>anybody know what language group the hattites were. that is the oredecessors to the hittites in anatolia?
What little is known about Hattic does not warrant inclusion in any
language group but its own.
> colin renfrew's theory that they or close relatives were the origional indoeuropeans rest on this issue. .
No, Colin Renfrew theory rests on the claim that the Hittites/Luwians were
the original inhabitants of Anatolia, or at least the Western part of it.
In and around Hattusas, it is clear that the Hatti were there before the
Hittites (Neshians), but that doesn't say much about teh rest of Anatolia
one way or another.
>if they weren't indoeuropeans were they related to the hurrian languages?
Hattic doesn't show any close relationship to Hurri-Urartian.
>i also recently read maoolry's book on the tarim basin mummies. he gives grand theories but is their really enough evidence to identify the sakas, saramatioans and scythians as indoeuropeans as he suggests.
Yes, there is enough evidence to know that the Saka-Scythias and Sarmatians
were Iranian-speaking peoples. The modern represntaive of Sarmatina is
Ossetian, spoken in teh Northern Caucasus.
>for that matter i read a web site that suggested that tocharian was turkic. so are these definately indoeuropeans.
Tocharian A and B are definitely Indo-European languages (independent of
whether the name "Tocharian" is a misnomer or not).
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@...