Hattian

TANITIM.
Farklı dönemlerde farklı halkların yaşadığı Anadolu'da kültürel etkileşim, yüzyıllardan beri devam eder. Hattiler, Hititler, Luvilerin inancında "kader" konusunda önemli benzerlikler görülür. Hatta bunları bazı izleri günümüz Anadolu inancında da yaşar. Ekteki yazı Ardahan Üniversitesince düzenlenen II.Uluslararası Miyoloji Sempozyumuyla ilgili sunumun bir özetidir.


ABSTRACT
Cultural interaction in Anatolia, where different peoples lived in different periods, has continued for centuries. There are important similarities about "destiny" or ""fate" in the beliefs of Hattians, Hittites and Luwians. Some traces of them even live in today's Anatolian belief. The attached article is a summary of the presentation of the autor about the 2nd International Mythology Symposium organized by Ardahan University.

There is much controversy over the question of the syntactic alignment of Hattian. A resolution is complicated by the fact that Hattian has a poor case morphology. This investigation into the functions of the prefixes waa= and eš= (with various allomorphs), which occur both as plural prefixes to nouns and as verbal prefixes expressing third person
plural actants, attempts to resolve the issue on the basis of a detailed study of the relevant material. As it turns out, Hattian has a split system, with an accusative base in verbal forms that do not contain the prefix tu= and an ergative base in verbal forms that do contain that
prefix. Intransitive subject, transitive subject and object are all morphosyntactically distinguished, so that it can be argued that Hattian has a split three-way system of alignment. This complicated system is typologically similar to alignment in Sumerian.

An etymological dictionary of the Hattian language revealing a number of possible Sino-Caucasian cognations and some contact words. With various extra-linguistic excursuses and the criticism of the traditional West Caucasian attribution of Hattic.

ÖZET Hint-Avrupalı bir kavim olan Hititler'in, tanrılar topluluğunda yer alan tanrıça Kuzzanišu Hatti kökenlidir. Hitit çivi yazılı metinlerde sıkça geçmekte olan bu Tanrıça'nın adının Hattice kuzzan-" ateş, ocak " kelimesinden türetildiği düşünülmektedir. Eski Hitit dönemine tarihlendirilen, Hattice terim ve tanrı adlarının çok sık geçtiği KI.LAM bayramına ait metinlerde Tanrıça Kuzzanišu'nun adı genellikle Ay Tanrısı EN.ZU ile birlikte geçmektedir. Bu bayrama ait birkaç metinde ise Hatti kökenli olan bir başka Tanrı Taḫpillanu'yla da birlikte geçmektedir. KI.LAM bayramına ait metinlerde Tanrıça Kuzzanišu'nun bazen kral; bazen de kral ve kraliçe çifti tarafından kutsandığını; KI.LAM bayramına ait olan KBo 38.12(1368/c)(+)KBo 20.27 (55/b)+KBo 25.20(703/b)+KUB 39.64(176/c)+KBo 25.145(178/c)+KBo 25.72 (368/c+513/c)+KBo 25.35 (498/c)+KBo 20.26(540/c)(+) KBo 21.68(1333/c)(+)KBo 25.154(1474/c)+KBo 25.34(2537/c) metinden ise Tanrı EN.ZU ve Tanrıça Kuzzanišu için Kaniš halkının şarkı söylediğini öğrenmekteyiz. ḫešta-evindeki bayramda kral tarafından; Zippalanda ve Daḫa Dağı bayramında ise kral ve kraliçe çifti tarafından içmek eylemiyle kutsanıldığı, Fırtına Bayramına ait bir metinden Tanrıça Kuzzanišu'ya prens tarafından reverans yapıldığı, yine bu bayrama ait bir başka metinden ise adı geçen Tanrıça'ya prens tarafından kurban sunulduğu Hitit çivi yazılı metinlerden öğrenilmektedir. Ayrıca Kuzzinašu ile Kuzanašu'nun aynı tanrıçalar olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışma; Hitit tanrılar topluluğunda yer alan Tanrıça Kuzzanišu'nun Hitit çiviyazılı metinlerde adının geçtiği yerleri, daha önce yapılan filolojik ve etimolojik değerlendirmeleri esas alarak tanrıçanın adının anlamını, Hitit pantheonundaki yerini, önemini ve tanrıçanın nasıl kutsanıldığını Hitit çivi yazılı belgelerden elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.

Hattic is poorly attested and understood. What little we know about its basic lexicon is summarized in this Excel file, whose source is O. Soysal's "Hattischer Wortschatz in hetitischer Textüberlieferung" (Brill 2004).
This file is intended as a stepping stone for researchers who want to try and understand the origin of Hattic by comparing our current, limited understanding of its basic lexicon against other languages and language families.

