Dmitry Pruss sent me Wool and the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis: A Linguistic and Archaeological Approach, saying “the summary looks good”; here are some salient passages:
In the context of Indo-European languages, wool holds linguistic significance as well. In Hittite, the word for wool appears in various forms, such as the widespread use of the Sumerogram SÍG. […]
Interestingly, linguistic analysis shows two distinct stems in the Hittite language for wool: ḫulii̯a- and ḫulan(a)-. Both forms, while indicating wool, exhibit different grammatical usages and highlight how linguistic evolution can track technological innovations, like wool production, in ancient cultures. The suffixes -ii̯a- and -āli- are common Indo-European nominal endings, while -ana- presents an anomaly, showcasing potential inner-Anatolian developments. […]
The research presented by Alwin Kloekhorst challenges long-held assumptions regarding the presence of a common Proto-Indo-European (PIE) term for wool across the Indo-Anatolian languages. The conclusion that the lexeme h₂ulh₁n(e)h₂- for ‘wool’ likely never existed within PIE forces a reevaluation of how the Indo-Anatolian languages developed in relation to wool-related vocabulary. In particular, the Anatolian word ḫulan-, which refers to wool, appears to be independent of the late PIE term, suggesting that the Anatolian branch diverged early from the rest of the PIE family, long before the spread of wool technology across Eurasia.
Furthermore, the PIE term ulh₁n(e)h₂- seems to have been created later, in the post-Tocharian PIE era, around 2700 BCE. This period aligns with the introduction of wool production to the Pontic steppes, indicating that language adapted alongside technological advancements. The evidence supports the idea that the spread of wool and its associated terminology was not a universal phenomenon across all Indo-European languages but rather emerged as wool became a vital resource in specific regions.
Lastly, the root hul-, found in Anatolian languages, could be a borrowing from external sources, such as Hurrian. This borrowing emphasizes the complexity of linguistic evolution and the significant cultural exchanges between ancient peoples. By integrating linguistic evidence with archaeological data, Kloekhorst’s conclusions offer a more nuanced understanding of the development of wool production and its terminology, illustrating that the linguistic divergences in Anatolia better align with the archaeological timeline of wool’s spread than previous theories suggested.
More details and graphics at the link. Thanks, Dmitry!
The paper is in a desperately irritating format: a pdf version of one of those powerpoint presentations in which every time you click, just one single line is added to the same slide contents that you’re already looking at (it’s an annoying enough gimmick in a powerpoint, and tends to reflect a bad use of powerpoint, viz reading out the text on your slides rather than using them as a visual aid to your spoken presentation.)
Roger Blench has a tendency to do this too, alas; though happily, he is much less given to the incremental-reveal style in his powerpoints.
The tl;dr seems to be that the marked similarity between the Anatolian and Rest-of-IE forms for “wool” is pure coincidence. I am in no way competent to assess this claim (and look forward to hearing from Hatters who are), but similar phenomena in Oti-Volta set many traps for the unwary.
For example, you can’t automatically conclude that a form is not inherited from the fact that the meanings in descendant languages suggest a referent which is too recent archaeologically: the original meaning may have changed in parallel in different branches. The various Oti-Volta words for “book” provide some cases in point.
And once you get into loanword/calquing territory, things get a lot more complicated, and you need much more evidence to substantiate your claims than you need for a straightforward historical reconstruction. Otherwise it’s all just-so stories.
The paper is in a desperately irritating format
Heartily seconded.