Bandkeramik and non-Anatolian PIE

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
>> I've often used the term non-Anatolian and 'narrow' PIE to describe PIE
>> after its separation from Hittite and the other Anatolian languages.  This
>> is rather orthodox linguistics.

In a message dated 2/23/2000 2:15:46 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:

>Only of one school.  There are many Indo-Europeanists who do *not* accept that
>Anatolian is to be viewed as a sister of the entire rest of the IE family.  In
>fact, I would say that the "Indo-Hittite" hypothesis is accepted by very few,
>almost all students of one person (and certainly of one department) in the US.

After reading that the UPenn tree had confirmed "the Indo-Hittite
hypothesis," I seem to have confused myself and everyone else here.

This Danubian scenario for "narrow PIE" does not require 'the Indo-Hittite
hypothesis' in any way. All that is required is that one accept the rather
"orthodox linguistic" notion that "the archaic features of Hittite can be
explained by assuming that Hittite speakers made up the first group to leave
the Indo-European community.  Assumption of a considerable period of
separation would account for the innovations in Hittite."  (W. Lehmann,
Historical Linguistics 1992, p.82)  The one glitch is that it is not the
proto-Hittites/Anatolians who left, but the 'Indo-European' community - the
first splitting or branching occuring in either case.

The 'Indo-Hittite hypothesis' is a more elaborate idea and is taxonomic:

"Some Indo-Europeanists, notably E. H. Sturtevant, proposed reclassification
of the [IE] family because of the h: sounds, others archaisms and the early
time of the records.  They suggested that Hittite was a sister language,
rather than a daughter language, of Proto-Indo-European, and proposed a new
label Indo-Hittite for the family." (Lehmann, ibid)

I'm using "narrow PIE" as a shorthand (I learned from Prof Trask's posts on
this subject) for the proto-language that is left AFTER the split-off of
Anatolian.  (This has nothing necessarily to do with the true "Indo-Hittite
hypothesis.")  "Narrow PIE" is shorthand for "PIE minus Anatolian/Hittite" or
"proto-Celtic-Italic-Germanic-Slavic-IIr-etc."  This appears to be quite
orthodox, unless one concludes that the IE families split-off all at once.

My read on this is that "PIE minus Anatolian" forms on the Danube and becomes
Bandkeramik.  The predecessor "Anatolian-Balkan painted pottery" culture
found in the Balkans and Anatolia represents the residue of 'wide PIE' AFTER
the split and would include proto-Hittite-Luwian (and possibly
proto-Phrygian-Thracian, though don't hold me to that.)

Renfrew does not concern himself much with intra-IE movements and anyone who
actually reads A&L will see why.  (Mallory is not the best place to get an
accurate capsulization of Renfrew.)  Renfrew is mainly dealing with the
spread of IE (not PIE) in non-IE areas.  He does however seem to see no need
for pre-Greek to move into Greece, except as part of the first migration out
of Anatolia.  This may be at odds with the scenario I described above, though
Renfrew hardly seems adament about it.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal has mentioned the view that in effect the Danuabian
PIEians or post-PIEians moved south (the A>B>A migration.)  At the time
Renfrew wrote A&L, 1987, there was little evidence of Bandkeramik's progeny
moving into the Balkans.  There is some now.  I don't know if this has
affected his evaluation, which as I said was not strongly stated at all.
(see A&L, 176-7, where he quotes John Chadwick - of Linear B fame - saying
that the question "Where did the Greeks come from? is meaningless" based on
the idea that Greek was not yet Greek when it entered Greece.)

What does strike me again going through all this is the powerful evidence of
a migration and a deep cultural change that comes from Anatolia into Greece
about 2200BC.  This is the time when we see the introduction of the
domesticated horse into Greece, along with the fast wheel, new burial and
building practices that merge with the existing culture to create what would
become Mycenaean culture.  This evidence was just beginning to be gathered
when Renfrew wrote A&L and I wonder if it has affected his evaluation.

In any case, if Renfrew ("not the Bible") is even 75% correct, his
explanation seems to me to have the advantage of plausibility - for what that
is worth in this crazy world.

It is somewhat easier to believe that IE languages developed out of
settlers/speakers populating the land, then to believe a rather small horde
of Ukrainian horsemen/sheepherders entirely coverted the language of the
first large, widespread technically advanced population in Europe - adept at
trade, agriculture, building and metallurgy - whom must have by the way had
an extremely adequate language of their own, but who nevertheless left no
substrate.

But stranger things have happened in history, I guess.

Regards,
Steve Long