Hattic or Hattian is an ancient cuneiform language spoken in the Central Anatolia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. and in all likelihood earlier, whose corpus is rather small. Along with the well-known set of Hattic loanwords in Hittite and Palaic, Hattic shows traces of linguistic interference with some other ancient languages. The article examines lexical borrowings between Hattic and the Luwian, Hurrian, Semitic, Proto-West Caucasian, Sumerian, Ancient Greek languages.

In Russian. This is a part of a more extended paper “Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language” (to appear in Ugarit-Forschungen 41).

Hattic, possibly a language of West Caucasian Dolmen culture, might be Sino-Caucasian/Dene-Basque, related to the Pre-Maikop and other R1b cultures from Yelshan to Yamna of post-Zarzian origin. However, the closest Yenisseian relations of Hattic (A. S. Kassian) might be interpreted as northern origin of Hattic. Afro-Asiatic elements in Hattic might be accepted in two ways: Chadic-like – from the Dolmen builders of West European origin (possibly related to the Chatti tribe of Hesse) whereas Akkadian-like – from Mesopotamian neighbours. Maikop-Alaca similarities might reflect both Hattic and Hittite-Luwian presence in both cultures. If Sino-Caucasian elements of Hattic were of West European origin, it would be closer to Basque (also ‘mix’ of East Caucasian and Afro-Asiatic components), but specific Basque-Hattic similarities are absent. If Hattic was only of Anatolian (Çatal Höyük etc.) origin and not linked with Caucasus (despite Maikop-Alaca parallels in material culture and the end of Maikop-Novosvobodnaya about 2900 BCE, immediately before the beginning of Alaca about 2850 BCE), Chadic-like elements in the language couldn’t be explained. Hattic might also be a cult language of the Catacomb culture

The purpose of this monograph is to provide an introduction to the Hattic language in Greek. Hattic or Hattili, was a pre-historic language spoken in central Anatolia prior to and during the first centuries of establishment of the Hittite empire. Our knowledge about this language is limited, while material about it in Greek is inexistent. That is a gap I wish to fill. The region of central Anatolia is also connected to the migrations of the first farmers that settled in Greece during the neolithic period, therefore it would be of great value if the Greek academic community gave some attention to this less studied and very old language.

First of all, it is risky that to try to tie between Hattian and as a 'remote' culture of Northwestern Caucasian language that we have not original and sufficient data. It should be considered following points before: Features in detail of archaeological culture of Hatti (3rd millennium BC) and also Hittite (2nd millennium BC) periods should be well known. Hattian material culture related to tradiditional Anatolian culture that comes from Neolithic Çatalhöyük. On the other hand, contrary to common belief we should know that the Hittite have never had distinctive archaeological style during its reign. Though most of books tell fantastic stories of 'Hittite art' , it just consist of quotations assemblage from the arts of Anatolian, Mesopotamian and North African Bronze Age cultures. Architecture codes of spectecular palace and temples of Hattuša lie behind the colossal architecture style of Assyrian Trade Colonial period of Anatolia. 'Hittite pottery' is nothing but the continuation of traditional Hattian (Anatolian) period, and so on. Accordingly, Anatolian Early Bronze Age archaeological culture had obviously been inherited by Hittite, it seems heirs settled down at and used it up, but hardly ever created their own distinct style during the 450 years. Contrary to countless speculativ suggestions, neither Hatti nor Hittite have contacted Caucasian cultures. There is no archaeological trace regarding this 'potential connections'. It is obvious that the arriving route of the Hittites to Anatolia was not on the Caucasus. Hittites, during their life, not only set a foot on Caucasus but also passed trough the Eastern side of Euphrates as well. Hittites were not a nativ people of Anatolia, they most probably came to Anatolia from outside. We could not know where they entered this land, arguably from Thrace, but we know well that arriving line was not through the Caucasus. Caucasian territory during the third and second millennium BC has been mainly controlled by Hurrians as a owner of Karaz Culture. Up to day there has not been any defined 'unfamiliar' archaeological record over there. We should know that Hattians and Hittites two seperate cultures in social, economic and ethnical ways: Hattians were sedentary people. Hittites, before their Anatolian adventure, most probably were uncivilized nomadic people of steppes. They must have been frst introduced sedentary life and learned everything in Anatolia as a sedentary community, when they arrived this land towards the beginig of the second millennium BC. Particularly during the trasition period from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze-the time span was also the date on which the Hittites are starting to emerge-radical changes did not ocur in Central Anatolia. Because they have nothing to change the productive Hattian life style. In conclusion Hattians and Hittites were the two independent and seperate communities, Hittite were not continuation of Hatti. At least we know that because of its agglutinative structure Hattian should be differed from the European languages. By the way let's remember that 'ergative' cases could not afford to do the same in two different languages. In my opinion Proto Hattian people should have hypotetically been Altai origin as the other specific Asiatic people of Anatolia, Mesopotamia and North Africa (i.e. Hurri, Elamite, Kassite, Hyksos, smiths of the Luristan and etc). Hattian, like the others while one language within "Archaic Altaian" before 10.000 BC, it separated and determined its own destinity towards Anatolia (Guneri, A.S. 2016, Turk-Altay Theory).

