influence on Trypillia via

Anatolia, in contrast to the absent of distinctive evidence of the Ubaid

influence.50

Uruk in Egypt

Pre-Dynastic Egyptian parallels of Maikop were dated to the second

half of the 4th millennium BCE and also point to the Uruk expansion or

rather to the high stratum of Uruk expansion in predynastic Egypt while

the Hittite parallels of the Maikop art reflected mentioned

Novosvobodnaya-Alaca relations.

Two basic contact horizons, ca. 3400 and 3100 B.C., make it possible to

explain the nature and significance of Uruk influence on Egypt. In the first

47 The beginning of Maikop might be related to the climatic event about 3900 BCE, cf.: ‘Presumably,

the main purpose of Uruk migrants’ exodus from Mesopotamia was the search for resources of metal

– copper, gold, silver… I personally doubt that this could be the only reason for large masses of people

to abandon their established settlement locations and move away across large distances. Most

probably, they must have had another, more considerable motive, e.g. problem of overpopulation or

something else,’ Pitskhelauri, K. Uruk migrants in the Caucasus, Bulletin of the Georgian National

Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 6, No. 2, p. 155, http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-

161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf 48 After M. V. Andreeva, V. A. Trifonov, Yu.Yu. Piotrovskii; the Great Maikop kurgan was dated to the

end of the 4th – the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE, Рысин М. Б. Проблемы хронологии и

периодизации майкопских памятников, Культуры степной Евразии и их взаимодействие с

древними цивилизациями, СПб., 2012, кн. 2, с. 111 49 Cf.: ‘At the end of the 5th and in the 4th millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in

the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents,

as a result, caused their “explosive” development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop

culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus,’ Pitskhelauri, K.

Uruk migrants in the Caucasus, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 6, No. 2,

p. 153, http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf Cf.: Shanshashvili, N. et al.

Trade and trade roads between South Caucasus and Near East,

https://archaeologod.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/trade-and-trade-roads-between-south-caucasus-

and-near-east.pdf 50 Personal communication. The scholar earlier proposed a hypothesis of the beginning of

Mesopotamian influence on Trypillia (without parallels in Vinča) in late 5th millennium BCE, before

the appearance of Maikop, and then suggested the role of Anatolian Ubaid in the influence.

17

phase of contact, as noted above, only a few large settlement sites are visible in

Upper Egypt, although a number of wealthy cemeteries are known. […]

Thus, both partners in the earlier phase of contacts are much smaller and less

integrated, and this is reflected in the eclectic finds of Uruk materials in Egypt

and in the apparently total lack of reciprocal Egyptian influence on Uruk sites

or on intervening regions. […]

Uruk-related material in Egypt which may be dated to the middle Naqada II

horizon includes the introduction of cylinder seals, lapis lazuli, and stylistic

influences on locally produced knife handles (Crowfoot-Payne 1968; Boehmer

1974a, b; Midant-Reyes 1987; Smith 1992; Sievertsen 1992; Pittman 1996; Bavay

1997). Contacts should therefore be understood as very small-scale, probably

conducted by sea via northern Levantine sites such as Byblos and possibly

Ugarit (Prag 1986; cf. Contenson 1982). These were to be the vectors in the next

phase of contacts as well. […]

Other probable Syro-Mesopotamian elements in mid-to-late Naqada II art

include the "master of animals" motif, winged griffins, serpent-headed

panthers, and intertwined beasts (Kantor 1992:15, fig. 6; Smith 1992). […]

The second Uruk expansion came at a most propitious time for Egypt. With

increasing unification under Upper Egyptian elites, new administrative and

integrative techniques became necessary (Baines 1995b). Among these were

continued expansion of now canonical craft and art production in the visual

environment (Davis 1989), with the addition of inscriptions and architecture.

Egyptian settlements in the Southern Levant are clearly under official control,

as is demonstrated by the serekhs bearing the name of Narmer found in Israel

(Brink 1996, 1998). The appearance of a greater number of Uruk settlements in

Syria and Anatolia brought a larger repertoire of power iconography to the

attention of Egyptian elites anxious for symbols and integrative devices. The

vector of Egypto-Mesopotamian contact has been at issue, with suggestions

including seaborne trade via the Red Sea (Zarins 1989, Majer 1992), overland

contacts via the Southern Levant (Amiran 1970), and seaborne contacts along

the Levantine coast (Joffe 1993).

A number of stylistic and processual similarities between Egypt and Uruk

Mesopotamia may be noted in this later period. These show the deliberate

process by which Uruk features were applied in Egypt. The influence of

Mesopotamia on the origins of writing in Egypt remains a question best left to

specialists (Ray 1986, Fischer 1989, Bard 1992b, Postgate, Wang, and Wilkinson

1995, Trigger 1998). Similarities in Egyptian and Mesopotamian ceramics for

baking and brewing and the earliest written symbols representing the same

have been noted by several scholars (Millard 1988, Chazan and Lehner 1990).

Similar use of alcoholic beverages by elites as rations and rewards has also been

suggested (Joffe 1998).

As noted above, the use of cylinder seals with figurative motifs as

administrative devices is fully established during Dynasty One. In contrast to

18

the Southern Levantine practice of sealing ceramic vessels themselves, the

Mesopotamian practice of sealing clay stoppers and bullae is imitated (Joffe

n.d.). The decoration of stone palettes, a local Egyptian device which began in

Naqada I, reflects Uruk influences by Naqada II-III; the best-known examples

are the rosette on the Scorpion macehead (Smith 1992, Cialowicz 1997) and the

intertwined beasts on the obverse of the Narmer Palette (Davis 1989:159-63,

figs. 6.14-15). Egyptian imitations of Uruk-style bent-spout vessels appear in

ceramic, stone, and eventually copper, as do stone imitations of four-lugged

jars.

Perhaps the most significant manifestations of this second wave of contacts

are the various Egyptian adaptations of Uruk architectural features. […]

The above does not suggest that Mesopotamia originated or inspired Egypt.

Rather, it was able to provide a contribution to a local evolutionary trajectory

already under way.51

Cf. Egyptian mer ‘pyramid’ < Indian Meru ‘sacral mountain,’ four-

sided in the Matsya-purana; Egyptian ntr ‘god’ < Indo-European

*netr-, ‘ruler’

Uruk traces in Balkans

Balkan-Sumerian contacts: ‘seal,’ ‘clay tablet,’ and ‘gold’

Not only Dravidian Ubaid, see above, but also Sumerian Uruk might

influence the Balkans. E. g., Greek sphragis ‘seal’ of unknown origin and

perhaps tupos might be related to Sumerian kišib rah, ‘to seal’ and dub,

proto-Sumerian *tup, ‘clay tablet.’ The area of the Maikop imports in

Ukraine reached the river of Ingulets while the names of Ingulets and

Ingul were of possible Sumerian origin.

Indo-European *Hues-k- ‘gold’ < *Heus- ‘dawn’ (the name of gold have

IE etymology while gold was known in the Balkans earlier than in

Mesopotamia) gave Sumerian guškin ‘gold’ which reflected the Varna-

Maikop contacts; cf. Armenian oski ‘gold’ and Hurrian ušhu ‘silver’.52 Pre-

51 Joffe, A. H. Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New

Chronology (1), Current Anthropology Feb 2000 v41 i1 p 113-117,

http://alexanderjoffe.net/chronology.pdf 52 Cf.: ‘much native gold has a high percentage of silver which whitens the metal,’ EIEC, p. 234–235.

