Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


KRONOS Vol. I, Issue 3


[* Paper read at the Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh, Pa., October 29, 1974.]


In this study, I would like to address myself to an examination of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's chronological revisions in relation to the little known regions of Eastern Anatolia, Caucasia, and the Armenian Plateau, for these revisions, if valid, must be applicable to every geographical area of the ancient East, great and small, well-known and obscure, whose chronology has been based on that of Egypt.(1) Unless this can be done successfully, these revisions are not going to be acceptable — at least not in their present form. As a specialist in these remote regions I can say at the start that, not only does Velikovsky's revised chronology present no insurmountable obstacles to our understanding of the early history of this part of the world, but rather it gives a much greater sense to this history and imposes a much more comprehensible and logical development upon it.(2)

Now since much of what I shall be saying will be based on material contained only in Velikovsky's theses and in his unpublished work, I realize at the outset that some of my views may appear somewhat avant garde. Since there is no space to repeat Dr. Velikovsky's supporting evidence in any detail, however, I must ask the reader to accept as basic premises the following five hypotheses put forth by Velikovsky and which I have attempted to apply to my own area of study:

1 ) That the presently accepted chronology of these regions is in error by some 500 to 600 years and that their early history must be brought down by that amount of time. Specifically, the events generally dated to the fourteenth century B.C. belong properly to the ninth-eighth.(3)

2) That the so-called New Hittite Empire, thus brought down, cannot be found in the Middle East at this later period and that, through coincidences in their histories and the lives of their rulers, Velikovsky has identified this state with the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean Empire, centered first at Hattusas in East Central Anatolia and then, only later, at Babylon.(4)

3) That the Mitannians, associated with the Hittites and Egypt in the Amarna Age, must similarly be brought down and are to be identified with the early Medes.(5)

4) That the Hurrians, also associated with the Hittites and also with Mitanni, must likewise be brought down and perhaps — perhaps — be identified with the Carians.(6)

5) That the Urartians, who flourished on the Armenian Plateau in the 9th-7th century B.C., were also called "Khaldu" (i.e., Chaldeans), were encountered by Xenophon on his journey through Armenia in the winter of 401-400 B.C., and are to be related in some way with the Anatolian Chaldeans of Hattusas wrongly called Hittites.(7)

These last two theses are put forth very tentatively and, as Dr. Velikovsky freely admits in his text, the fourth requires further investigation.


Setting aside the question of the identification of the Hittites with the Neo-Babylonians, which I personally feel that Velikovsky has brilliantly demonstrated in his unpublished work, but which lies outside of my geographical scope, I shall address myself to the identifications of three lesser but nonetheless important peoples: the Hurrians, the Mitannians and the Urartians.

The Hurrians, like the Hittites, are one of the discoveries of the past century, a people speaking a language neither Indo-European nor Semitic but having strong ties with Urartian and perhaps with Modern Georgian as well. Their original home appears to have lain on the Armenian Plateau whence they spread to Anatolia, north Syria and central Mesopotamia. The earliest record of them is found in the appearance of certain Hurrian personal names in Akkadian tablets conventionally dated to the last half of the third millennium. In the early second millennium they are attested in Babylonia, in the Kingdom of Mari and at various Syrian centers,particularly Alalak and Ras Shamra. Subsequent migrations are supposed to have deposited them in large numbers throughout much of western Asia from Nuzi in the northeast, to Palestine in the south, while Hurrian glosses and texts are encountered as far west as Hattusas, where even some Hittite queens appear to have been of the Hurrian nation.

Yet, for all this, there appears to have been little political result either of Hurrian numbers or expansion. As Velikovsky states, they appear to have been a people without a history. Specialists were thus quick to relate them to the Empire of Mitanni, whose correspondence and other writings were kept in the Hurrian language by a ruling class whose personal names and deities, however, are manifestly Indo-European.(8) The question as to whether the Mitannians were Hurrians or were actually Indo-Europeans ruling over a Hurrian or part Hurrian population is an important one, for so impressive is the Hurrian accomplishment that they are regarded as having been the people responsible for the Transcaucasian "eneolithic" culture (or Kura-Arax culture as it is often called after the river valleys where excavations have revealed its remains). This was a cultural unity which pervaded Transcaucasia and the Armenian Plateau from c.3250 B.C. to 1750, after which it gradually broke up, surviving in some places (e.g., the Van region) until as late as c.1500 B.C.(9) (conventional chronology).

