Wasn't there a region in SE Turkey called Corduene? Hard to believe that wasn't Kurdish.
AHC: Surviving Anatolian languages
Wasn't there a region in SE Turkey called Corduene? Hard to believe that wasn't Kurdish.
Any constraints on the PoD? Like, for one example we could go -
Alliances among whoever the Sea Peoples were* fall apart. Movements of the Sea Peoples are delayed or averted, and the Hittite Empire survives and later expands westward into Southern Europe. Despite various later movements, much of this presence in Southern Europe survives to this day.
But it's pretty arbitrary.
*Probably some form of Aegean Greek speaking and West Anatolian Luwian speaking groups?
Alliances among whoever the Sea Peoples were* fall apart. Movements of the Sea Peoples are delayed or averted, and the Hittite Empire survives and later expands westward into Southern Europe. Despite various later movements, much of this presence in Southern Europe survives to this day.
But it's pretty arbitrary.
*Probably some form of Aegean Greek speaking and West Anatolian Luwian speaking groups?
I've researched the topic, and essentially the only "evidence" for its survival up till AD 500 is incredibly flimsy. At best I'd say Gaulish had a slim chance of still existing in some marginal areas, but perhaps not even there! As negative evidence, consider Breton. Had these migrants from the British Isles encountered an indigenous celtophone population in Armorica, we would except the modern language to have a continental celtic substrate. Which it doesn't. As far as we can tell, it only shows features of the insular celtic languages.
Luwian ("Isaurian") is a different case because it was located far from where Latin was spoken by any substantial population.
That is not what I refer to. What I refer to, is the nature of the Armenian peoples as prior to the Iranic arrivals or at least constituent of a prior arrival. Rather, they were the Mushki peoples of the Armenian highlands region. Not a part of an Iranic transit of peoples, in my view.
It has no relation to the Kurds. Corduene was in the Bronze Age and Iron Age, an area of Hurrian, Assyrian and possibly some level of Indo-European settlement near Harran and certainly in Washukanni. During these ancient times, the region of Corduene was an area of constant war between the Assyrians and the mountain hillfolk of Nairi. As such, it too became a conflict zone between Assyria and Urartu over the region and certainly over the famed Hurrian city of Ardini-Musasir.
Also, these areas are not part of Anatolia. Which is characterized as the lands ruled by the Hittites, Pala, Arzawa, Kizzuwatna, Luka and Luwian peoples.
A good number of the languages in Anatolia weren't actually Anatolian, though, correct? Some of the major ones like Phrygian aren't Anatolian at all, and we have pretty scant evidence regarding a lot of the languages.
Seems like the key is really to maintain an indigenous, Anatolian state of sufficient power and cultural prestige that it doesn't find itself adopting Greek or getting conquered by an outside power. You really need a sort of dynastic cycle, where maybe individual regimes fall, but there's always one Anatolian-speaking empire waiting in the wings. It seems tricky, given how often Anatolia is invaded historically, but maybe not impossible. Maybe the Kashka (?) establish a second Hittite style kingdom in the fullness of time, assimilating into the broader Anatolian culture and ruling for a few centuries longer, before another dynasty overthrows them. Thus by the time the alt-Greeks are pressing on their shores, there's a long-standing power that isn't easily brushed aside with whom the Greeks have to treat as equals, a la the Persian Empire but more compact and regional. This averts the development of Aramaic as a lingua franca in the near east, and limits the incursion of Greek languages into Anatolia.
Keeping them around forever, I admit, is a little trickier. Sooner or later, as time goes on, it seems like the chaotic linguistic patchwork of Europe and the Middle East gets homogenized down, paralleling the establishment of imperial states and more developed trade routes. The Mediterranean world basically goes from dozens and dozens of local languages to Latin's successors, Arabic and related dialects, and Greek. It goes from loads and loads of small states to a series of empires and kingdoms that at least notionally claim to rule vast territories. At this point, you're basically relying on one of those regional empires being an Anatolian speaking one, some continuation state of that ancient Kashka successor, even if they have created their own, completely separate ideological foundation myth by now (which is likely). Ideally, the Anatolian state has also done some significant conquests - down into Syria, meddled in Greek politics a lot, that sort of thing. And hopefully it either has its own distinct religion or has adopted a religion and made it its own, using its own native tongue as the liturgical language in either case. That will all help it endure.
Then it just needs to survive a couple thousand years and pray nobody, Saka or Alan or Magyar or Turk or Mongol, doesn't come screaming out of the steppe and smash all of its progress, or that there's no great Iranian empire that conquers the whole near east, or that it doesn't fall and get replaced by a Greek empire, or a hundred other things don't go wrong.
Seems like the key is really to maintain an indigenous, Anatolian state of sufficient power and cultural prestige that it doesn't find itself adopting Greek or getting conquered by an outside power. You really need a sort of dynastic cycle, where maybe individual regimes fall, but there's always one Anatolian-speaking empire waiting in the wings. It seems tricky, given how often Anatolia is invaded historically, but maybe not impossible. Maybe the Kashka (?) establish a second Hittite style kingdom in the fullness of time, assimilating into the broader Anatolian culture and ruling for a few centuries longer, before another dynasty overthrows them. Thus by the time the alt-Greeks are pressing on their shores, there's a long-standing power that isn't easily brushed aside with whom the Greeks have to treat as equals, a la the Persian Empire but more compact and regional. This averts the development of Aramaic as a lingua franca in the near east, and limits the incursion of Greek languages into Anatolia.
Keeping them around forever, I admit, is a little trickier. Sooner or later, as time goes on, it seems like the chaotic linguistic patchwork of Europe and the Middle East gets homogenized down, paralleling the establishment of imperial states and more developed trade routes. The Mediterranean world basically goes from dozens and dozens of local languages to Latin's successors, Arabic and related dialects, and Greek. It goes from loads and loads of small states to a series of empires and kingdoms that at least notionally claim to rule vast territories. At this point, you're basically relying on one of those regional empires being an Anatolian speaking one, some continuation state of that ancient Kashka successor, even if they have created their own, completely separate ideological foundation myth by now (which is likely). Ideally, the Anatolian state has also done some significant conquests - down into Syria, meddled in Greek politics a lot, that sort of thing. And hopefully it either has its own distinct religion or has adopted a religion and made it its own, using its own native tongue as the liturgical language in either case. That will all help it endure.
Then it just needs to survive a couple thousand years and pray nobody, Saka or Alan or Magyar or Turk or Mongol, doesn't come screaming out of the steppe and smash all of its progress, or that there's no great Iranian empire that conquers the whole near east, or that it doesn't fall and get replaced by a Greek empire, or a hundred other things don't go wrong.