Who were the Hittites and the proto-Phoenicians?
My point is that the Hittites and the proto-Phoenicians were, at one time, A SINGLE PEOPLE … or, rather, two different tribes of A LARGE UMBRELA GROUP (Armenian Group).
Hittites are now described as “Indo-European” and Phoenicians – “Semitic”. The same is about their languages but these people are older than body of languages itself, moreover the term semitic was given 200 years ago by the historian August Ludwig von Schlözer and by Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, a protestant theologian and orientalist who made such a non-scientific conclusion based on the Bible tales.
Let’s see – The so-called Aramaic alphabet, a modified form of Phoenician, was the ancestor of modern Arabic script, while Hebrew script is a stylistic variant of the so-called Aramaic script. The Greek alphabet (and by extension its descendants such as the Latin, the Cyrillic and the Coptic), was a direct successor of Phoenician, though certain letter values were changed to represent vowels. As u can see these all alphabets are based on Phoenician, they are like subalphabets of one stock which is older than Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, nowdays Aramean (Aramean had 3 stages of development: old Aramean is old Armenian), Arabic or Hebrew…. they took the alphabet of ancient Armenians and corresponded it to their vocal systems and now by representing Arabic or Hebrew as semitic or Greek, Cyrillic as indoeuropean the reseaches are making their “papers” by mentioning the phoenician as semitic (made up term) and that’s why they are not able to get the real point.
So, the terms like “Semite” and “Indo-European” are inappropriate when discussing ethnic origins. Geneticist Spencer Wells, in his publicized study for The National Geographic Society, ran tests on the DNA gathered from Phoenician skeletons and concluded that they’re far older than either “Semite” or “Indo-European”. They come from “the older Mediterranean sub-stratum” predating both of these groups.
Western Armenia (Anatolia) was significant for a far more important reason: it is the growing consensus of experts from several different fields that it is the birth-place of all the “Indo-European” languages. For example, Dr Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand had calculated from a group of 87 languages–as diverse as English, Lithuanian and Gujarati —that the so-called proto-Indo-European language arose between 8,000 and 9,500 years ago, and that the epicenter for the spread was in Anatolia. Likewise, geneticists—operating in complete independence of the linguistic experts—arrived at the conclusion that the genes associated with the so-called Neolithic Farmers that would later enter Europe and spread their language, originated in Western Armenia. Archaeologist Colin Renfrew —isolated from both the linguists and geneticists—drew upon his knowledge of archaeology and concluded that the so-called Indo-Europeans originated from Western Armenia (Anatolia).
L.A. Waddell traveled with the British army and learned the Tibetan language and was considered one of the world’s foremost experts on Tibetan Buddhism. While in Northern India, he also learned Sanskrit. While reading the ancient Indian epics whose authors described their original homeland before arriving in the sub-continent, he recognized topographical traits and features that very much suggested Western Armenia, and the whole Armenian Highland.
Since William Jones presented his analysis of Sanskrit in 1786, it turned out to be that this Indo-European-speaking people in Northern India appeared to be pointing to Western Armenia (Anatolia) as their homeland. What drew his attention there even more were certain provocative correspondences. For instance, the ruling class who first invaded Northern India called themselves “ Khattiyo ”. Why this is interesting is that the reason we call the people in Western Armenia “Hittites” is because they called themselves Khatti. Since English does not possess certain sounds, the term is transliterated in several different ways—such as the Jewish celebration of Hannukah, which is sometimes spelled Channukah. Likewise, the people who called themselves “ Khatti ” are variously referred to as “ Catti ” or “ Hatti ”. And it is from this that the English-speaking nations derived the exonym “Hittite ”.
Waddell was fascinated that an Indo-European-speaking people in Western Armenia called themselves “ Khatti ” and that the Northern Indians who appeared to be describing the Armenian Highland as their “homeland” called themselves “ Khattiyo ”.
He approached this correspondence cautiously, however, realizing that it could just be a coincidence. A coincidence, that is, until he studied the King Lists embedded in the Purana of the Northern Indians. According to Waddell, “They covered many hundreds of pages, recording in full detail the main line and numerous branch line dynasties from the commencement of the Aryan period down to historical times; and specifying the names and titles of the various kings, reproduced with scrupulous care, and citing in regard to the more famous of them their chief achievements, thus making the record something of a chronicle of the kings as well.
These traditional Aryan kings are implicitly believed by all Brahmins and modern orthodox Hindus to be the genuine lineal ancestors of the present day ruling Indo-Aryan caste in India … . But modern western Vedic scholars, without a single exception as far as I am aware, have summarily rejected all this great body of Epic literary historical tradition as mere fabulous fabrications of the Brahmin priests and bards—just as modern writers of British history have arbitrarily rejected the Ancient British Chronicles preserved by Geoffrey and Nennius.
The excuses offered by Vedic scholars for thus rejecting these ancient epic traditional records are twofold. Firstly, they say that, as these voluminous King Lists are not contained in the Vedas, which books they assume to the sole source of the ancient Aryan tradition, these King Lists must be fabulous. In making such an objection, they entirely overlook the patent fact that the Vedas are merely a collection of psalms, and not at all historical in their purpose, so that one would no more expect to find in them systematic lists of kings and dynasties than one would expect to find detailed lists of kings and prophets in the “Psalms of David”.
The second argument of Vedic scholars for rejecting the ancient Epic King Lists is, as they truly say, that no traces whatever of any of these Early Aryan Kings can be found in India. But this fact is now disclosed by the new evidence to be owing to the very good reason that none of these Early Aryan Kings had ever been in India, but were kings in the Armenian Highland: Asia Minor, Phoenicia and Mesopotamia centuries and millenniums before the separation of the Eastern branch to India.