Cf. also Hurrian Kušuh, Hattic Kaška ‘the Moon’ (A. S. Kassian declared the Hattic word as a

misinterpretation), Sumerian kug ‘silver;’ the Hurrian names of the Moon and silver might be

explained as a result of the satenization of the Sumerian word. The Slavic-Baltic-Germanic name of

silver migt be related not only to Basque zilar / zilhar / zirar / zidar of possible Germanic origin or of

19

Maikop Meshoko imported metal from Balkans53 while the emergence of

Maikop correlated with the end of Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical

Province.54 Gold spread from Varna to Maikop, Maikop-related Se

Girdan tumuli of Iran, Kura-Araxes, Alaca Höyük, Royal Cemetery at Ur

etc.; some Mesopotamian pottery styles can be borrowed from Maikop.55

The Mesopotamian influence on Trypillia began about the end of the

5th millennium BCE, before the appearance of Maikop, and might be of

Anatolian Ubaid/Uruk origin (M. Yu. Videiko).

Hittite-Luwians in Caucasus

Novosvobodnaya spread into southeast,56 and the royal tombs of

Alaça Höyük similar to Novosvobodnaya57 might be aforementioned

high stratum. ‘King’s Grave’ in Arslantepe, ‘shortly after 3000 BC’:

‘combination of Mesopotamian wheelmade pottery with Transcaucasian

hand-formed pottery’.58

The bull nose rings (previously interpreted as psalia) in the

Mesopotamian iconography and in Alaca Höyük were influenced by

Novosvobodnaya, cf. the similar Maikop-Alaсa theriomorphic

standards.59 Maikop-Leilatepe tumuli and sceptres might be of northern

origin.60 If the remains of horses and chariots were found in the Alaca

Höyük tumuli then the Indo-Aryan or Hittite element might be present.61

The Luwian area was divided by the Hittite area, and the division

reflected moving of the Hittites, and earlier the Luwians, from Caucasus.

The privileged status of East Anatolia in the Hittite state traditionally

Bell-Beaker origin in Corded Ware but also to the Sumerian names of bright objects, zil and bar, as a

result of the contacts with Maikop which silver is well known; Semitic parzil- with non-Semitic

structure might be of the same origin; брцхінвале блискучий cf. IE *bhers- ‘copper, iron,’ Germanic

*bras- of unknown origin. In contrast, the satem-forms of the North Caucasian names of silver might

be related to Luwian *ars- ‘silver’, cf. Hittite *Hark- ‘id.’ 53 Kassian, p. 417 54 Kassian, p. 421 55 Kassian, p. 421. 56 Мунчаев 1994, с. 171–173; Kassian, p. 421 57 Маккуин Дж. Хетты и их современники в Малой Азии 58 Hansen, S., p. 310 59 Kassian, p. 422. 60 Kassian, p. 422. 61 Cf.: Даниленко В. Н. Неолит, с. 235; Даниленко В. Н. Энеолит Украины, К., 1974, с. 139.

20

interpreted as the evidence of the Hittite moving from the east to the

west. The Luwian language had satem (possibly Indo-Iranian) features

while Lycian also knew w > b like in Iranian. Clear Indo-Aryan elements

in Etruscan, of possible Anatolian origin, also may be the indirect

evidence of the Indo-Iranian influence on Anatolia, cf. Indo-Aryan

elements in Hurrian, Hittite, and Kassite. If the Indo-Iranian languages

were related to the Fatyanovo-Balanovo-Abashevo part of Corded Ware,

with participance of Yamna, Catacomb, Globular Amphora, and

Caucasus, then the source of the Indo-Iranian influence on Anatolia and

Mesopotamia was the northeast coast of the Black Sea.

V. A. Safronov identified the description of Hittite royal tombs with

the Novosvobodnaya graves.62 The old idea of Novosvobodnaya-Alaca

Höyük relations63 is criticized, but Maikop figurines are very similar to

the Alaca ones. The question of Globular Amphora-Novosvobodnaya

relations is discussed from the beginning of the 20th c. (A. A. Spitsyn,

G. Childe, V. A. Safronov and N. A. Nikolaeva) while globular amphoras

of Fatyanovo may reflect Indo-Iranian relations. Now the Funnel Beaker

ancestor of Globular Amphora is a culture for comparison with

Novosvobodnaya: the Funnel Beaker megalitism appeared coincindently

with Novosvobodnaya (about 3400/3300 BCE), and recent mt-genetic

studies are interpreted in accordance with the V. A. Safronov-

N. A. Nikolaeva-A. D. Rezepkin hypothesis of the Funnel Beaker source

for Novosvobodnaya.64 Novosvobodnaya spread to southeast65 The end

of Novosvobodnaya about 2900 BCE coincided with the beginning of

Alaca.66 If the remains of horses and chariots were found in the Alaca

Höyük tumuli then the Indo-Aryan or Hittite element might be present.67

62 Сафронов В. А. Индоевропейские прародины (Горький 1989), с. 240. 63 E. g.: Маккуин Дж. Хетты и их современники в Малой Азии; Сафронов, с. 222. 64 Nedoluzhko A. V. et al. Analysis of the mitochondrial genome of a Novosvobodnaya culture using

next-generation sequencing und its relation to the Funnel Beaker culture, Acta Naturae, 2014 Apr-Jun;

6(2): 31–35, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/ However, M. Yu. Videiko, pers.

comm., with reference to A. G. Nikitin underlined the possibility of the Near Eastern origin of the V

haplogroup in the Funnel Beaker and Novosvobodnaya. 65 Мунчаев 1994, с. 171–173; Kassian, p. 421 66 ‘Five recent 14C analyses from the royal tombs of Alacahöyük revealed a date between 2850–2450

B.C.E.,’ Yalçin, Ü., Yalçin, H. G. Reassessing anthropomorphic metal figurines of Alacahöyük,

Anatolia, Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 76, No. 1, March 2013, p. 38,

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.5615/neareastarch.76.1.0038?uid=3739232&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70

&uid=4&sid=21105398569281 67 Cf.: Даниленко В. Н. Неолит, с. 235; Даниленко В. Н. Энеолит Украины, К., 1974, с. 139.

21

The Novosvobodnaya elite might bring in Alaca the type of tomb and

(from previous Maikop) the style of figurines.

Klady near Novosvobodnaia about 3000 BCE was related to Bernburg

Tiefstichkeramik and Baden.68 Megaliths in Hesse are similar to that in

Klady69 (the Novosvobodnaia variant of Maikop). A Mesopotamian

statuette was found in Hesse and was dated to the Corded Ware time,

about 2700 BC70. Hesse was a territory of Chatti.

68 Hansen, S. communication and exchange between the Northern Caucasus and Central Europe, p.

303-304,

https://www.academia.edu/2452517/Communication_and_exchange_between_the_Northern_Caucasu

s_and_Central_Europe_in_the_fourth_millnium_BC 69 ‘In association with wagons, reference should be made to fork-like signs, usually in pairs, found in

stone cist graves of the Wartberg Culture. In Warburg in Westphalia and Züschen in northern Hesse

this sign denotes a team of bovines. However, such signs also appear in the Alps and the Ukraine; and

examples in the Ukraine definitely show a wagon. Furthermore, megalithic tombs themselves are part

of an innovative package and can be attested in the sphere of the Funnel-Beaker Culture and the

Wartberg group adjoining to the south as of 3500 BC. Huge earthworks are likewise a new

phenomenon during this innovation-horizon between 3500 and 3300 BC. From an architectural

viewpoint the megalithic structures of the Wartberg Culture in northern Hesse represent a variation,

which has parallels in the Paris basin. The structures are characterised by naturally flat stone slabs and

the presence of a so-called porthole at the front, which can measure between 30 and 80 cm in diameter.

