posted
Afrophobics are out there who pose as armchair experts of African affairs, and simply yearn for certain Africans to be non-African when the ideological occasion warrants it, and then back to being African when other occasions warrant it. Well, here is their moment to shine; so, for the proponents of a non-African origin for Ethio-Semitic, let's tackle this position with this basic question first, before delving into genealogical matters:
What are the "Near Eastern" Neolithic-era root lexicons of Ethio-Semitic language?
I'll take a lack of response to this preliminary test-question simply as determinative of absence of a true substantive grounding, and instead, self-emotional therapy as the driver of the described ideology; nothing more or less.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East.
Kitchen A,Ehret C , Assefa S, Mulligan CJ.
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, , Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA. aak11@psu.edu Abstract
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.
1. Introduction
Semitic languages comprise one of the most studied language families in the world. Semitic is of particular interest due to its association with the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia (Lloyd 1984), the Levant (Rendsburg 2003) and the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001), which gave rise to several of the world's first major religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and literary works (e.g. the Akkadian poem The epic of Gilgamesh). The importance of Semitic dates back at least 4350 years before present (YBP) to ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia, where the Akkadian language replaced Sumerian (Buccellati 1997). From this time forward, archaeological evidence for Semitic among the Hebrews and Phoenicians in the Levant (Diakonoff 1998; Rendsburg 2003) and the Aksumites in the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001) suggests that Semitic-speaking populations and their languages underwent a complex history of geographical expansion, migration and diffusion tied to the emergence of the earliest urban civilizations in these regions (Lloyd 1984; Connah 2001; Richard 2003b ; Nardo 2007). Uncertainties about key details of this history persist despite extensive archaeological, genetic and linguistic studies of Semitic populations. A more comprehensive understanding of the precise origin and relationship of Semitic populations to each other is necessary to fully appreciate their complex history.
Although multiple genetic studies of extant Semitic-speaking populations have been conducted (Nebel et al. 2002; Capelli et al. 2006), much is still unknown about the genealogical relationships of these populations. Most previous genetic studies focus on time frames that are either too recent (the origin of Jewish communities in the Middle East and Africa; Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2001; Rosenberg et al. 2001) or too ancient (the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans; Passarino et al. 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999) to provide insight about the origin and dispersal of Semitic languages and Semitic-speaking populations.
Previous historical linguistic studies of Semitic languages have used the comparative method to infer the genealogical relationships of Semitic (for review, see Faber 1997). The comparative method is a technique that uses the pattern of shared, derived changes in language (vocabulary, syntax or grammar), termed innovations, to assess the relative relatedness of languages, although this method cannot date the divergences between languages (Campbell 2000). Cognates, which are words that generally share a common form and meaning through descent from a common ancestor (e.g. the English word ‘night’ is a cognate with the German word ‘Nacht’), serve as the data used most often in comparative analyses.
The field of Semitic linguistics has generally coalesced around a model that places the ancient Mesopotamian language Akkadian as the most basal lineage of Semitic (Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). This standard model divides Semitic into East Semitic, composed of the extinct Akkadian and Eblaite languages, and West Semitic, consisting of all remaining Semitic languages that are distributed from the Levant to the Horn of Africa. West Semitic is in turn divided into South (consisting of Ethiosemitic, Epigraphic South Arabian and Modern South Arabian (MSA)) and Central linguistic groups, but the genealogical relationships of the languages within these two groups are poorly defined (Huehnergard 1990, 1992; Rodgers 1992; Faber 1997). Additionally, no consensus exists for placing Arabic in either the Central or South Semitic group (Hetzron 1976; Blau 1978; Diem 1980; Huehnergard 1990, 1992; Faber 1997), which makes Arabic's genealogical location simultaneously uncertain and interesting, as Central and South Semitic are geographically and genealogically distinct entities.