Mitanni, itself, appears in the conventional chronology in c.1550 B.C. and was destroyed by a combination of Assyrian and "Hittite" pressure about 1365. The exact location of the Mitannians is not known for certain and their capital, Wassukani, has not been identified, but they are usually placed on the south central slopes of the Armenian Plateau just north of the Tigris between, say, modern Diyarbekir and Mosul. We really don't know.(10) Mitanni was a hereditary monarchy, supposedly Hurrian-speaking, and certainly the Hurrian language was used by them in their writings. The sovereign, however, was surrounded by a restricted class of nobles called by the Indo-European (?) term maryannu, who shared the land in feudal fashion. In the Amarna Age, the Empire of Mitanni was of considerable importance and maintained the balance of power between Egypt and the "Hittites". The empire was on the best of terms with Egypt and Mitannian princesses married pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty. Culturally, however, the Mitannians were under heavy Sumero-Akkadian influence although they blended the writing, literature, religion, law and science of these earlier peoples with their own, native, Hurrian traditions and then passed this blend on to the other peoples with whom their far-flung migrations brought them into contact. Their principal beneficiaries were the "Hittites" but also it would appear, the Syrians and Canaanites as well. Altogether, the scope and impact of Hurrian influence is most impressive.(11)


Now, according to Velikovsky's chronological revisions, the Hurrians flourished not in the 16th-14th centuries B.C. but in the 11th-9th, and, as we have seen, he postulates their identification with the Carians.(12) Showing the weak linguistic evidence for a reading khur/hur rather than khar/kar, and noting the obvious importance of the Hurrians about whom almost nothing is known, he recalls that the Carians are said to have come from Crete and that Strabo (I.3.21) speaks of their wide migration. He further notes that the Carian language, which is very imperfectly understood, is neither Indo-European nor Semitic but is described by specialists as "asianic", and that, furthermore, Mitannian elements have been detected in it.(13) Velikovsky thus calls for a reconsideration of the problem of the Carian language on the basis of a comparison of it with Hurrian. I would suggest, moreover, a comparison of it with Urartian, which is so close to Hurrian that one specialist,- as we shall see, describes it as nothing less than a later version of Hurrian.

But if the Hurrians are Carians, what are we to do with the Mitannians? First, let us note that the identification of Mitanni with the Hurrians is based entirely on linguistic considerations. Yet, King Tushratta of Mitanni wrote to Amenhotep III that he must make war upon King Artatama "of Hurri", and the specialist Moscati asks if this be a dynastic conflict or rather a war between two different Hurrian states.(14) Conceivably, Mitanni was not really a Hurrian state at all, but merely an Indo-European polity which contained a substantial Hurrian population. Thus, according to Velikovsky, the Mitannians are to be identified not with the Hurrians but with the early Medes and he supports this by the fact that his chronological revisions bring the two peoples together in time and also because Matiene or Mantiane was the name of a lake and province of Media in the classical period.

Let us compare the two peoples, Mitannians and Medes, and see what correlations can be adduced. First, the last King of Mitanni was Shattuara II after whom the Mitannian state disappears conventionally in c.1365 B.C. Velikovsky's chronology, however, would place this event at c.865 B.C., whereupon the Medes promptly appear from nowhere for the first time in history as the Mada of the Assyrian records of Shalmanesar III. This was in c.836 B.C., i.e. about thirty years later.(15)

The first Median ruler on record was Daiukku, the Deioces of the Greeks, who is cited in Assyrian records in 715, and the Median Empire begins under his successors.(16) Note, then, that 121 years elapse between the first mention of the Medes in 836 and their first known ruler, Daiukku, attested in 715. The Armenian historian Moses of Khoren, who wrote perhaps in the eighth century A.D., fills in this gap, however, with four Median kings precedingDaiukku,whose names, though obviously derived from a Greek source, bear striking resemblances to the names of certain Mitannian rulers.(17) The names found in Moses of Khoren (taken from Ctesias?) and those of the possibly corresponding names of known Mitannian kings are as follows:

Varbakes Wasashata
Modakes Mattiwaza
Sosarmos Saushattar
Artikas Aratama

It need hardly surprise us that the Greeks, who could turn Ashurbanipal into Sardanapalus, should be able to render Mattiwaza as Modakes. In any case, the combined reigns of these four sovereigns — if their names be, indeed, cognate — could possibly bridge the gap of 121 years between Shattuara II, the last known Mitannian sovereign, and Daiukku, the earliest known King of the Medes.(18)

Obviously the Mitannian Empire was destroyed but, according to Velikovsky, not in 1365, but rather in c.865. After this, the Mitannians, if they actually ever did live on the south central slopes of the Armenian Plateau, could have moved further East where the Assyrians would refer to them as the Mada thirty years later. They then could have entered upon a period of political eclipse (possibly under a line of native rulers, whose names may be those preserved for us by Moses of Khoren), down to Daiukku, his successors, and the resurgence of Mitanni as the Median Empire. Thus, we see that the chronology of Velikovsky presents no real problem for Median history. The end of Mitanni would virtually correspond with the first appearance of the Medes. The earlier obscurity of the latter is accounted for by the destruction of the earlier Median Empire of Mitanni, while the Indo-European ruling class of Hurrian speaking Mitanni could also be explained: the Mitannians would be Indo-European-speaking Medes who doubtless used Hurrian as a literary language much as the later Armenians were to use Aramaic and Greek for centuries prior to the invention of the Armenian alphabet in the fifth century A.D.(19)


Returning to the Hurrians, now, I must say that, while I maintain an open mind upon the subject, I cannot yet accept Velikovsky's identification of them with the Carians. In my opinion, the importance of the Hurrians does not correspond to the relative unimportance of the Carians who, whatever the extent of their migrations, could hardly have been numerous enough to have made such a profound impression upon the Middle Eastern scene. Rather, I tend to agree with Soviet specialists and with Burney(20) in that the Hurrians are to be identified with the people of the Armenian Plateau who produced the unified culture already referred to, which characterized these regions from c.3250 to 1750 and in some places to c.1500 B.C. (conventional chronology).

Archaeology demonstrates that sometime in the late second millennium and the early first millennium, this transcaucasian eneolithic culture gradually broke up and, using Velikovsky's chronology, it is in this period that Mitanni appears. This state, as I have already indicated, I believe to have been a basically Indo-European polity. It may have been formed over a predominately Hurrian population, however, but only in the southern Hurrian lands, for the existence of more than one Hurrian political formation appears clear in this period and Mitanni never to our knowledge dominated the Armenian Plateau. Now, as the Hurrians disappear at the same time as the Mitannians — c.1365 according to the conventional chronology but c. 865 according to Velikovsky — we must examine this region of Eastern Anatolia and the Armenian Plateau in the light of this new chronology.

And what do we find? According to Velikovsky's chronology the Hurrians would disappear in c. 865, while, in c.860 — five years later — we first hear in Assyrian records of Aramu, king of a state first called in Assyrian Uruatri and then Urartu.(21) This state was a federation of smaller states and peoples of the Armenian Plateau welded together through the arms of the Kings of Biaina.(22) The history of this Urartian federation and of its long struggle with Assyria is rather well known thanks to its copious inscriptions, and these enable us to determine that its language was closely akin to Hurrian. Indeed, Burney, one of the few western authorities on Urartu, states "the Urartian language was closely related to Hurrian, so much so that, whatever the reservations of some philologists, it may legitimately be described as latter-day Hurrian." (23)

Now using the conventional chronology, archaeology has discovered that one of those ubiquitous dark ages exists on the Armenian Plateau between the disappearance of the Hurrians and the emergence of the Urartian state, a period which Burney describes as somewhere between six to ten centuries in duration.(24) According to Velikovsky's chronology, Burney exaggerates. The imaginary gap would be somewhere between seven and eight centuries and would not represent any dark age. Rather, its presence would be due to the inaccuracies of the traditional chronology. Since the dates of the Hurrians and Mitannians are bound to those of the so-called Hittites, and the date of the Hittites is bound to what Velikovsky considers the erroneous chronology of Egypt, these dates, he feels have led to the unnatural separation of the Hurrians and the Urartians by perhaps as much as 700 to 800 years. The Urartian federation would thus be nothing more than a new Hurrian formation which arose immediately following, and perhaps because of, the destruction of Mitanni in the ninth century B.C. The traditional and incessant hostility between the Urartians and the Assyrians may well have begun as a result of the Assyrian role in the destruction of Mitanni. (25)