“Picking up these despised traditional Epic King Lists of the Early Aryans, thus contemptuously rejected by Vedic scholars, I compared the names of their later main-line dynasties with the names of the later historical Hittite kings , as known from their own still extant monuments, as well as from the contemporary Babylonian and Assyrian records, and I found that the father of the first historical Aryan king of India (as recorded in the Maha Barata epic and Indian Buddhist history) was the last historical king of the Hittites , who was killed at Carchemish on the upper Euphrates on the final annexation of that last of the Hittite capitals to Assyria by Sargon II in 718 BC.
And I further found that the predecessors of this Hittite king, as recorded in the cuneiform monuments of Asia Minor and in the Assyrian documents, back for several centuries, were substantially identical with those of the traditional ancestors of this first historical Aryan king of India as found in these Indian Epic King Lists.”
He adds, “On further scrutinizing the earlier dynasties of these Epic King Lists, I observed that several of the leading kings of the earlier Aryan dynasties in these lists bore substantially the same names, with the same records of achievements, and in the same relative chronological order as several of the leading kings of early Mesopotamia—the so-called ‘ Sumerians ‘ and ‘ Akkads,’ as recorded in their own still extant monuments and in the fragmentary ancient chronicles of the land.
Still further, I observed that isolated early kings of Mesopotamia, who are only known to Assyriologists from their stray inscribed monuments as solitary kings of unknown dynasty and unknown origin and race, were mostly recorded in my King Lists in their due order and chronological succession in their respective dynasties with full lists of the Aryan Kings of these dynasties who had preceded or succeeded them. It thus became obvious that these Indian Epic King Lists supplied the key to the material required for filling up the many great blanks in the early history of Ancient Worlda in the dark and ‘prehistoric period’ there.”
Waddell finds a third leg for support with regard to his theory in the form of religion. For, as he notes, “The ruling clan in India celebrated in the Vedas were the most ardent of all devotees of the Sun and Fire cult associated with worship of the Father-god Indra … like the Hitto-Phoenicians who were especial worshippers of the Father-god ‘ Indara ‘.
He adds, “In 1907, in the old Hittite capital, Boghaz Koi in Cappadocia, Winckler discovered the original treaty of about 1400 BC between the Khatti or Hittites and their kinsmen neighbors on the east, in Mitani. In this treaty they invoked the actual Aryan gods of the Vedas of the Indian branch of the Aryans and by their Vedic names. Significantly the first god invoked is the Vedic Sun-god Mitra, as some of the later Aryans made separate gods out of the different titles of the Father God. His name is followed by In-da-ra, that is the solar Indra or ‘Almighty,’ the principal deity of these Indo-Aryan Vedic scriptures …”
Waddell goes on to point out the prominence of the swastika (or “sun-cross”) in the worship of Fire or Sun cults.
Now can anyone find any difference between Armenian Է (é) and ʾĒl (written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic: 𐎛𐎍, Phoenician: 𐤋𐤀, Classical Syriac: ܐܠ, Hebrew: אל, Arabic: إل or إله, cognate to Akkadian: ilu) which means “deity”. El or Il was a God also known as the Father of humankind and all creatures. In Northwest usage El was both a generic word for any “God” and the special name or title of a particular God who was distinguished from other gods as being “the God”, or in the monotheistic sense, God. El is listed at the head of many pantheons. In Armenian language it has a sacred meaning about which one can read here:
https://harmannia.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/sacred-letter-%D5%A7-as-a-divine-essence/
El is the Father God among the Canaanites. In all sources it is mentioned that all “semitic” people took it from the Punics and the Phoenicians !!! And who are now the descedents of the Phoenicians?
How did the ancient Middle East flow into Northern India. The question that peaks my interest is rather smaller in scope—namely, whether the Hittites and proto-Phoenicians were, at one time, A SINGLE PEOPLE … or, rather, two different tribes of A LARGE UMBRELA GROUP. The coins left in ancient Briton by Phoenician mariners with the name “ Catti ” imprinted on them. Likewise,and “the Phoenicians usually spelt their tribal name of ‘ Khatti ‘ or ‘ Catti ‘ or ‘Gad,’ and were in the habit not infrequently of calling their rivers at their settlements ‘ Gadi,’ ‘Gad- es ‘ or ‘ Ka-desh ‘.”
Historians have long known that the Spanish city Cadiz was once a Phoenician colony called “ Gades ”. In Scotland, a river named by the Phoenicians is likewise known as the “ Gadie ”.
Could these variants of “ Catti ” be derived from the “ Khatti ” whence we get the term “Hittite”?
Another fact that must be considered is that a scholar named Rajeswar Gupta published a controversial study of the Vedas, in which he independently states that the Phoenicians were in Northern India, circa 10,000 BC. If it is true, this would place them there at approximately the same time that Dr. Russell Gray said that the proto-Indo-European language emerged in Western Armenia.
The first pakhlava (In Eastern Armenian Pakhlava, in Western Armenian dialect Bakhlava – like eastern Armenians say Hakop, western Armenians say Hagob, all is the matter of the dialect, so because the turks didn’t have the sound kh, from Western Armenian dialect it bacame baklava in turkish language and from turkish language it went to Arabic and to other languages) was made in nowdays turkish small city called Gaziantep which officially gives the patent of preparing pakhlava… Now let’s have a look what city it is and how it became turkish, moreover let’s check if it was turkish before… 
Harmania 