Dating language divergences has been controversial, especially when linguistic clocks are involved (for discussion, see Renfrew et al. 2000). The existence of a linguistic clock is controversial as it assumes that languages evolve at a fixed rate (Ehret 2000), whereas there is evidence for variation in rates of change between words and languages and no reason why languages should evolve at fixed rates (Blust 2000). However, recent studies have shown that much variation in the rates of linguistic change may follow generalized rules that apply across language families (Pagel et al. 2007; Atkinson et al. 2008). This suggests that variation in the rates of change between words and languages can be modelled by applying techniques used in evolutionary biology (e.g. probabilistic modelling of relative rates of word change with relaxed clock or covarion models of language evolution). Computational phylogenetic methods such as these are consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the linguistic comparative method (i.e. inferring relationships by the comparison of similar features between languages) and provide an objective statistical framework to accurately estimate language divergences. Furthermore, Bayesian phylogenetic methods offer distinct advantages by allowing for the inclusion of multiple lines of evidence as prior probabilities, incorporating the uncertainty of model parameters in posterior probability estimates, and providing straightforward statistical comparisons of models via Bayes factors (BFs).
In this study, we analyse lexical data from 25 Semitic languages distributed throughout the Middle East and Horn of Africa (figure 1) using a Bayesian phylogenetic method to simultaneously infer genealogical relationships and estimate divergence dates of the Semitic languages investigated here. In order to calibrate a relaxed linguistic clock and increase the accuracy of our divergence date estimates, we use epigraphic data (text inscribed in stone or tablets) from extinct Semitic languages (Akkadian, Aramaic, Ge'ez, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic) combined with archaeological evidence for the sampling dates of the epigraphic data (the time at which the materials were inscribed). We employ a log BF model-testing technique to statistically assess alternative Semitic histories and investigate different ways of modelling language evolution. Finally, we combine our divergence date estimates with epigraphic and archaeological evidence from all known Semitic languages to create an integrated model of Semitic history. Figure 1 View larger version:
* In this page * In a new window
* Download as PowerPoint Slide
Figure 1
Map of Semitic languages and inferred dispersals. The locations of all languages sampled in this study, both extinct and extant, are depicted on the map. The current distribution of Ethiosemitic languages follows Bender (1971) and distribution of the remaining languages follows Hetzron (1997). The ancient distribution of extinct languages is also indicated (i.e. Akkadian, Biblical Aramaic, Ge'ez, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic; Bender 1971; Hetzron 1997). The West Gurage (Chaha, Geto, Innemor, Mesmes and Mesqan) and East Gurage (Walani and Zway) Ethiosemitic language groups in central Ethiopia are depicted as two combined groups. The map also presents the dispersal of Semitic languages inferred from our study. An origin of Afroasiatic along the African coast of the Red Sea, supported by comparative analyses (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004), is indicated in red, although other African origins of Afroasiatic have been proposed (e.g. southwest Ethiopia; Blench 2006). The assumed location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is indicated in italics. Semitic dispersals are depicted by arrows coloured according to the estimated time of divergence (see coloured time scale at top of figure), and important nodes from the phylogeny (figure 2) are placed on the arrows to indicate where and when these divergences occurred. Previous SectionNext Section 2. Material and methods (a) Wordlists and cognate coding
Wordlists were modified from Swadesh's 100-word list of most conserved words (Swadesh 1955), with the final lists containing 96 words for 25 extant and extinct Semitic languages (fig. S1 in the electronic supplementary material). Wordlists for the Ethiosemitic languages (Amharic, Argobba, Chaha, Gafat, Ge'ez, Geto, Harari, Innemor, Mesmes, Mesqan, Soddo, Tigre, Tigrinya, Walani and Zway) and Ogaden Arabic were drawn from Bender (1971). Wordlists for Moroccan Arabic, South Arabian languages (Jibbali, Harsusi, Mehri and Soqotri) and extinct non-African Semitic languages (Akkadian, Biblical Aramaic, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic) were constructed from previously published lexicons (Leslau 1938; Gelb et al. 1956; Sobelman & Harrel 1963; Rabin 1975).
