The origin of the Proto-Anatolians is a longstanding debate among historians and archaeologists. In 2020, Petra Goedegebuure, an associate professor of Hittitology at the University of Chicago, delivered a lecture titled "Anatolians on the Move: From Kurgans to Kanesh" at the Oriental Institute, which reignited interest in this topic. The lecture explored two primary theories: the eastern route through the Caucasus, proposed by Marija Gimbutas, and the western route through the Balkans, advocated by David Anthony. This article aims to provide a critical overview of Goedegebuure's ideas and the evidence supporting each route.

Traditional literature often emphasizes the impact of western peripheries, but the origin of Common Anatolian, and thus Proto-Anatolian, remains elusive. This uncertainty arises from the fragmented nature of available documents, hydrotoponymic studies, and hypothesized language contacts. These factors complicate our understanding of the pre-classical linguistic landscape of the Near East. By examining these elements, we can begin to infer the most likely migration routes of Proto-Anatolians.

Hattians and their Influence on Hittite Culture

The cultural integration of the Hittites and Hattians is a well-documented phenomenon. However, Goedegebuure suggests that the influence of the Hattian language on Hittite was relatively limited. For instance, there are only about 30 assured Hattian loanwords in Hittite, as noted by Tischler. Additionally, Oettinger demonstrated that the suffix -el in Hittite has an Indo-European origin, contrasting with the Hattian suffix -il (i-), which appears only in personal names or lexical borrowings. These linguistic details highlight the minimal direct influence of Hattian on Hittite.

Goedegebuure proposes that the Hattian language underwent a shift due to the presence of a large, subordinate immigrant group that adopted Hattian imperfectly. This group, possibly speaking an early form of Indo-European, merged with Hattian society but retained many features of their original language. This scenario explains the grammatical discrepancies and the lack of extensive lexical borrowing in Hittite. The subordinate position of this group likely contributed to their imperfect bilingualism and the eventual dominance of their native dialects in regions like Kaneš/Neša.

Evidence of Early Indo-European Presence

The presence of Indo-European names in Colony period documents from various Anatolian sites, such as Kültepe, Boğazköy, and Alişar, indicates an early Indo-European influence in Central Anatolia. For example, the name Ḫattuša, found in both Mari and Kültepe letters, suggests Indo-European settlers in northern Central Anatolia. The city name Amkuwa, with its Indo-European variant Akuwa, further supports this early presence, as the Hattian name Ḫanikku is absent from colonial period records. These toponyms imply that Indo-European groups settled in Central Anatolia before the rise of the Hittite kingdom.

The term nuwa’um, used by Assyrians to refer to non-Assyrians, likely included Proto-Luwians. This term reflects early encounters with Luwians and later extended to all Central Anatolians. The fact that Assyrian merchants used nuwa’um to describe their trade partners, who were present in key Hattian cities like Ḫattuš and Alişar, indicates a significant Indo-European presence in these areas. This evidence aligns with the theory of early Indo-European settlement and cultural integration in Central Anatolia.

Palaeolinguistics and Cultural Insights

Palaeolinguistic studies and archaeological findings provide additional insights into Proto-Anatolian culture. One significant aspect is the role of horses and chariots. Unlike other ancient Indo-European branches, the horse did not play a crucial part in Hittite rituals. However, the Proto-Anatolian language retained the Indo-European word for horse, suggesting cultural continuity with earlier groups. The use of chariots, a later specialization, shows less consistency with Indo-Tocharian terminology, indicating different development paths.

Agriculture and viticulture also offer clues about Proto-Anatolian origins. Proto-Anatolians did not share the same limited farming vocabulary as Late Proto-Indo-Europeans, suggesting a pastoralist subsistence economy. The Indo-Anatolian term for grapevine implies settlement near wild vines, but it does not distinguish between eastern and western expansion routes. The lack of evidence for wine cultivation among Proto-Anatolians supports the view that they were not native to regions like Anatolia or the southern Caucasus, where viticulture was more common.