These elements are found in Klady, in kurgans 28 and 31, as well’, Hansen, p. 306 70 Hansen, S. Vom Tigris an die Lahn. Eine Mesopotamische Statuette in Hessen, Archäologie in Hessen,

rahden, 2001,

https://www.academia.edu/2703701/Vom_Tigris_an_die_Lahn._Eine_mesopotamische_Statuette_in_

Hessen

22

HURRO-URARTIANS

AND KURA-ARAXES CULTURE

Hurro-Urartian languages:

archaic Indo-European and Altaic-like elements

Hurro-Urartian might be Nostratic which was positioned between

Indo-European (as a branch separated before Hittite-Luwian) and Altaic

while its East Caucasian relations might be explained by the ascribing of

Hurrian or rather proto-Hurro-Urartian to Kura-Araxes.

Hurrian as the most archaic Indo-European?

Hurr. tal- ‘big’71 : PG *ge-tala- > English tall; PIE *dolǝgh-/*delegh- ‘long’ > Hittite

daluki-

Hurr. eradi ‘bird’ : PIE *or- ‘big bird, eagle’

Hurr. timeri, timari ‘black’ : PG *dimbaz > English dim; PIE *temǝ- ‘dark’ > Old

Indian tāmrá- ‘of a coppery red colour’

Hurr. zurgi ‘blood’ : PIE *esH-er > Hitt. eshar, Old Indian ásr k ‘blood’

Hurr. daki ‘hearth’ : PIE *dheguh- ‘burn’ 131

U taršua-ni ‘man’ PIE *ters- ‘dry’ > Latin terra ‘earth’ > terrenus ‘terrestrial’ 95

Hurr. šiɣi ‘eye’ : Hitt. šakuwa- ‘eye’; PIE *sag- ‘seek out’ > English seek

Hurr. aše ‘fat’ : PIE *wes- ‘fat, moisture’

Hurr. tari ‘fire’ : PIE *derw-, *drēw- ‘tree; firewood’ > Hittite, Luwian taru- ‘wood’

Hurr. ukri ‘leg of the table’, Urartian kuri ‘foot’ : PIE *k'rūs- ‘a part of leg’

Hurr., Urart. ar- ‘give’ : PIE *rēy- ‘to give’ < Eurasiatic *erV ‘to be’72

71 The source of Hurrian: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-

bin/response.cgi?root=new100&morpho=0&basename=new100\hur\hur&limit=-1 ;

Fournet, A., Bomhard, A. R. The Indo-European… 72 http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-

bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=1&off=&text_prot

o=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_meaning=give&method_meaning=substring&ic_mea

ning=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tok

h=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=

on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on

&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=o

n&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=o

n&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&text_cel

t=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=

&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&te

xt_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&so

rt=proto&ic_any=on

23

Hurr. haš-, Urart. haš- ‘hear’ : PIE *kous- > PG *hauzjan > English hear; PIE *ous- >

PG *auzon > English ear

IE *kten- ‘to kill’ U atqana ‘sacrifice’ 32; IE *guhono-s ‘murdering’ U gunu-she ‘battle’

24

Hurr. taɣe ‘man’ : PIE *dheghom ‘earth; man’; IE *rsen- ‘man’ U arshe ‘young man’

35 IE *ner- ‘man’ U nara-ni, naru ‘people’ 34

Hurr. te- ‘many’ : Lithuanian di-di- ‘big’

Hurr. faši ‘mouth’ : PIE *bha- ‘to speak, tell, say’ IE *bha- ‘to speak’ U ba-ushe

‘word’ p. 14

Hurr. kudu-ni ‘neck’ : Latin cauda, coda ‘tail’; PG *gatan > English gate; Slavic *zadŭ

‘back’

Hurr. punɣi ‘nose’ : PIE *pnew- ‘to breathe’

Hurr. hill- ‘say’ : PIE *gal- ‘to call’ > PG *kall- > English kall; H pal- ‘speak’ IE

*(s)pel- ‘speak, say’ 130

Hurr. irde ‘tongue’ : PIE *were- ‘to speak’ > Sanskrit vrata- ‘command, vow,’

Avestan urvata- "command,’ Lithuanian vardas ‘name,’ English word

IE *leudh- ‘to grouth > people’ > Low German ‘woman’ U lutu-ni ‘woman’ 15; IE

*uedh- ‘to lead, to marriage’ > ‘woman’ U uedia-ni ‘woman’ 15

Hurr. šawali, Urart. šali ‘year’ : PIE *sau-el- ‘the Sun’ (an alternative etymology see

below).

Hittite-like laryngeals in Hurrian?

G. B. Djaukian interpreted laryngeals in Hurrian and Urartian:

Hurr. henni ‘now’ : IE *eno-,73

Urart. haiu- ‘to capture’ : IE *ai-,74

Urart. harari ‘peace’ < PIE erə- ‘to rest’,75

Urart. hur- орошать : IE *ur-,76

Urart. hutia- 'to pray' : IE ud-.77

Seweral laryngeal-contained Hurrian words are interpreted as Indo-European by

A. Bomhard:

Hurr. hawirni ‘lamb’ : PIE *How-78 cf. Georgian cxvari ‘sheep’,

Hurr. hawurni ‘sky’79 : PIE *Hav- ‘bird’ > ‘egg’, ‘sky’, cf. Greek av-er ‘air’, Greek

ornis < *Hav-or-n-; the Hurrian form is more archaic than Sumerian hurin.

So Hurro-Urartian like Hittite-Luwian contain laryngeals.

73 Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский и индоевропейские языки, Ереван, 1963, с. 129. 74 Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский..., с. 114. 75 Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский…, с. 45, 99. 76 Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский…, с. 106. 77 Джаукян Г. Б. Урартский…, с. 115. 78 Fournet, A., Bomhard, A. R. The Indo-European elements in Hurrian, La Garenne Colombes

(Charleston, 2010), p. 113-114. 79 Fournet, A., Bomhard, A. R. The Indo-European…, p. 114.

24

Hittite-like initial š- in Hurrian?

Hitt. š- in šuwaiš, šankuiš, šakuwa- : Lat. ovis ‘beard’, unguis ‘nail’, ocu-l-us ‘eye’80

may be compared with Hurr. š-aw-ali, Urart. šali ‘year’ : IE aiu- > Etr. avil ‘year’, Hurr.

šiɣi ‘eye’ : Sumerian igi ‘eye’.

Hurrian as an intermediate element between Indo-European and Altaic?

A. S. Kassian investigated several Altaic-like elements in Hittite-Luwian. The

similar elements might be found in Hurrian.