Now, I mentioned earlier that Velikovsky notes that the Urartians were called Khaldu and that Chaldeans were encountered by Xenophon on his march through Armenia in 401-400 B.C. Actually the term Chaldean for the Urartians is an arbitrary one adopted by Lehmann-Haupt, who, since the Assyrians were called after their chief god, Ashur, patterned the name of the Urartians after their chief god, Khaldis, and who believed that the Chaldeans encountered by Xenophon 200 years after the fall of Urartu were surviving Urartians under their native name. (26) We know now, however, that the Chaldeans of the Armenian Plateau were only one component of the Urartian federation, which actually called itself Biainili.(27) Thus, while Velikovsky errs in thinking the Chaldeans to be Urartians, he is possibly correct in thinking them to have been remnants of the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean state which he identifies with the "Hittite" Empire of central Anatolia.

The chronological revisions of Velikovsky affect the lesser peoples of eastern Anatolia as well. North of the Hittites lived the war-like Kashka tribes. First cited, in the conventional chronology, in c.1350 B.C., Velikovsky's revisions would make them actually appear in c.850 B.C. Since the Kashka are believed to be identical to the Qulha of eighth century Urartian sources, the new chronology closes the gap of over 500 years which the traditional chronology places between the Kashka and the Qulha. Since the Qulha are one of the peoples who went into the blend which produced the later Georgian people of Caucasia, the exact date of their first appearance is of some import for our understanding of the formation of Colchis, the earliest Georgian political entity.(28)

Finally, there is one other people whose traditional date is bound to that of the Hittites and thus to the traditional chronology of Egypt. These are the Hayasa, a people who traditionally flourished in the fourteenth century B.C. but, according to Velikovsky, in the ninth. Since the Armenians call themselves Hayk' (singular Hay), it has usually been accepted that, while Herodotus (7.73) calls them simply a Phrygian colony, they were probably an amalgamation of an Indo-European-speaking Phrygian tribe with the local, perhaps Hurrian-speaking, Hayasa. The only problem was the chronology. The Armenians first appear in the sixth century B.C., whereas the Hayasa were thought to have flourished in the fourteenth. Velikovsky's chronology reduces this gap by over 600 years and the link between the Hayasa and the Hayk'/Armenians becomes more secure.

In conclusion, let me note that none of the evidence which I have gathered in this paper can be interpreted as proof of the exactness of Velikovsky's chronological revisions. Rather, I have merely attempted to apply his theses to a particular part of the ancient East. I have tried to demonstrate that nothing he has to say presents any undue difficulties for this field but rather tends to simplify and clarify the history of the area. While this does not make Velikovsky correct, it certainly gives us pause. I cannot but urge all specialists to address themselves without prejudice to an investigation of their own areas of interest and expertise in the light of Dr. Velikovsky's work. If ancient history stands in need of being rewritten, so be it. It will not be the first time. Perhaps we should at least attempt to determine if it is necessary for us to begin.