Population Genomics and Migration Patterns

Recent advancements in population genomics provide new perspectives on the origins of Proto-Anatolians. Goedegebuure's interpretation of genetic data has been critiqued for not fully integrating the latest findings in ancient DNA research. Studies have shown that genetic ancestry in the Aegean and Anatolia includes eastern (Iran/CHG-like) components, arriving after the 5th millennium BC but not necessarily indicating a steppe origin. Bronze Age Anatolian samples show continuity with earlier local populations, challenging the idea of a significant steppe migration.

Conversely, genetic studies of Balkan populations reveal steppe ancestry predating the Yamnaya culture. This evidence supports a western migration route for Proto-Anatolians. Balkan Chalcolithic samples, with contributions from steppe ancestry, align with the theory of migration from the west. The presence of steppe-related ancestry in Balkan and Anatolian samples further supports this hypothesis. The complex nature of ancient migrations and genetic admixture makes it difficult to pinpoint a single origin, but the western route appears more plausible.

Conclusion

While the debate on the origin of Proto-Anatolians continues, current evidence leans towards a western origin. Genetic data from the Balkans supports migration waves of Suvorovo chiefs, placing Proto-Anatolian speakers in contact with Anatolian cultures from the mid-5th millennium BC. This scenario allows for the infiltration and integration of Proto-Anatolian speakers into Anatolia over time. Although both eastern and western routes remain possibilities, the western route, supported by genetic and archaeological evidence, seems more likely. Further research in population genomics and palaeolinguistics will continue to shed light on this complex migration history.

• References

• Lazaridis, I. et al. (2017). "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans." Nature. Available at: Nature.

• Anthony, D. W. (2007). "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World." Princeton University Press. Summary available at: Princeton University Press.

• Goedegebuure, P. (2008). "Central Anatolian languages and the history of the Hittite and Luwian languages." Journal of Language Contact. Summary available at: Journal of Language Contact.

• Watkins, C. (2001). "Hittite and Indo-European Studies." Journal of Indo-European Studies. Available at: JIES.

• Tischler, J. (1979). "Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Oettinger, N. (1999). "Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Thomason, S. G., and Kaufman, T. (1988). "Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics." Available at: Amazon.

• Klinger, J. (1996). "Die Hethitische Literatur." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Melchert, H. C. (2003). "Language in Hittite and Luwian Cultures." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Soysal, O. (2002). "Hattian Influence on Anatolian Religion." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Arbuckle, B. S. (2009). "Horses and Chariots in the Ancient Near East." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Massa, M. (2016). "Kura-Araxes Cultural Expansion." Available at: ResearchGate.

• Bachhuber, C. (2008). "The Iconography of Kura-Araxes Cattle Burials." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Zimmermann, T. (2008). "Wheel Models in Early Bronze Age Anatolia." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Anthony, D. W. (2019). "New Research on Proto-Indo-European." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Damgaard, P. de B. et al. (2018). "The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus." Nature. Available at: Nature.

• Feldman, M. et al. (2019). "Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines." Science Advances. Available at: Science Advances.

• Arbuckle, B. S. (2009). "Zooarchaeology and the Interpretation of Faunal Remains." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Sagona, A. (2013). "The Archaeology of the Caucasus: From Earliest Settlements to the Iron Age." Cambridge University Press. Available at: Cambridge University Press.

• Renfrew, C. (1991). "Before Babel: Speculations on the Origins of Linguistic Diversity." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Kristiansen, K. (2017). "The Archaeology of Europe’s Earliest Farmers." Available at: ResearchGate.

• Heyd, V. (2007). "Bell Beaker Settlements and Social Organization." Available at: Academia.edu.

• Balanovsky, O. (2015). "Paleogenomics of the Caucasus." Available at: ResearchGate.

• Reich, D. (2018). "Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past." Pantheon Books. Available at: Amazon.

• Olalde, I. et al. (2018). "The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe." Nature. Available at: Nature.

• Kaniewski, D. et al. (2011). "Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis." PLOS ONE. Available at: PLOS ONE.