Cognate classes were determined for each of the 96 words using a comparative method that emphasizes the similarity of consonant–consonant–consonant roots and known consonant shifts when comparing two words. The cognate data were coded in two ways: (i) as a 25-by-96 multistate character matrix of cognate classes (‘A’–‘Q’) for each of the 96 meanings (fig. S2 in the electronic supplementary material), and (ii) as a 25-by-673 binary matrix coding the presence (‘1’) or absence (‘0’) of each of the 673 cognate classes in each language (fig. S3 in the electronic supplementary material). Loanwords were identified using lexical information from distantly related, but geographically close, language families (such as Cushitic), as well as comparisons with lexicons of languages within the Semitic family. Identified loanwords were excluded from all subsequent analyses. (b) Phylogenetic analysis and divergence date estimation
Phylogenies were constructed under a Bayesian framework using BEAST v. 1.4.8 (Drummond & Rambaut 2007). BEAST uses a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation technique to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters. All Markov chains were run for 20 000 000 generations with samples taken every 1000 generations. The first 4 000 000 generations were discarded as burn-in, and post-run analysis of parameter plots in Tracer v. 1.4 (Rambaut & Drummond 2007) suggested all chains had reached convergence by the end of the burn-in period. MCMC sampling and run conditions, and all prior distributions, were identical for all analyses unless otherwise stated.
An unordered model of cognate class evolution with equal and reversible instantaneous rates of changes between all pairs of cognate classes (i.e. the rates of A-to-B, A-to-C and B-to-A changes were identical) was used to analyse the multistate coded data, while a model with a single reversible rate was used to analyse the binary coded data. Rate heterogeneity across lexical items was modelled by a gamma distribution of item-specific rates. This model accommodated variations in the rate of change across lexical items, such that conserved items (a single cognate class for all languages) were assigned a slower rate than the mean, while highly variable items (few shared cognate classes between languages) were assigned a faster rate than the mean. Priors for the gamma shape parameter were uniform on the interval 0–50.
Divergence times were estimated using an uncorrelated lognormal relaxed-clock model that assumes a single underlying rate for the entire phylogeny, but allows for variations in rates between branches (Drummond et al. 2006). In order to calibrate the clock, we used sampling dates for the five extinct languages in our dataset (Akkadian=2800 YBP, Biblical Aramaic=1800 YBP, Ge'ez=1700 YBP, ancient Hebrew=2600 YBP and Ugaritic=3400 YBP; Rabin 1975) in a manner similar to how sampling dates are used in the studies of measurably evolving populations, such as fast-evolving viruses or ancient DNA (Drummond et al. 2003). These dates come from archaeological and epigraphic evidence associated with the linguistic source material, and thus provide the time at which the wordlists of the extinct languages were sampled (although the languages themselves often continued to exist for some time). Additionally, a set of five constraints taken from a combination of archaeological, epigraphic and historical evidence was placed on interior nodes. Such constraints allow for the inclusion of prior information and uncertainty regarding Semitic divergence times, which are strengths of Bayesian methods and have been successfully used to date the divergences of Indo-European (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Atkinson et al. 2005) and Austronesian (Gray et al. 2009) languages. These constraints are: (i) the origin of ancient Hebrew 3200–4200 YBP (Steiner 1997), (ii) the origin of Ugaritic 3400–4400 YBP (Pardee 1997), (iii) the origin of Aramaic 2850–3850 YBP (Kaufman 1997) and (iv) the origin of Amharic 700–1700 YBP (Hudson 1997). Each of these constraints spans a 1000-year interval since the earliest epigraphic or historical evidence for the language. An additional constraint (v) was placed on the time of the most recent common ancestor of the included Semitic languages to 4350–8000 YBP (the lower date is based on the earliest known epigraphic evidence of Akkadian; Buccellati 1997). An analysis was also performed without the constraint on the age of the root, which returned an estimate of 4300–7750 YBP for the root, i.e. almost exactly our constraint range. All divergence time constraints are in the form of uniform priors over the indicated interval. A uniform prior of 0.01 to 0.00001 cognate changes per word per year (0.001–1% replacement rate per year) was placed on the mean of the lognormal-distributed clock. The mean rate estimated from analysis of the binary data is 6.1×10−5 replacements per cognate per year (95% highest probability density (HPD)=4.4−7.9×10−5).
