Sabine in reply to my point
> >Not much evidence of Semitic trade into the region
> either until Phoenician times (after 1,000 BCE). <
>
> Not really, John. Most of the (and all the old ones) Hittite texts we
have
> are written by the cuneiform writing system brought to Hattusas by
Akkadian
> (i.e.Semitic) scribes, following trade routes !
> And there is hardly any evidence for contact between Hittites and
Minoans or
> Mycenaeans (see the Ahhijawa - problem).
Hmm.. I forgot that one!
Yep.. Assyrian traders in Cappadocia during the reign of Shamshi Adad.
But by then the area seems to have been divided between city states,
Kanesh, Kushara, Khatti, Landa, Tuwanuwa, Nibisna, Purushkanda, Lusna,
Milid and Malatya were all independent states ruled by local dynasts,
in which Semitic Assyrians occupied a "traders quarter". Only in the
case of the last two (Milid and Malatya, on the Euphrates bend) did
they achieve any numerical predominance. Linguistically the evidence
shows that most of them were ruled by people speaking the Khattic
(Hittite substratum) with increasing evidence of Indo-European personal
names and presence. Then we have Anitta the King of Kushara creating a
ephemeral kingdom which hardly survived two generations before Labarnas
- the first Hittite monarch swept all the city states into the Hittite
Old Kingdom.
To the west of Cappadocia at a slightly later date, a series of city
states or tribal peoples are also found, Wilusa (Illios?), Taruwisa
(Tyrhenni?), Karkisa (Caria?), Arzawa (Asia?), Lukku (Lycia?), Shardana
(Sardis?), Appanishi, Kuwanisiya, Hapalya, Walma, and Hariyati, show an
early presence, with names seeming to have faint echoes in Classical
times hinting at presences at diferent places. Culturally there seems
to have been two "realms" - one centred to the northeast, at Troy and
Yortan, the second to the southwest at Beycultestan. This area emerged
as a powerful independent kingdom during the inter-regnal period
between the Hittite Old Kingdom and the New Empire, as an independent
state that corresponded with Egypt. One presumes that too was in
diplomatic Akkadian, but the evidence is a lot less certain. The names
of the states suggest an Indo-European (Luwian) language here, not a
Semitic one. One state (Haiyati) even seems Indo-Aryan, and Indo-Aryan
names have been found in terms for harness and for training horses,
suggesting that the Indo-Aryan influence found in the contemporary
Mitanni (Hurrians) may have extended still further west. But no Semite
tribes... unfortunately.
Akkadian influence was there in the form of a few cuneiform scribes -
but then Akkadian was the international language of the times.
Akkadian was also found at Armarna in Egypt at the same period, but
this is not evidence of a Semitic substratum to the Pharaonic language
of the 18th dynasty. They just recognised diplomatic niceties - in the
same way as until 1976 Australian passports recognised French and
English as diplomatic languages for Papua New Guineans travelling
abroad. It doesn't mean there was a French substratum to English in
Papua New Guinea.
Hope this helps
Regards
John