To be fair, the Encyclopedic reference states: "Hittite is one of the earliest known Indo-European languages, although marked differences in its structure and phonology have lead some philologists to argue that it should be classified as a sister language to the Indo-European languages, rather than a daughter language.
Now I have been out of the field of Archaeology/Anthropology for some time... long enough to know that previous assumptions (and the known record) change frequently. That is what ongoing investigations are all about. In Mr. Hanson's postion, he is likely feeding off of current and even unpublished information. I won't attempt to speak for Mr. Hanson in this regard. But, it might be worth asking him directly via his website... VDH Website
Farmfriend... you seem just like the sort of Freeper that could shed light on this discussion.
Thank you for your responses.
Here in Fethiye
where I have come to look
at a few Lycian sites
I have limited access to Internet
and I have been unable to respond.
Yes
I read Hanson's article too quickly
in one of my 10 minute sessions
in an Internet cafe
and should not have jumped on him
for mistakenly assuming
he meant the Hittites were Semites.
It is true
that Hittite artifacts have been found
at Troy
but I have not read
anywhere
that there is any factual evidence
that the earliest inhabitants of Troy
were of Semitic origin.
If anyone knows of such evidence
I should be very interested
in knowing a reference.
Allan Trojan