Hurr. paɣi ‘head’, faši ‘mouth’81 : Old Turkic baš, Chuvash pus ‘head’

Hurr. uri ‘foot’ : Chuvash ura ‘foot’

Hurr. cur-gi ‘blood’ : Proto-Altaic *i ūrgi ‘fat; brain’82

Hurr. pal- ‘know’ : Turkic bel- ‘know’

Hurr. šiwe, šeu ‘water’ : Chuvash šyv / šu ‘water’

Hurr. tal-mi ~ tal-a-mi ‘big’ : Proto-Altaic *tājV ‘big, good’

Hurr. time-ri ~ tima-ri ‘black’ : Proto-Turkic *kömür ‘coal’ or rather Proto-Altaic

*ǯima ‘dark’ > Proto-Korean *čjǝmɨ r- ‘to become dark’

Hurr., Urart. am- ‘burn’ : Proto-Altaic *umV ‘fire, to burn’

Urart. kiura- ~ kira- ‘earth (world); earth (soil); land’ : Proto-Turkic *Kajɨr, Middle

Turkic (Old Kypch.) qajɨr ‘steppe, sand’

Hurr. xiuri ‘smoke’ : Proto-Altaic *ki ájo ‘strong odour, smoke’ > Proto-Turkic

*KAjɨr ‘castoreum, the odorous secretion of the beaver’

Hurr. ul- ‘eat’ : Proto-Altaic (Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu) *ulV ‘meat’

Hurr. it- ‘go’ : Turkic a:t- ‘go’

Hurr. šiɣi ‘eye’ : Proto-Turkic *ši ak`ù ‘to see badly’

Hurr. atai ‘father’ : Turkic ata ‘father’

Hurr. dag- ‘good’ : Proto-Altaic *di oge ‘good, better’

Hurr. waɣri ‘good’ : Proto-Altaic *ǯa ra ‘good’

Hurr. šu-ni, Urart. šu- ‘hand’ : Proto-Altaic *zi ōnu (Tungus-Manchu, Korean) >

Korean *son ‘hand’

Hurr. keri ‘long’ : Proto-Altaic (Mongolian, Korean) *ki olo ‘long; far’ > Korean *kir-

‘long’

Hurr. taɣe ‘man’ : Proto-Altaic *zego ‘young man, brave man’ > Mongolian *saɣaka-

Hurr. Aja ‘the wife of the Sun god’83 : Turkic aj ‘moon’

Hurr. kudu-ni ‘neck’ : Proto-Altaic *kùǯi ‘neck’

Hurr. punɣi ‘nose’ : Proto-Altaic *p`une ‘nose’

Hurr. niga-le ‘thin’ : Proto-Altaic *niŋči ‘thin’

80 Сравнительно-историческое изучение языков разных семей, М., 1982, с. 35. 81 The source of Hurrian: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-

bin/response.cgi?root=new100&morpho=0&basename=new100\hur\hur&limit=-1 ;

Fournet, A., Bomhard, A. R. The Indo-European… 82 http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\alt\altet 83 Fournet, A., Bomhard, A. R. The Indo-European.., p. 81.

25

So about 20 parallels in the basic lexicon may be proposed. Hurrian might be an

intermediate language between Indo-Europear and Altaic.

Kura-Araxes: Daghestanian vs Hurro-Urartian

The Kura-Araxes bronze culture might influence the Unetice bronze

culture, an ancestor of the Celts.

[…] замечание О. М. Джапаридзе относительно долгого бытования

элементов куро-араксской культуры на Северном Кавказе, где они легко

выделяются и в позднее время204. Думаем, что именно сохранением

традиций куро-араксской культуры должно быть объяснено

сосуществование ранних куро-араксских и позднемайкопских элементов в

Луговом поселении […]

В деле датировки материалов, относимых к ранней ступени куро-

араксской культуры, по-видимому, должно иметь значение определенное

сходство некоторых центрально- и восточно-европейских культур (ранняя

унетицкая, Глина III и др.) с куро-араксской культурой210, и в частности, с

ее ранним этапом211. Совпадения между этими двумя, территориально

столь удаленными друг от друга культурными группами так велики, что

предполагают даже миграцию определенных масс населения с Кавказа в

Западные Карпаты212, через Малую Азию213. Указанные культуры Европы

по «традиционным» датировкам датируются от середины первой

половины II тысячелетия до и. э.214, а по калиброванным радиоуглеродным

датам—от позднего III тысячелетия до н. э.215 Примечательно, что

калиброванные 14С даты европейских культур раннего бронзового века

исключительно хорошо соответствуют датировке выявленного в Леванте

(Рас Шамра, Библ) импорта европейских круглых слитков (ring-ingot),

причем эта дата определена с учетом египетских аналогий найденных там

же предметов216.

[…] мнение о долговременной консервации куро-араксских материалов

на Северном Кавказе и, по-видимому, делает допустимой возможность

синхронности материалов, имеющих облик ранней куро-араксской

культуры с памятниками позднемайкопского круга, которые по всей

вероятности древнее вышеуказанных европейских параллелей […]

Типологическая и относительная хронологическая близость между

«куро-араксскими» материалами восточной части Центральной Европы и

Северного Кавказа217, думаем, должны свидетельствовать больше в пользу

26

северопричерноморского, а не малоазнйского пути проникновения

кавказских элементов в восточную часть Центральной Европы84

Archaeological parallels correlated with the linguistic ones, i. e. with

Daghestanian cultural lexicon in Proto-Celtic. Alternatively, the parallels,

as well as Daghestanian words in Proto-Germanic, might be interpreted

as the influence of Bell Beaker bronze-workers which language might be

similar to Basque, a cognate of Daghestanian.

Proto-Celtic. *dago- ‘good’ (non-IE)85 : Chechen dika ‘good’, Adyghe,

Kabardian dakhe ‘nice’, Hurrian dagi ‘nice’, шумерск. dug ‘good’ добрый»;

Goth. audags, Old High German otag ‘lucky’ of pre-IE origin;86

Proto-Celtic *kwenno- ‘head’ (of non-IE origin87) : Dagestanian Botlikh gvani,

Bagvalal, Chamalal ‘un ‘head’; Sumerian saŋ ‘head’;

Proto-Celtic *makwkw- ‘son’ (of non-IE origin88) : Dagestanian Bagvalal mak’,

Chamalal mač ‘child’;

Proto-Celtic *mokk- ‘boar’ (non-IE)89 – PNC *mŏhwV «сало, жир»;90

Proto-Celtic *ord- ‘hammer’ (etymology is unknown)91 : Daghest. кортІа-,

куртІа-, квартІа- ‘hammer’92, Proto-North-Caucasian *kwirt’ā ‘hammer’93;

Georg. uro, k’veri ‘hammer’; Svan. k’wertx ‘hammer’94; Georg. grdeml- ‘akmon’,

Tabas. girdim ‘big stone’;95

Proto-Celtic *wrak- ‘woman’ (non-IE)96 : Proto-North-Caucasian *hrVk’wV

‘woman’97

84 Кавтарадзе Г. К хронологии эпохи энеолита и бронзы Грузии, Мецниереба (Тбилиси 1983), с. 72,

74-75, references are omitted. Early Unetice is dated to 2381±321 г. до н. э., Ibid. Cf.: Дедабришвили

Ш. Ш., Мирцхулава Г. И. Куро-араксская культура и Центральная Европа, In: Античные,

византийские и местные традиции в странах Восточного Черноморья. Всесоюзная конференция.