The robustness of our results was investigated using log BF tests to compare phylogenies that were constrained to model alternative Semitic histories. Specifically, we first compared two versions of the standard model of Semitic history: a model that placed Akkadian (i.e. East Semitic) at the root versus an unconstrained analysis to assess independent support for a non-African Semitic root. We then investigated the position of Arabic in Semitic history by comparing two variations of the standard model, one with Arabic nested within Central Semitic and another with Arabic within South Semitic. We also tested the ability of different models to account for variation in rates of linguistic change between lexical items and languages. In this case, we compared the standard model to two alternatives: (i) no gamma distribution to model variation in the rate of change between lexical items and (ii) no relaxed clock to model variation in the rate of change between languages. All log BF tests of Semitic history incorporated a gamma distribution and relaxed clock since our log BF tests showed support for these models. Marginal likelihoods for each model were estimated using the smoothed harmonic mean of the likelihood distribution (Newton et al. 1994; Redelings & Suchard 2005), and all log BF values were calculated by taking the difference in the log of the marginal likelihoods of each model (Kass & Raftery 1995) with log BF values reported in log units. Previous SectionNext Section 3. Results (a) Genealogy of Semitic languages
Our phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages produced the phylogeny shown in figure 2. This phylogeny is based on the binary dataset and incorporates all model features that showed significant log BF support (log BF tests were equivocal in the placement of Arabic, so we placed Arabic in Central Semitic based on previous comparative studies; e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). A brief summary of the phylogeny highlights include: (i) the greater age of non-African versus African Semitic languages (non-overlapping HPDs of 4150–7400 YBP for East/West Semitic versus 2000–3800 YBP for Ethiosemitic); (ii) the near-simultaneous divergence of East, West, South and Central Semitic languages; (iii) the early divergence of Arabic of approximately 4450 YBP (HPD: 3650–5800 YBP); and (iv) the well-resolved and recent divergences (less than 3800 YBP) of Ethiosemitic languages in a monophyletic (single origin) clade (a group of related languages). It is important to note that each node in the phylogeny represents an ancestral language that is hypothesized to have existed at the time of divergence estimated for that node, whereas branch tips represent actual languages at the time they were sampled. Long branches are representative of long intervals between divergences and the presence of unsampled languages (e.g. the long branch between nodes E and F), whereas short branches indicate rapid language divergence. Posterior probability estimates are shown for each branch and indicate the probability that a group of languages is more closely related to each other than to other languages. Branches with posterior probability estimates ≤0.70 were considered to be unresolved (the relative pattern of divergence among the languages could not be ascertained) and were collapsed to reflect this uncertainty. Figure 2 View larger version:
* In this page * In a new window
* Download as PowerPoint Slide
Figure 2