1. For a full presentation of Velikovsky's chronological revisions cf. his "Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History" in Scripta Academica Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem, 1945) where his basic ideas are presented in 284 separate theses. His Ages in Chaos (New York, 1952) represents the first of several projected volumes in which he supplies the detailed evidence and supporting documentation for each thesis.
2. For the traditional views regarding the early history of eastern Anatolia, Caucasia and the Armenian plateau cf. the bibliographical note at the end of this study.
3. Thesis 2. Velikovsky's chronological revision requires more than a single alteration
in the conventional dating of ancient history. Thus, for example, he considers the 18th Egyptian dynasty to be placed c. 540 years too far into the Past, the 19th nearly 700 years, and the 20th nearly 800. For this reason no uniform revisional dates can be set for the events in the histories of other nations when Velikovsky's chronology is applied.
4. Theses 182 183.
5. Thesis 190
6. Theses 94-97.
7. This last point is not found among Velikovsky's Theses but is advanced on p. 181 of the unpublished galleys of Ages in Chaos vol. II.
8. Goetze 62-63, Hronzy 164-166.
9. Burney and Lang, 46-48.
10. Associated with Mitanni is the name Subartu, used by the Assyrians for the region where Mitanni was supposedly located, so much so that the terms Mitannian, Subarean and even Hurrian are often regarded as synonymous, (e.g. by Toumanoff, Studies, 51 n. 44 where he states "The cosmocratic title 'King of All' appears to have originated among the Hurrians-Subareans. It was from them that this title . . . was inherited by the Assyrians, as masters of the once-Hurrian territory; as also by the Urartians, as holders of a part — a token part — of that territory. This token territory must have been the once-Hurnan land of Subria/Supria, its name a derivative of 'Subartu', and 'Sura' must thus be regarded as a mere variant of that anme. Accordingly, 'King of Sura' in Urartian appears to have signified simply 'King of Subartu', and that was an alternative for the Hurrian cosmocratic title which the Assyrians rendered as sar kissati." The Subareans appear in the classical period as the Saspeires (Herodotus, 3.94) and also as Sapeires, Sabiri and Esperitse. Toumanoff (61, n. 58) considers them a remnant of the "Subareans or Hurrians" and (321, n. 76) relates their name to the Armenian principality Sper (classical: Sysperitis cf. Strabo 11.4.8, 11.14.12). It is interesting to note in this connection that in Herodotus (ibid.) the Saspeires are included with the Matienians and the Alarodians (i.e. Urartan remnants) in 18th satrapy of the Achaemenian Empire of Iran.
11. Speiser, World History of the Jewish People, 154-5; Moscati, 198 ff.
12. Theses, 94-96.
13. Bork, in Die Sprache der Karen, quoted by Velikovsky Ages in Chaos (unpublished vol. II, p. 201).
14. Moscati, 198.
15. Burney and Lang, 122.
16. Ibid., 155.
17. Moses of Khoren, History of Armenia I. 22 (cf. Moise de Chorene Histoire d'Armenie in Collection des historiens aneiens et modernes de l'Armenie II, ed. by V. Langlois, Paris 1860, where, however, the name of Sosarmos has been omitted).
18. If it appears difficult to span a gap of 121 years with only four sovereigns, it should be kept in mind that, had Edward VIII not abdicated, the English throne would have been occupied by only four rulers from 1837 to 1972, while the French throne was occupied by only three from 1643 to 1792 — 149 years!
19. The survival of the form Matiene/Mantiane in Herodotus (3.94) and other classical authors is doubtless due to the survival of the name Mitanni in the non-Indo-European languages of Mesopotamia and Iran in the Achaemenian Persian period and later. Note that Herodotus (I.72) mentions Matieni along the right bank of the Halys River (Kizil Irmak) in Central Anatolia which is to be expected if the Matieni were the Medes for the Halys was the limit of Median expansion in the West. The name Subartu also survived. Associated by specialists quite arbitrarily with Mitanni, it appears in the classical period as the name of a people called Saspeires (Herodotus, 3.94) or Sapeires (Apollonius of Rhodes II, 395) on the Armenian Plateau who gave their name to the Armenian town and district of Sper, Gk. Syspiritis (Strabo, XI.14.12); Tk. Ispir. This people may have been a Hurrian tribe and may have represented the Hurrian element in the Indo-European Mitannian (proto-Median) Empire.
20. Burney, 49-50.
21. Ibid., 130.
22. Toumanoff. 50.
23, Burney, 48.
24. Ibid., 127.
25. Adontz, Histoire, 375,
26. Lehmann-Haupt, quoted by Toumanoff, 54, n. 49.
27. Toumanoff, 50.
28. The idea that the Kashka are indeed the Qulha of Urartian sources is largely a question of whether or not one accepts the linguistic theories which support the idea of a shift from sh < 1 and lmgulsts are divided on the matter. The relationship between the Qulha and the Colchians, however, seems unquestionable.
29. For the Hayasa cf. especially Adontz, Histoire p. 27 ff.
30. Even a cursory glance at the conventional history of the regions discussed in this study gives ample reason to question its validity. Thus, while the Transcaucasian eneolithic culture is said to have lasted from c. 3250 to c. 2000 B.C. and the "Hittites" are believed to have entered Anatolia from north of the Caucasus range, Burney notes (p. 47) that no evidence of their passage (such as an abrupt disconnection of the material culture) is detectable in the highland zone. Likewise he notes (p. 86) that most of eastern Anatolia languishes in obscurity from c. 2000 B.C. until the ninth century and that there is a definite decline (i.e. absence) of settled life on the Plateau especially in the regions of Van Erzerum and Elazig. In addition Burney notes (P. 89) the extraordinary length of the period (over 1000 years) during which the Cyclopean fortresses were being raised on the western shores of Lake Sevan. Velikovsky's chronology reduces this period by half Again, on p. 93, he notes that the Colchidic culture of western Georgia lasted from c. 1800 B.C. until the seventh century B.C. which he calls a "very long period." Again Velikovsky's chronology cuts this "very long period" almost in half. Finally, on p. 105 Burney notes that specialists date the cemetery at Redkin Lager (in Soviet Armenia) to somewhere between 1300-1000 B.C. to several centuries later, while important sites, such as Armarir and Garni, appear to have lain abandoned in the Period 2000-900 B.C. Both of these last discrepancies suggest strong possibility of chronological error rather than an actual hiatus in occupancy. AlI of these curious findings and minor problems are either eliminated or greatly alleviated through the application of Velikovsky's revised chronology