Тезисы докладов. Тб., 1975, с. 8. 85 Калыгин В.П., Королев А.А. Введение в кельтскую филологию, М., 1989, с. 23. 86 Брим В.А. Состав и характер неразъясненных элементов в германских языках, Яфетический

сборник. – Петроград, 1923. – Вып. 2. – С. 28. 87 Калыгин В.П., Королев А.А. Введение… – С. 23. 88 Калыгин В.П., Королев А.А. Введение… – С. 23. 89 Huld M.E. The linguistic typology of the Old European Substrata in North Central Europe, In: The

Journal of Indo-European Studies, 1990, Vol. 18. N ¾, p. 416. 90 Прасеверокавказская реконструкция по: Nikolayev S.L., Starostin S.A. – P. 794. 91 Иванов В.В. К истории древних названий металлов в южнобалканском, малоазийском и

средиземноморском ареалах, Славянское и балканское языкознание: Античная балканистика и

сравнительная грамматика, М., 1977, с. 22. 92 Алексеев М.Е. 1988. – С. 74 93 Старостин С.А. Культурная лексика в общесеверокавказском… – С. 85 94 Шагиров А.К. Этимологический словарь адыгских (черкесских) языков, М., 1977, т. 2, с. 87. 95 Климов Г.А. Кавказские языки, М., 1965, с. 73 96 Калыгин В.П., Королев А.А. Введение… с. 158 97 Nikolayev S.L., Starostin S.A. – P. 530

27

Very important metallurgical parallel is: Old Irish gobae ~ gobann

‘smith’, Middle Welsh gof ~ gofein ‘smith’, Gallic gobedbi ‘with the smiths’

< Proto-Celtic *gobed- of pre-Celtic origin98 : Avar (Daghestan language

group) k’ebed ‘smith’. If these words might be compared with Basque

gabi, ‘hammer’ then the western influence might be preferred. However,

other parallels have no Basque similarities. Cf. the J. Machnik hypothesis

of the Kura-Araxes bronze influence on the Únětice culture99, an ancestor

of the Celts. ‘In the second half of the 4th and throughout the 3rd

millennium B.C., during the Early Bronze Age the Kura-Araxes culture

of the Caucasus spread throughout the greater part of the Caucasus,

Eastern Anatolia, northern parts of Iran, Middle East and even

Europe’.100

Sumerian bronze names might point to the Hurrian attribution of the

Kura-Araxes culture. The Sumerian names of bronze (*sipar > zabar

‘bronze’ in contrast to urudu ‘copper’) and copperworker (tibira),101 the

Georgian name of brass (titberi), and the names of the Caucasian

metallurgical peoples (Ancient Greek Τιβαρηνοί as the Pontic people,102

Biblical Tubal)103 have Hurrian etymologies.104 The beginning of the

98 Королев А. А. Древнейшие памятники ирландского языка, М., 1984, с. 159. 99 Machnik J., 1973. Ze studiow nad związkami Kaukazu z obszararai karpackimi v

początkach epoki brązu. - AP, t. XVIII, z. 1, z. I, a. 127-165. 100 Pitskhelauri, K. Uruk migrants in the Caucasus, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences,

2012, vol. 6, No. 2, p. 153, http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf 101 Mesopotamia had no own copper Маккуин 102 Herodotus, Xenophon, Strabo 103 Cf. ‘Tubal-Cain, Thubl-Qin, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze or copper, nchshth, and iron,

brzl,’ Genesis 4:22, Θοβέλ in the Septuagint and by Josephus Phlavius, Tabal as the melallworking

Luwian kingdom in South Central Anatolia. Qain ‘copper’ : IE *k'wa(i)n- ‘copper, lead.’

104 Pre-Sumerian tibira ‘metal worker’ < Hurrian tabiri ‘he who has cast (metal)’ < tab-/taw- ‘to cast

(metal)’ > Ugaritic tbl ‘smith’, see Rubio, G. On the alleged “pre-Sumerian substratum”, Journal of

Cuneiform Studies, vol. 51 (1999), p. 4–5; cf. Sumerian zabar ‘bronze’ < Old Sumerian *sipar (Akkadian

siparrum ‘bronze’ borrowed before vowel harmony changed Sumerian word) regarded as pre-

Sumerian; cf. Georgian titberi ‘brass, yellow metal’. So the first bronze workers of Vinča, Maykop, and

Kura-Araxes might be named as Hurrian tabiri / *tabili in Vinča, Sumerian tibira in Maykop, and

Georgian tibar- / tubal- / tbil- in Kura-Araxes. This common name gave Sumerian *sipar, zabar ‘bronze’

and Georgian titberi ‘brass, yellow metall’ (associated with tuta peri ‘of the color of the Moon’). The

common source of the words might be Hurrian: *[tab-] ‘to melt (a metal)’, *[tabilija] ‘molten’, *[tab(a)li]

‘metal-melter; smith’, *[tabränni] ‘metal-melter;’ cf. Basque tupiki / topinki ‘copper’ and Proto-

Yenissean *tVp- ‘metal, iron.’ IE *dhabhr- > Armenian darbin, Latin faber ‘smith’ might be of the same

origin. During 7th–4th millennia BCE copper like agriculture came from the Near East to Europe via

West Anatolia, not via North Caucasus and steppes, Kassian, p. 417

28

Mesopotamian Bronze coincided with the end of the Uruk and the

appearance of the Kura-Araxes.105

If Hurrian had North-East Caucasian relations (I. M. Diakonoff,

S. A. Starostin) then Hrrians might be a metalworker elite of the Kura-

Araxes society. The Khirbet-Kerak variant of the Kura-Araxes influenced

early Hittites (G. Wilhelm), and the Kura-Araxes signs, including sign

for ‘king’, were accepted by Luwian hieroglyphics.

Not only the Tibarenoi and Tabal but also the Μαιῶται of the Azov

coast might be Hurrian (Mait- ‘Mitanni’)106 while the Σινδοί, a

subdivision of the Maiotai,107 might be a remain of the Indo-Aryan high

stratum of Mitanni; cf. Anakharsis = Maha-rsi.

105 Origins of the Indo-Europeans: the Uruk expansion and Cucuteni-Trypillian culture,

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29350-Origins-of-the-Indo-Europeans-the-Uruk-expansion-

and-Cucuteni-Trypillian-culture 106 Mitanni was known as a country of metallworkers, Иванов 1983 107 Strabo xi. The name of the princess of the Sindoi, Tirgatao, was similar to the name from Hurrian

Alalakh, Tirgutawiya. The names of the Indus river and the Sinda town on the river in Lycia and Caria

were related to Old Indian sindhuh ‘stream, river,’ Георгиев 1958, с. 171-172

29

CULT HATTIC LANGUAGE

OF WEST EUROPEAN ORIGIN?

North Caucasian (especially West Caucasian) and Yenisseian (and

also some Kartvelian) parallels of Hattic are well known.

A. S. Kassian suggested that the closest cognate of Hattic in the Sino-

Caucasian family is Yenisseian, and ‘in some points Hattic (the first half

of the 2nd millennium BC) is more archaic then Proto-Yenisseian’.108

According to V. V. Ivanov (after E. Forrer etc.), Hattic was close to West

Caucasian but some strong similarities with Yenisseian (e. g., ‘tongue’)

may be underlined. If Pictish may be identified as Yenisseian-related and

this point of view is confirmed genetically then Yenisseian-like language

area may be suggested in West Europe. The area contacted with the

Basque one, cf. linguistic and genetic evidences of the Basque in Ireland.