Phylogeny of Semitic languages. Our phylogeny of 25 Semitic languages based on binary encoded data is presented with mean divergence times to the right of each node and 95% HPD intervals indicated by light grey bars. The scale bar along the bottom of the phylogeny presents time in YBP. Posterior probabilities of branches are printed in italics above each branch with >0.75 support. Extinct languages are underlined and all other languages are considered to evolve to the present. Subgroups of Semitic are identified by colour bars to the right of the phylogeny (purple bars, East Semitic; green bars, Central Semitic; red bars, MSA; and blue bars, Ethiosemitic) and by three boxes (West, Central and South Semitic). Important nodes are indicated by letters: A, West Semitic; B, Central Semitic; C, Ugaritic–Hebrew–Aramaic; D, Arabic; E, South Semitic; F, MSA; and G, Ethiosemitic. The dashed line leading to Arabic reflects the fact that log BF tests were equivocal in the placement of Arabic, so we placed Arabic in Central Semitic based on previous linguistic studies (e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). The topology is rooted with Akkadian, which is preferred by our log BF analyses, and follows the constraints of the standard model. (b) Semitic language divergence dates
In addition to delineating the relationship between different Semitic languages, our phylogenetic analysis provides dates for the divergences of the investigated languages. The mean estimates of all language divergence times, with associated 95 per cent HPDs, are depicted in years on the phylogeny in figure 2. Our phylogeny indicates the most basal divergence within Semitic occurred at 5750 YBP (HPD: 4400–7400 YBP), suggesting an origin of Semitic during the Early Bronze Age (Ehrich 1992). This result implies that a hypothetical ancestral language was extant during this period and gave rise to all of the Semitic languages investigated in this study. The deepest four branches of the phylogeny indicate the divergences of East (root), West (node A), South (node E) and Central (node B) Semitic; these divergences are nearly coincident with largely overlapping HPDs (3300–7400 YBP), suggesting that Semitic underwent a period of rapid diversification upon its origin.
Central Semitic (node B) initially diverges at approximately 4450 YBP (HPD: 3650–5800 YBP) into Arabic and a group of ancient languages from the Levant (Aramaic, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic), which in turn diverge (node C) at approximately 4050 YBP (HPD: 3750–4400 YBP). The Arabic languages (node D) have an estimated divergence time of approximately 850 YBP (HPD: 400–1370 YBP).
On the other half of the phylogeny, the South Semitic clade (node E) shows an ancient divergence of Ethiosemitic and MSA languages approximately 4650 YBP (HPD: 3300–6250 YBP), which overlaps with the transition from the Early to Middle Bronze Age. The early divergence between Ethiosemitic and MSA is consistent with previous historical linguistic proposals that MSA is a deep branch of Semitic, linguistically distant even from its closest relatives within the Semitic family (e.g. Murtonen 1967). The hypothetical ancestor of the MSA clade (node F) dates to approximately 2050 YBP (HPD: 1100–3100 YBP), which, coupled with the narrow geographical distribution of MSA along the southern coast of Arabia, suggests that the diversification of MSA occurred in this region.
The single, well-supported (posterior probability=0.9976) branch leading to modern Ethiosemitic indicates a single origin for Semitic languages in the Horn of Africa with their diversification into North and South clades (node G) occurring at approximately 2850 YBP (HPD: 2000–3800 YBP), during the Iron Age in the Near East and overlapping with the pre-Aksumite and Aksumite periods in the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001). The large number of small internal branches in the Ethiosemitic group indicates a rapid diversification of these languages. The South Ethiosemitic languages separate into three monophyletic clades that correspond to accepted groupings of Ethiosemitic (Bender 1971) and show near-coincident divergences at approximately 1200–1600 YBP.