N. Adontz, Histoire d'Armenie (Paris, 1946); N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, English translation by N. Garsoian (Lisbon, 1971): W.E.D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People (London, 1932); W.E.D. Allen, "Ex Ponto" I, II Bedi Karthlissa, 30-31 (Paris, 1958), III, IV, ibid., 32-33 (Paris, 1959), V, ibid., 34-35 (Paris, 1960); N. V. Arutyunyan, Urartian Agriculture and Cattle Breeding (Erevan, 1964) in Rus; Guitty Azarpay, Urartian Art and Artifacts a Chronological Study (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1968): R. D. Barnet, Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age (Cambridge, 1967); A. Baschmakoff, Cinquante Siecles d'evolution ethnique autour de la Mer Noire (Paris, 1937) Berjenishvili et al. Istorija Gruzii I (Tiflis, 1946); Kurt Bittel, Hattusha, The Capital of the Hittites (New York 1970); G. Bonfante, Armenians and Phrygians, Armenian Quarterly I, 1 (New York, 1946) 82-97; W. Brandenstein, Der Ursprung der Armenier, Handes Amsorya 75/10-12 (Vienna, 1961) 685-696.

Charles A. Burney, Northern Anatolia Before Classical Times, Anatolian Studies VI (1956) 179-203; Charles A. Burney and David Marshall Lang, The Peoples of the Hills Ancient Ararat and Caucasus (London, 1971); Cambridge Ancient History (2nd and 3rd editions both, as 3rd is incomplete, articles on Anatolia, Assyrians, Hittites and Urartians; E. Cavaignac, Le monde mediterrane (Paris, 1929); C. Ceram, The Secret of the Hittites (New York, 1956) G. Contenue, L Asie occidentale ancienne (Paris, 1936), Sirarpi Der Nersessian The Armenians (New York/Washington, 1970); I. M. Diakanov, Phrygians, Hittites and Armenians in Problems of Hitto — and Hurrology (in Rus.) Sbornik Peredneaslatski (Moscow, 1961) 333ff, 594ff; G. Driver, The Name Kurd in its Philological Connections, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London, 1923) 393-403; E. Forrer "Alzi" Reallexikon der Assyriologie; E. Forrer "Hayasa-Azzi" Caueasiaca IX (Leipzig); E. Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1921).

H. Field, Contributions to the Anthropology of the Caucasus (Cambridge, Mass., 1953) R. N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (London, 1963) Paul Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (Paris, 1963); T. Garstang and O. R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire (London, 1959); A. Goetze, Klelnasien, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1957), A. Gugushvili, "Ethnological and Historical Division of Georgia", Georgica 1/2-3 (Paris, 1936) 54-59; O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (Baltimore, 1961 ); H. G. Guterbock, "The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire", Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale 2 (Paris, 1954) 283ff; H. G. Gütebock, "Towards a Definition of the Term Hittite", Oriens IV (1957) 233ff; F. Homel, Ethnologie und Geographie des alten Orients (Paris, 1936) B. Hrozny, Histoire de l'Asie Anterieure, de l'Indie et de la Crete, fr. transl M. David (Paris, 1947); G. Hüsing, Die Volker Alt-Kleinasiens und am Pontos (Vienna, 1933); A. Javakhishvili, "The Caucasian Race", Georgica 1/2-3 (Paris, 1936) 92-108; G. Kapancjan, Istoriko-lingvisticheskie raboty k nachal'noj istorii Armjan: Drevjaja Malaja Asija (Erevan, 1956); J. Karst, Alarodiens et proto-Basques (Vienna, 1928); J. Karst, Mythologie armeno-Caucasienne et hetito-asianique (Strasbourg/Zurich, 1948), J. Karst Origines mediterraneae (Heidelberg, 1931); R. Khérumian, Les Armeniens race-origines ethno-raciales (Paris, 1941); R. Khérumian, Introduction a l'anthropologie du Caucase les Armeniens (Paris, 1943); V. Khudadov, "Xaldy-Urartijtsy posle padenije vanskogo tsarstva", zestnik drevnej istorii (Moscow, 1938).

