Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

Quoting Rob Haden <magwich78@...>:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:22:50 -0500, Thomas Wier <trwier@...> wrote:
>
> >Concerning Andreas' question about the two kinds of spread model:
> >the motivations for two spreads is primarily archaeological in nature.
> >We know the Steppe-peoples did spread into the Balkans and other parts
> >of Europe around the time suggested as by the one-invasion model of
> >Mallory.  It is also known that farming communities spread out of
> >Anatolia much earlier.  The question is what these two waves spoke.
> >In this sense, it would make sense if as Andreas says the demic
> >wave of farmers formed what later became the centum languages,
> >while the satem-languages resulted from the Steppe invasions. This
> >would imply that the earlier centum languages of the Balkans had been
> >wiped out by the satem-speaking invaders from the steppes.
>
> It seems most likely to me that the Steppe-peoples spoke Indo-European and
> the farming communities from Anatolia spoke something else.
The problem with this, of course, is that it's hard to see how the steppe-folks
got about replacing the languages of the previous inhabitants. Nomadic
conquerors don't usually end up inflicting their language on sedentary subjects
(I suppose Anatolia, ironically, is an exception here).

Moreover, central and western Europe isn't very friendly to steppe nomads as
regards climate and vegetation. While a few steppe invasions have reached deep
into the area in historical times (think Attila), no steppe people has
succeeded establishing itself with any sort of permanency west of Pannonia,
which not coincidentally is the westernmost bit of Eurasia that is suited to
Eurasiatic Steppe horse-based nomadism. The contrast with Iran or China is
rather striking. While conditions no doubt were different in prehistoric times
- no states or empires to fend off the barbarians - the basic climatic factors
were much the same.


> >Anyways, as an addendum, I would like to add that just yesterday I was at
> >a party at the Oriental Institute for new students (not me), and was
> >talking to a guy over there who works on the Chicago Hittite Dictionary,
> >as well as Theo van den Hout, the primary Hittitologist at the OI.  When
> >asked, they seemed to think that it was entirely unclear what population
> >was autochthonous in the most ancient times in Anatolia.  They said,
> >though, that the Hittites called themselves based on the Hattians whom
> >they considered to be autochthonous, much as modern people in Britain call
> >themselves Britons, although they mostly now speak a language not
> >(originally) native to Britain.  And it was also noted that the Kaskians,
> >the northern barbarians who inhabited the area north of the Halys River,
> >have names that are almost entirely Hattic in origin, and that the
> >Hittites also have few names that are ultimately Hittite in origin.  These
> >facts suggest that the Hittites indeed were perhaps not autochthonous to
> >the central Anatolian plateau, but whether they came from somewhere else
> >in Anatolia, or somewhere outside Anatolia, is completely unknown.
>
> I thought it was rather common knowledge that the Hittites came to central
> Anatolia from the outside (probably to the west).
That they were relative newcomers to their historical homeland seems to be the
consensus among all but Renfrew et consortes. I've never seen any arguments
favouring them getting there from the west rather than from Caucasia or
somewhere else from the east.

For what it's worth, I did see one crackpot page that *proved* that the IE
Urheimat was in Palestine. The associated maps had the Hittites entering
Anatolia from the south, and the various European branches getting to Europe via
Anatolia.

(It occurs to me that if this sort of scenario were right, one'd expect
Indo-Iranian and Tocharian to be more basal - ie. to have split off earlier -
than Anatolian. I don't think most IEist would say that prediction has been
confirmed.)

> What's also interesting to me is that the kingdom of Mitanni, in the
> northern Middle East, had rulers who were apparently of Indo-Iranian
> origin.  The question is, what direction did they come from -- the east or
> the west?
The standard assumption appears to be that they came from, or via, Iran. I don't
know what this is based on, but given the position of other ancient I-I peoples,
it seems reasonable enough to me.

Question: Does Mitanni I-I predate the split into Indic and Iranian? If not, is
it Iranian?

                                                   Andreas

Reply