On the other hand, Basque demonstrates similarities with North

Caucasian languages and West Caucasian ones among them.109

N. Ya. Marr underlined possible relations between Basque and Abkhaz

and compared the names of Basque and the Byzantine name of Abkhaz,

Abasgoi while Basque, Latin Vasc- might be derived from the self-name

eusk-.

But in addition, lexical and morphological parallels of Hattic and

Afro-Asiatic may be demonstrated, including many elements of the

Swadesh list. As one can see below, possible Afro-Asiatic component of

Hattic is closely related to Semitic and Chadic.

‘big, large’ : Hattic te ‘great, big,’ Hattic titah ‘great’ (Greek titaks ‘leader’) : Afro-

Asiatic *did- ‘elder’ > Sem. *did- ‘honorable title’, West Chadic *did- ‘leader’, Central

Chadic *did- ‘grandparent’110 or rather PAA *tVy- ‘father, chief’ > Proto-East Chadic

*tV ‘big, father’

‘bird’ : Hattic wawah ‘eagle’ : PAA *waw/y/ʔ- ‘kind of bird’

‘come’ Hattic aš ‘to come (here)’ : PAA *ʔaw/yas- ‘come’ > Proto-East Chadic *ʔas-

etc.; Hattic an ‘to come (here)’ : PAA *ʔan- ‘go, walk’ > Proto-East Chadic *ʔan- ‘come’

etc.

‘earth’ Hattic šahhu / tahhu ‘ground’ : PAA *caq- ‘earth, field’ > Proto-Semitic

*saḫḫ- > Akkadian saḫḫu ‘meadow,’ Arabic saḫaḫ- ‘good land’ etc.; Hattic *araz from

108 Kassian, A. S. Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian language, Ugarit-Forschungen, 2010, Bd. 41, S. 415–416. 109 Чирикба В. А. Баскский и северокавказкие языки, Древняя Анатолия, М., 1985. 110 Stolbova, Orel p. 159; Орел с. 19.

30

ištarrazil ‘earth’ : PAA *ʔaric - ‘earth;’ Hatt. wur ‘country’111 : PAA *ʔawVr- ‘earth’ >

Proto-Central Chadic *wur- ‘field,’ Proto-West Chadic *wuri ‘place’

‘eat’ Hattic tu ‘to eat’ : PAA *taʔ- ‘eat’ > PS *tVʔ-/*tVw- > Akkadian taʔu etc.

‘eye’ Hattic nimah, lmah ‘eye(s)’ : Proto-West Chadic *(Hi)lu/im- ‘close eyes’

‘to go’ : Hattic tuk ‘to step’ : PAA *ʒak-/*ʒik- ‘go, come’

‘good’ Hattic malhip ‘good’ : PAA *walaʕ- ‘to love,’ cf. Hattic milup, milip ‘bull’ : PS

*ʔalp- ‘cattle;’ Hattic šaip ‘to make good’ : PAA *tayb- ‘good’ > PS *tayb- ‘good’

‘head’ Hattic kaš ‘head’ : PAA *gʷa(n/h)c - ‘cheek, chin’ > PS *gahs-am- ‘cheek, chin,

big-headed and round-faced’

‘to hear’ Hattic šam(a) ‘to hear, listen’ : PAA *sim- ‘ear’ > PS *šVmaʕ- ‘hear’

‘leaf’ : Hattic puluku ‘leaves, foliage’ : PAA *ʕabVl- ‘leaf’ > PS *ʕVbil- ‘fall (of

leaves),’ Western Chadic *bul- ‘flower, grass,’ Central Chadic *HVbul- ‘leaf’ etc.

‘liver’ Hattic tahalain ‘liver’ : PAA *tihal- ‘interiors’ > Proto-East Chadic *[t]VHVl-

‘liver’

‘male (person)’ : Hattic pinu ‘son’112 : Afro-Asiatic *bin- ‘man, male relative’ > Sem.

*bin- ‘son’ > Akk. binu etc.113 The form similar to Hattic bīnu is attested only in

Akkadian114

‘man (person)’ : Hattic zari ‘person’115 : PAA *ʒVry ‘seed’ > Aramaic also

‘descendance,’ Phoen. zr‘ семя, потомство;116 cf. Hattic zar ‘sheep’117 : Proto-Afro-

Asiatic *ʒur- ‘ram’ > Egypt. zr, Central Chadic *ʒur-118

‘moon’ Hattic kap ‘moon’ : Proto-Afro-Asiatic *kab- ‘burn, roast’

‘new’ Hattic tataet or taet ‘new’ : PS *had(i)t_- ‘new’

‘rain’ Hattic tumil/n ‘rain’ : PAA *dim-an- ‘cloud, rain’ > High East Cushitic

*duman- ‘cloud’

‘to see’ Hattic hukur ‘to see, look’ : PAA *ʕak/k- ‘know, see;’ Hattic pnu ‘look’ :

PAA *fan- ‘look for, watch’ without Semitic; Hattic kun ‘to see’ : PAA *ki(ha)n- ‘know,

learn’

‘skin’ : Hattic tera-h ‘leather covering’ : PAA *dahVr- ‘skin’ > Egyptian, Western

Chadic, East Chadic *dar- ‘skin’

‘to stay’ Hattic (a)nti ‘to stand, to stay’ : PAA *yVtin- ‘dwell, stay’ or PAA *tinuq-

‘stay, dwell’ > PS *tVnuḫ/ʔ- ‘stay, dwell, sit’ > Gafat täwannä ‘sit,’ cf. the goddess of

throne and tawananna

‘sun’ Hattic eštan ‘sun god, day’ : PAA *yatin-/*ʔetin- ‘day, sun’ > Egyptian, East

Chadic or rather PAA *ʔis- ‘fire’ > PS *ʔišs- ‘fire’ > Akkadian ʔišatu, Ugaritic ʔišt,

111 Древние языки Малой Азии, М., 1980, с. 43. 112 Древние…, с. 42, 61. 113 OS p. 73. 114 http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-

bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\semet&first=1 115 Древние…, с. 43, 61. 116 Шифман И. Ш. Финикийский язык, с. 63. 117 Древние…, с. 90. 118 OS p. 547; Orel 9

31

Geez, Tigre ʔǝsat; Hattic šemu ‘Sun’ in wuru-n-šemu ‘the Sun of country’, cf. wuru-n-

katte ‘the king of country’

‘tree’ : Hattic zehar, zihar ‘wood’ : PAA *c agar- ‘tree’ > PS *sagar- ‘tree,’ Proto-East

Chadic *c VgVr- ‘palm tree’

‘water’ : Hatt. ura/i ‘water spring’119 : Afro-Asiatic *wur- ‘water’ > Egypt. wrw

‘pond’;120 cf. Hattic han ‘sea’ : PAA *yawin- ‘water’ > Proto-East Chadic ʔany- ‘to swim,

to bathe’

‘wind’ Hattic pezi-l ‘wind’ and pušan ‘to blow on’ : PAA *fVčVʔ- ‘breathe;’ cf.