Our analysis of the multistate-encoded data produced divergence date estimates and 95 per cent HPDs that were consistent with those estimated from the binary encoded data (see fig. S4 in the electronic supplementary material). The mean divergence dates are also altered: the divergences of East versus West Semitic, Central versus South Semitic, MSA versus Ethiosemitic and Ethiosemitic are older in the multistate estimates, and the divergences of Central Semitic and MSA are younger relative to the binary estimates. The topologies are essentially the same with several small changes within the Ethiosemitic languages and a closer clustering of Arabic and Aramaic in the multistate analysis. Importantly, all of the mean divergence date estimates from the binary analysis fall within the HPDs of the multistate analysis. For figure 2, we chose to present the phylogeny based on the binary dataset following conventions of previous linguistic phylogenetic studies (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Atkinson et al. 2005; Gray et al. 2009). (c) Log Bayes factor tests
We assess the robustness of our analysis by statistically testing alternative Semitic histories. This was done using log BF model tests, which compare the probabilities that various models produced for the observed data (i.e. the lexical list data). Log BF values (all values are in log units) in the intervals 0–0.5, 0.5–1, 1–2 and greater than 2 are considered ‘not worth mentioning’, ‘substantial’, ‘strong’ and ‘decisive’ support, respectively, for the primary model (Kass & Raftery 1995). We test alternative Semitic histories using two comparisons. The first comparison tests models that root Semitic with Akkadian (i.e. a Near Eastern origin of Semitic) relative to an unconstrained model that allows for Near Eastern (i.e. Akkadian), African (i.e. Ethiosemitic) or Arabian (i.e. MSA) origins for Semitic. This comparison shows substantial support for a model with an Akkadian root (log BF=0.641), consistent with the consensus of comparative linguistic analyses (Faber 1997). The second comparison concerns the placement of Arabic and compares the standard model, in which Arabic is placed within Central Semitic (e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997), with a single topological modification that places Arabic within South Semitic. This comparison showed little preference for a model with Arabic within Central Semitic over one with Arabic within South Semitic (log BF=−0.438). Interestingly, the location of Arabic within Semitic is the only discrepancy in topology and divergence date estimates between our binary and multistate analyses (figure 2; fig. S4 in the electronic supplementary material).
We also use log BFs to test the ability of different models to accurately represent variation in the rates of linguistic change between words and languages. Our first comparison was between versions of the standard model that did and did not include a gamma distribution to model variation in the rate of linguistic change between lexical items. This log BF test shows substantial (log BF=0.574) support for a model that includes a gamma distribution to model rate variation between words. To place this in perspective, our estimate for the shape of the gamma distribution (α=24.9) indicates that there is less variation in the rate of change between lexical items than there is within codon classes in mitochondrial coding genomes of primates (Yang 1996). Our second comparison was between versions of the standard model that used relaxed and strict linguistic clocks to model rate variation between languages. This log BF test shows decisive support (log BF=13.0) for a model that includes a relaxed clock to model between-language variation. These two results demonstrate that our inclusion of rate variation components in our model of linguistic evolution significantly improves the fit between the data and our model, and that there is substantial variation in the linguistic rate of change between lineages and between lexical items. All log BF tests of Semitic history reported above incorporated a gamma distribution and relaxed clock since our log BF tests showed support for these models. Previous SectionNext Section 4. Discussion (a) Semitic origins
Our analysis of the Semitic language family produced a dated phylogeny that estimates the origin of Semitic at approximately 4400–7400 YBP (figure 2). The phylogeny suggests East Semitic (represented by Akkadian in this study) corresponds to the deepest branch (although the four deepest branches have overlapping HPDs), and our log BF tests indicate that Akkadian is the appropriate root for the Semitic languages analysed here. These results indicate that the ancestor of all Semitic languages in our dataset was being spoken in the Near East no earlier than approximately 7400 YBP, after having diverged from Afroasiatic in Africa (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004; Blench 2006). Lacking closely related non-Semitic languages to serve as out-groups in our phylogeny, we cannot estimate when or where the ancestor of all Semitic languages diverged from Afroasiatic. Furthermore, it is likely that some early Semitic languages became extinct and left no record of their existence. This is especially probable if early Semitic societies were pastoralist in nature (Blench 2006), as pastoralists are less likely to leave epigraphic and archaeological evidence of their languages. The discovery of such early Semitic languages could increase estimates of the age of Semitic, and alter its geographical origin if these early Semitic languages were found in Africa rather than the Middle East.