This update of https://www.academia.edu/35051212/Hattic_basic_lexicon
includes a new source:

Oğuz Soysal - Zu den rezenten Studien im Hattischen: eine Zwischenbilanz - in: Archivum Anatolicum 12/2-2018, p. 157-178

(https://www.academia.edu/38119714/ZU_DEN_REZENTEN_STUDIEN_IM_HATTISCHEN_EINE_ZWISCHENBILANZ).

New entries in red font.

More of preserved Kassite words have Basque parallels. Basque and Sumerian share not only basic (including verbs) but also cultural lexicon. Basque-Hurrian similarities are not so wide but also include basic and cultural words. In contrast, Basque-Cassite parallels are only common ‘Sino-Caucasian’

This study covers the geography of Central Anatolia including the Central Black Sea region. Central Anatolia was known as the Hattian Region during the EBA. The cuneiform texts of Akkadian Kings confirm that they penetrated deep into Anatolia for military reasons and, therefore, the end of the EBA has an Akkadian connection. We understand that there were city-states ruled by kings in Central Anatolia. These were fortified and engaged in trade business. They continuously fought with one another, but on occasion they would build coalitions against mutual enemies. There is also mention of a ‘King of Hatti Pampa’ in the cuneiform texts and philological evidence proves that Hattians lived in Central Anatolia. The Hattians are acknowledged as the creators of EBA culture. Hattian settlements were intensified, especially around Çorum and Çankırı - the region known as the Hatti Heartland - and the graves found in the cemeteries dating back to EBA expand our knowledge and understanding of Hatti burial customs. Central Anatolia provides rich evidence with respect to burial and funerary practices. When we look at the entire region, it is worth noting that graves or cemeteries were more concentrated in the north rather than the EBA. However, it is known that the first Royal Cemeteries emerged in Central Anatolia during EBA 3. We see mainly intramural graves in the south of Central Anatolia and the numbers of extramural cemeteries increase in the north during EBA. The population growth must have been the reason for the development of extramural graves.
In general, inhumation in hocker positions was widely seen throughout the region; however, many graves in dorsal positions were also unearthed in the Black Sea Region. Simple earth, pot, pithos and cist graves were continually used in the region, as in the Chalcolithic Age; however the chamber tombs and the round stone cist graves were first seen in the EBA. Alaca Höyük intramural chamber tombs contained rich grave goods and therefore confirm the existence of a ruling class in this period. It also provides a narrative of the burial customs of the elite. Rich grave goods allow us to make typological comparisons and form chronological connections between Mesopotamia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Caucasus, the Balkans and the Aegean. Furthermore, these connections help us date the graves of Central Anatolia and also display the presence of cultural links with the Near East. It has been observed that although the Chalcolithic Period grave types and inhumation traditions had been continued, the death cult practices became more varied in the EBA. For example, cattle head and feet or goat bones that were unearthed in chamber tombs indicate that animal sacrifices were regularly carried out at burial ceremonies. The tradition of placing cattle head and feet on the grave was seen in the Alaca Höyük royal graves, and recent excavations reveal that the same tradition was carried out in the Resuloğlu EBA Cemetery. This is significant as it shows us that this tradition was not only carried out at royal burials, but also at publics funerals as well. The tradition of placing cattle pieces on top of graves is a Hattian practice that occurred in the north part of Central Anatolia, around the provinces of Çorum and Çankırı.
Presentation link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoV1cImuJhs

This new four-volume collection from Routledge brings together the major works of scholarship concerned with the ‘language isolates’ of the world. ‘Isolated’ languages are languages without any known relatives, languages which are not demonstrably part of any ‘language family’, with Etruscan, Basque, and Ainu being arguably some of the best-known examples of such ‘linguistic orphans’. The language-specific materials collected here are arranged geographically, and each language-chapter is preceded by a short introduction to the linguistic situation of the language(es) involved and, if not given in anthologized works themselves, to the current state of research and past and present scholarly debates. The volumes are preceded by a problem-oriented general introduction, which deals with the basic concepts and methodological principles of language classification, the present state and the nature of ongoing controversies, an epistemiological typology of language families, and, in the light of this, a theoretical justification of the concept of isolates as well as the choice of languages covered in the volumes.