Hattic Šaru ‘storm god’ : PAA *s aʕar- ‘wind’ > PS *s aʕar- ‘wind, storm’ > Akkadian

šāru ‘wind’

‘woman’ Hattic nimhu- ‘woman’ : PAA *maʔin- ~ *ʔamin- ‘woman, wife;’ Hattic

zuwatu ‘wife’ : PAA *nisw- ‘woman’ > PS *nišw- > Arabic nuswat-; Egyptian nswy.t

‘queen’ : Hittite Ha-nwasui-t ‘throne-goddess’

Hattic ha- ‘this’, le-/li- ‘his’, te- ‘her’, mu- ‘prefix of tools’, -et/-it, -ah ‘feminine

suffixes’, ilu ‘god’, shemu ‘sun’, and pinu ‘son’ may be interpreted as Afro-Asiatic

close to Akkadian.

Hittite hatti-li ‘in Hattic’ might mean ‘in the language of priests,’ cf. Hittite hatt-ant-

‘intelligent, clever, wise.’ There is no evidence of the Hattic people or state in the

Hittite sources, and this language might be only cult one.

Hattic, like Basque, included Sino-Caucasian and Afro-Asiatic

elements.

While hatti- was a cult language of the Hittites (who might be

descendants of pre-Maikop and/or post-Maikop pearl pottery and

migrate in Anatolia from Caucasus), hati- was a cult language of the

Narts, the epic heroes of Ossetian folklore.

The hypothesis of catacomb as a ‘steppe dolmen’121

119 Древние…, с. 58–59. 120 OS p. 531 121 Кияшко В.Я. Параллели развития погребальных обрядов эпохи ранней бронзы в Приазовье и

на Западном Кавказе, Проблемы эпохи бронзы Юга Восточной Европы: Тезисы докладов конференции,

Донецк, 1979, с. 49 – 50, http://bronza-lib.narod.ru/k/v_kijashko1979.html : ‘В археологической

литературе спорадически отмечалось некоторое сходство степных катакомб и кавказских

дольменов (Артамонов М.И., Чайлд Г., Куфтин Б.А. и др.) […] Конструктивное сходство

дольменов Новосвободной, дольмена из Джубги, дольменов-монолитов с катакомбами доходит

до тождества. В свою очередь, "портальное" оформление входа в ранних катакомбах,

продольный паз в полу, перед камерой, перекликается с конструкциями дольменов. Катакомбы

и дольмены одинаково обращены входом к солнцу: на восток, юг, запад. Ориентировка на север

- исключение’; Кияшко А.В. Некоторые вопросы генезиса и семантики катакомбного обряда

эпохи средней бронзы Восточной Европы, Чтения посвященные 100-летию деятельности в

Государственном Историческом музее В.А. Городцова: Тезисы конференции. - М., 2003. - Ч.1. - С. 200 –

202, http://bronza-lib.narod.ru/k/a_kijashko2003.html : ‘Считается, что катакомба - это реализация

в степных условиях мегалитической идеи склепа. В хронологическом, структурно-

32

Funnel Beakers inherited from Ertebølle (and ultimately traced to

Capsian)122 and brought in Novosvobodnaya mixed Causasian-Afro-

Asiatic cult Hatti language which became used by Hittites and Iranian-

spoken Narts. Iberian similarities of West Caucasian dolmens

(V. I. Markovin) might point to the West European tradition which was

accepted by West Caucasian people from Funnel Beaker which

megalithism began simultaneously with Novobodnaya, a source of the

West Caucasian Dolmen culture.

So the megalithic component of the Novosvobodnaya (which

component might be influenced by Funnel Beaker) and its decendant,

the West Caucasian Dolmen culture (with its Iberian parallels), might be

типологическом и смысловом плане прослеживаются параллели с дольменным обрядом

Западного Кавказа. Эта точка зрения неоднократно критиковалась (Марковин, 1994; Гей, 2000).

Однако хронологическое соответствие двух традиций нашло поддержку и плодотворное

развитие в работах М.Б. Рысина (1990; 1992; 1996). Опубликованные материалы дольменов

(Марковин, 1997) также убеждают в преимущественной синхронизации последних даже не с

предцонецким, а с раннедонецким этапом развития катакомбной культуры Северо-Восточного

Приазовья. Конструктивные признаки ранних катакомб - прямые плоскости потолка и стенок

камер; рельефная орнаментация внутри камеры и на стенке шахты, где расположено входное

отверстие; имитация втулок закрывающих вход в камеру (из глины или, чаще, в виде т.н.

каменных пестов) и т.д.- все это свидетельствует об участии в их сооружении культуртрегеров с

Западного Кавказа, переносивших приемы обработки камня на глину’. The idea was explained

by S. N. Bratchenko (Братченко С. Н. Нижнее Подонье в эпоху средней бронзы, Киев 1976, с. 42-43)

and supported by V. A. Trifonov (Трифонов В. А. Дольмен Джубга.., Записки ИИМК РАН 2014, №

10, с. 119) and, partially, by L. S. Klejn (Клейн Л. С. Древние миграции и происхождение

индоевропейских народов, СПб. 2007, preliminary e-version), http://www.bulgari-istoria-

2010.com/booksRu/Klein_Dr_migr_IEN.pdf ‘Dolmen-catacomb community’ was proposed

(Рысин М. Б. Закубанье в эпоху средней бронзы: (По материалам поселей предгорной зоны): Автореф.

дис. ... канд. ист. наук, СПб. 1992, с. 20), and Abkhaziuan dolmens were compared with Velikent

catacombs (Рысин М. Б. Датировка комплексов из Эшери, CA, 1990, № 2; КСИА 1990, вып. 199;

Кореневский C. M. К вопросу о датирующих возможностях комплекса из нижнего слоя

Эшерских дольменов Абхазии, PA 1992, № 2). Details: Стеганцева В. Я. Еще раз о сходстве

погребальных обрядов эпохи ранней бронзы в Восточном Приазовье и на Западном Кавказе,

Записки ИИМК РАН 2010, № 5, http://libed.ru/knigi-nauka/1252832-5-russian-academy-sciences-

institute-for-the-history-material-culture-rossiyskaya-akademiya-nauk-institut-istor.php 122 The line of descending including Iberomaurusian/Oranian > Capsian (related to Caucasus) >

Sauveterrian > Tardenoise > Maglemose etc. > Kongemose > Ertebølle > Funnel Beaker is confirmed by

similar art (Berber-like Maglemosian art, Clark J.G.D., The Mesolithic Settlement in Northern Europe, NY.

1970; Низовский Ю.А. Загадки антропологии, М. 2004, с. 142-144). The Ertebølle component in

Funnel Beaker: Harz, S., Lübke, H. New evidence for a chronostratigraphic division of the Ertebølle

culture and the earliest Funnel Beaker culture on the southern Mecklenburg Bay,

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Harald_Luebke/publication/266850645_New_Evidence_for_a_Ch

ronostratigraphic_Division_of_the_Erteblle_Culture_and_the_Earliest_Funnel_Beaker_Culture_on_th

e_Southern_Mecklenburg_Bay/links/543d095f0cf24ef33b765b24.pdf

33

an archaeological equivalent of Hatti. Maikop-Novosvobodnaya-Alaca

parallels (especially in metallurgy which is traditionally ascribed to Hatti

and Hittites) reflected the way of influence from Caucasus to Anatolia.