M. Kiessling, 'Enioxoi/Heniochi/, in Pauly, Wissowa, Kroll, Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 8/1, 259-280; Réné Lafon, Etudes basques et caucasiques (Salamanca, 1952); David Marshall Lang, The Georgians (New York/Washington, 1966) C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, "On the Origin of the Georgians", Georgica 4-5 (Paris, 1937); Seton Lloyd, Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia (New York, 1967); J. G. Macqueen, "Hattian Mythology and Hittite Monarchy", Anatolian Studies IX, 1959 pp. 171-88, Y. Manandyan O nekotory spornykh problemakh istorii i geografii drevnej Armenii (Erevan, 1928); A. A Martirosyan, Armeniya v epokhu bronz i rannego zhelexa (Ervan, 1964); G. A. Melikishvili, Nairi-Urartu (Tiflis, 1954); G. A. Melikishvili, Urartskie klino-obraznye nadpisi (Moscow, 1960); Machteld J. Mellink, "Anatolian Chronology" in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. by Robert E. Ehrich (Chicago, 1954) 101-132; J. Markwart, "Le berceau des Armeniens", Revue des History etudes armeniennes 8/1 (Paris, 1928); J. Markwart (Marquart), Die Entstehung und Wiederherstellung der Armenischen Nation (Berlin, 1919) B. Nikitine Les Kurdes etude sociologique et historique (Paris, 1956); B. B. Piotrovskii, The Aeneolithic Culture of Trans-Caucasia in the Third Millenium B.C. (Moscow, 1962) in Rus.; B. B. Piotrovskii, Urartu, the Kingdom of Van and its Art, English translation by Peter S. Gelling (New York, 1967) Boris B. Piotrovsky, The Ancient Civilization of Urartu, English translation by James Hogarth (New York, 1969); R. Roux, Le probleme des Argonautes (Paris, 1949).

W. Ruge and J. Friedrich, "Phrygia" in Pauly, Wissowa, Kroll, Realencyclopadie, Vol. 20, 1, 1941; E. Speiser, "Hurrians and Hittites" in World History of the Jewish People, first series, Ancient Times, Vol. I, At the Dawn of Civilization (New Brunswick, 1964): E. Speiser, Mesopotamian Origins: The Basic Population of the Near East (Philadelphia, 1932), E. M. Sturtevant, The Indo-Hittite Laryngeal (Philadelphia, 1942); Cyril Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, 1963); M. Tseretheli, The Asianic (Asia Minor) Elements in National Georgian Paganism, Georgica 1/1 (Paris, 1935); A. Ungnad, Subartu: Reitrage zur Kulturgeschichte und Volkerkunde Vorderasiens (Berlin/Leipzig, 1939)- P. Ushakov, "Drevnejshie Narody Gruzii novye arkheologicheskie otkrytija", Sak'art'velos Muzeumis moambe 10 (Tiflis, 1940); P. Ushakov, "K pokhodam Urartijcev v Zakavkazé V IX i VIII vv. do n.e.", Vestnik drevnej istorii (Moscow, 1946) 2; P. Ushakov, Khettskaja problema, Travaux de l'Universite Staline (Tiflis, 1941) 87-112; P. Ushakov, "Problemy drevenjshego naselenija Maloj Azii, Kavkaza i Egeidy", Vestnik drevnej Istorii (Moscow, 1939) 4; M. N. Van Loon, Urartian Art (Istanbul, 1966); Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (New York, 1952); Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (New York, 1955) Immanuel Velikovsky, Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History, Scripta Academita Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem, 1945) Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950). See charts in back of book.

(insert image)

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665