Some of the gathered works are general introductions to their object language (in terms of sociolinguistics, attestation, documentation, history of scholarship, guides to published studies, overviews of linguistic characteristics), others highlight and discuss particularly salient and interesting typological characteristics of an isolate (some of them are breakthrough studies for the understanding of a particular language), and others focus on the very status of the language under discussion as an isolate in the first place. Some isolated languages are still very much alive; at least one of them, Korean, is a major national language. The majority of the languages and small families covered here are endangered, and some will certainly cease to be used during the coming decades. Thus, isolated languages are particularly interesting objects for students of language endangerment, but they are also prime research objects for linguistic descriptionists, for, when they are gone, not only will another of the 6,000 or so human languages have disappeared, but, in those cases, whole linguistic lineages (and their ways of coping with the world) will be gone forever.

Modern‐day Çorum is the homeland of the Hatti people; the culture that went on to form the Hittite Empire. Resuloğlu, which dates back to the latter half of the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2500/2400–2100/2050 BC), is a unique Hatti site with its settlement and cemetery areas systematically excavated. Among thousands of beads found at Resuloğlu, various materials were identified such as ceramic, copper and its alloys, carnelian, shells, and blue, green, and white‐colored beads. The microstructure and chemical compositions of 26 morphologically similar, colored beads were analyzed by optical microscopy, ICP–MS, XRD, and EPMA and are the focus of this paper. The results demonstrate faience bead production with efflorescence and cementation glazing techniques. The abundance of the raw materials at the Halys Basin (Central Anatolia) signals a local production, and there is a suggestion of a relationship with copper metallurgy.

Pictures of Topada 2018  and info about the adjoining  underground settlement have been added. This chapter is a continuation of my article: titled " Is the city Parašhunta the same as the city Purušhanda? ". It describes certain possibilties for the location of Parašhunta/Paršuhanda. Other toponyms of the Bronze and Iron Ages, which were mentioned in relation with Purušhanda, are described as well. Pictures Topada at page 16 ; information underground settlement page 20.

Some of the most extensive Hattian cult recitations are found in KUB 1.17, a tablet belonging to the Hittite Festival of the Month (CTH 591). The obverse of this tablet clearly demonstrates the connection of the Hattian recitations with the Hittite descriptions of ritual activities, since the deity honored by a particular rite is subsequently identified in the appurtenant recitation. In the proposed reconstruction of the reverse of this tablet, however, the Hattian recitations for some deities are in fact far removed from the rites dedicated to those same deities. There, the insertion of rites for a group of deities belonging to the pantheon of Kaneˇs disrupted the original correspondence between the rites and recitations for Hattian deities. This demon- strates, on the one hand, that the Hittites likely no longer understood the Hattian recitations properly. On the other hand, the recitations – as sacred language – were maintained as a vital element of the festival tradition and as an expression of the Hittites’ own cultural identity.

Bir senaryo : Kaniş’in yerinden olmuş halkı ve Antik Hitit Krallığı’nın kökeni.

İçerik:
M.Ö. yaklaşık 1710 yılında Kaniş Krallığı’nın, belkide o zamanlar Alahzina adını taşımakta olan başkenti yıkılmış ve akabinde yüzyıllar boyunca bir daha şehir olarak inşa edilmemiştir. İki yüzyıl boyunca Anadolu’da Asur ticaretinin merkezi konumundaki, kale surlarının hemen yanında kurulmuş bulunan Kaniş’in Karum Şehri de aniden terk edilerek harabeye dönmüştür. Yıkıldıktan sonraki dönemde Kaniş ülkesinde Anadolu ve Asur tüccarlarına ait kalıntılara bir daha hiç rastlanamamıştır. Hattuşa Şehri M.Ö. yaklaşık 1750 yılında Kral Anitta tarafından yıkılmış, ancak muhtemelen küçük bir yerleşim birimi varlığını sürdürmeye devam etmiştir. Arkeolog Andreas Schachner, Hattuşa (2011 – 71) adlı etkileyici kitabında şunları bildirmektedir: “Wahrscheinlich bestand dort trotz der Eroberung durch Anitta eine funktionierende Siedlung, deren Ausbau sich fur einen ambitionierenden Herscher lohnte”. M.Ö. 17. ve 16. yüzyıllar arasındaki asır değişimi civarında, büyük yeraltı tahıl silolarının ve büyük savunma duvarlarının yapımı gibi önemli inşaat faaliyetleri hayata geçirilmiştir. Bunu 16. yüzyılın başında küçük yerleşim birimlerinin büyük ve planlı genişlemeleri takip etmiştir. Bu makalede Kaniş ve Hattuşa’daki bu tarihi olayların birbirleriyle doğrudan bir bağlantısı olup olmadığı incelenmiş ve aynı zamanda Kaniş ve Kussara Krallıkları’nın Antik Hitit Krallığı ile tarihi bağı tanımlanmıştır. Bir senaryo şeklinde Kaneşli mültecilerin kil tabletlerdeki Nesili’nin gelişimi üzerindeki muhtemel etkileri ve Antik Hattuşa Krallığı’nın doğuşu kaleme alınmıştır.


.