There is no evidence of the Hatti people or state in Anatolia: Hattic

was a cultic language there. In contrast, Chatti were known as an ancient

tribe of Hesse, Germany, while ancient Hesse people contacted with

Causasus. Klady near Novosvobodnaia (about 3000 BCE) was related to

Bernburg Tiefstichkeramik (the variant of Funnel Beaker) and Baden.123

Megaliths in Hesse are similar to that in Klady124 (the Novosvobodnaia

culture). A Mesopotamian statuette, found in Hesse, was dated to the

Corded Ware time, about 2700 BC125 The Bronocice-like vehicle picture is

found on the Hesse megalith126 and might be belonged to the Funnel

Beaker-Novosvobodnaya contacts.

123 Hansen, S. Communication and exchange between the Northern Caucasus and Central Europe, p.

303-304,

https://www.academia.edu/2452517/Communication_and_exchange_between_the_Northern_Caucasu

s_and_Central_Europe_in_the_fourth_millnium_BC 124 ‘In association with wagons, reference should be made to fork-like signs, usually in pairs, found in

stone cist graves of the Wartberg Culture. In Warburg in Westphalia and Züschen in northern Hesse

this sign denotes a team of bovines. However, such signs also appear in the Alps and the Ukraine; and

examples in the Ukraine definitely show a wagon. Furthermore, megalithic tombs themselves are part

of an innovative package and can be attested in the sphere of the Funnel-Beaker Culture and the

Wartberg group adjoining to the south as of 3500 BC. Huge earthworks are likewise a new

phenomenon during this innovation-horizon between 3500 and 3300 BC. From an architectural

viewpoint the megalithic structures of the Wartberg Culture in northern Hesse represent a variation,

which has parallels in the Paris basin. The structures are characterised by naturally flat stone slabs and

the presence of a so-called porthole at the front, which can measure between 30 and 80 cm in diameter.

These elements are found in Klady, in kurgans 28 and 31, as well’, Hansen, p. 306 125 Hansen, S. Vom Tigris an die Lahn. Eine Mesopotamische Statuette in Hessen, Archäologie in Hessen,

rahden, 2001,

https://www.academia.edu/2703701/Vom_Tigris_an_die_Lahn._Eine_mesopotamische_Statuette_in_

Hessen 126 Сафронов В. А. Индоевропейские прародины (Горький 1989), с. 179.

34

PIT GRAVE/YAMNA LANGUAGE

CHANGED FROM NORTH CAUCASIAN

TO INDO-IRANIAN

Yamna was not Indo-Iranian or even Indo-European initially because

of its Basque-Caucasian R1b male haplogroup and cultural relations with

Elshan-Samara cultures which contained the same R1b haplogroup.

Perhaps, the origin of Yamna ultimately traced to the way of (pointed

bottom) pottery from the east to the west of Eurasia.

The R1b haplogroup of the Elshan, Samara, and (east) Yamna cultures

and the highest frequency of the haplogroup among the Basque, Scottish,

Irish, and Welsh peoples may be interpreted as the genetic correlation of

Basque-Caucasian-Burushaski-Yenisseian languages.127 A. A. Klyosov

and A. A. Romanchuk identify R1b as Basque-Caucasian; R2 may be

Burushaski. The East Asian origin of pointed bottom pottery correlated

with the affinity between the Basque-Caucasian-Burushaski-Yenisseian

and Sino-Tibetan languages. RQ people migrated in the North Europe as

Q (Picts) and R1a (North-East Europe), R1b (North Caucasian from

Yelshan to Yamna and Basque, via North Africa) and R2 (Burushaski).

R1b in sub-Saharan Africa may be interpreted as possible trace of

Cardium pottery/Impresso which, like ‘mixed’ Basque language, might

include Caucasian R1b and Afro-Asiatic E haplogroups. Impresso-

Chassee-Bell Beaker horizons might represent main waves of the

peopling of West Europe, cf. several migration waves from East to West

Mediterranean (A. L. Mongait). Enigmatic Hattic, like Basque, had not

only North Caucasian and other Sino-Caucasian (and lesser Kartvelian

and Indo-European), but also Afro-Asiatic (Semitic and Chadic) lexical

and morphological parallels which might reflect the way of the language

from the Near East via North Africa to the West Europe and then to

Caucasus.

127 If Pictish may be identified as Yenisseian-related and this point of view is confirmed genetically

then Yenisseian-like language area may be suggested in West Europe. The area contacted with the

Basque one, cf. linguistic and genetic evidences of the Basque in Ireland. On the other hand, Basque

demonstrates similarities with North Caucasian languages and West Caucasian ones among them.127

N. Ya. Marr underlined possible relations between Basque and Abkhaz and compared the names of

Basque and the Byzantine name of Abkhaz, Abasgoi while Basque, Latin Vasc- might be derived from

the self-name eusk-.

35

Specific a-vocalism of Indo-Iranian languages is very similar to West

Caucasian one (cf. also close contacts between the Novotitorovka group

of Yamna and the North Caucasian culture). Initial Indo-Iranian culture

was Abashevo, the ancestor of Indo-Aryan Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim-

Andronovo and Iranian Timber Grave/Srubna.

The cult of the Sun and horse (while mare is pregnant during solar

year) as well as proto-kurgans of the Samarra culture may be interpreted

as a source of Eneolithic cultural complex which included kurgans and

horse-headed scepters. Pricked pearls pottery of Elshan and Samara

cultures linked them with pre-Maikop horizon which, thus, might be

mainly North Caucasian-spoken.

Perhaps, Eneolithic ‘horse-headed’ (or lesser ass-headed?) scepters

hieroglyphically depicted the homonymy between Proto-North

Caucasian *gwāʒē ‘mare, donkey’ (feminine!) and Adyghe/Kabardian

guashe (гуащэ), ‘princess, mistress, lady, goddess’ (female!); the latter

word was later reflected in Mycenaean guasi-leus, ‘king’ (the relation of

the Mycenaean word with Caucasus pointed to Fatyanovo which was

anthropologically close to the Multi-Rolled Ware/Mnogovalikovaya

invaders in pre-Mycenaean Greece; archaeologically, Mnogovalikovaya

was of Yamna origin, acc. to S. S. Berezanska). Perhaps, mother-goddess

or mother of tribe-chief (cf. Hittite tawananna, mother of Ossetic Narts

with the title of guasha) played very important role in the North

Caucasian society from Elshan to Yamna time.

A. A. Klyosov suggests the R1b migration from the Near East via the

Northern Africa to Spain (R1b of Ekhnaton and Tutankhamen, among

Berber and Chadic peoples) where Bell Beakers formed. If the earliest

date of the haplogroup in Aragon is late 6th m. BCE (Cardium pottery)

then the beginning of the migration was very early while the end of the

migration was limited by the formation of the Egyptian state. Two

migrations from Mesopotamia to Egypt were identified: about 3400 BCE

and about 3100 BCE. Upper Egypt king title, nsw, is similar to *nɨwc(w)A,

‘prince, ruler’ (> Proto-West Caucasian *nǝc:ʷa, ‘god’). The formation of

Basques might be dated to long period from the Cardium pottery time to

the Bell Beaker time. G2a haplogroup among Basques correlates with the

same haplogroup among Cardium people and might be related to

Georgian component of the Basque language. Parallels between Afro-

Asiatic and North Caucasian languages, identified by A. Yu. Militarev

36

and S. A. Starostin, might be explained as the result of contacts in North

Africa, not in Asia.