Our estimate for the origin of Semitic (4400–7400 YBP) predates the first Akkadian inscriptions in the archaeological record of northern Mesopotamia by approximately 100–3000 years (Buccellati 1997). The city-states of Sumer were established and flourishing in Mesopotamia with their own indigenous languages unrelated to Semitic by approximately 5400 YBP (Lloyd 1984), so it is unlikely that Akkadian was spoken in Sumer for the entirety of the possible 3000-year interval between the origin of Semitic and Akkadian's initial appearance in the archaeological record. Furthermore, Eblaite (no Eblaite wordlists were available for our study), the closest relative of Akkadian and the only other member of East Semitic, was spoken in the Levant (specifically the northeast Levant or present-day Syria; Gordon 1997), which is also where some of the oldest West Semitic languages were spoken (Ugaritic, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew). The presence of ancient members of the two oldest Semitic groups (East and West Semitic) in the same region of the Levant, combined with a possible long interval (100–3000 years) between the origin of Semitic and the appearance of Akkadian in Sumer, suggests a Semitic origin in the northeast Levant and a later movement of Akkadian eastward into Mesopotamia and Sumer (see figure 1 for a map of our proposed Semitic dispersals). (b) Early Semitic dispersals
Our Semitic language phylogeny indicates that the initial divergence of ancestral Semitic into East and West Semitic was nearly coincident with the divergence of West Semitic into Central and South Semitic around 5300 YBP (figure 2, node A). The short interval between these two divergences and their overlapping HPDs suggests that both divergences may have occurred in the northeast Levant (see figure 1, node A). The distribution of ancient and modern Central and South Semitic languages is consistent with Central Semitic spreading westward throughout the Levant and South Semitic spreading southward from the Levant, eventually reaching southern Arabia (figure 1, nodes B and E, respectively).
The Central Semitic branch is characterized first by a divergence into Arabic and the Levantine languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Ugaritic) at least 3650 YBP and possibly shortly after East and West Semitic diverged (figures 1 and 2, node B). The Levantine languages subsequently diverged into separate lineages by approximately 4050 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node C), but possibly as early as approximately 4400 YBP. The expansion of the Levantine languages of Central Semitic approximately 3650–4400 YBP was probably part of the migration process that was definitive of the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Ehrich 1992; Ilan 2003; Richard 2003a). This period in the Levant involved the devolution of many urban societies at the end of the Early Bronze Age (Richard 2003a) and their replacement with new urban societies that were culturally and morphologically distinct at the start of the Middle Bronze Age (Ilan 2003). Our analysis suggests that the shift in urban populations during the Early to Middle Bronze Age may be temporally associated with the wider expansion of Central Semitic in the Levant.
Within South Semitic, the early emergence of a South Arabian lineage between approximately 3300 and 6250 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node E) may reflect an Early Bronze Age expansion of Semitic from the Levant southward to the Arabian desert. This lineage was ancestral to the MSA languages, for which the more recent divergence less than 3100 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node F) suggests that early MSA speakers probably inhabited the southern coasts and coastal hinterlands of the Arabian Peninsula (the current distribution of MSA). The recurrent spread of early Semitic peoples and their languages into the steppe and desert lands of the Arabian Peninsula (first South Semitic and later Arabic; see below), combined with Biblical testimony on early Hebrew subsistence, lead us to propose that the earliest West Semitic society may have had a largely pastoralist economy particularly adapted to such conditions. (c) Recent Arabic divergence
The Arabic languages, or dialects, represent the largest group of extant Semitic languages (Gordon 2005). Although our analysis provided inconsistent support for Arabic as a lineage of Central Semitic (i.e. strong support for Arabic within Central Semitic from the multistate analysis, but no support from the binary analysis), most comparative linguistic analyses place Arabic within Central Semitic (for a review, see Faber 1997). Arabic languages originated in northern Arabia and expanded along with Islam in the seventh century to occupy a geographical range that extends from Morocco to Iran in the present day (Kaye & Rosenhouse 1997). Our phylogenetic analysis indicated that the two studied Arabic languages (Moroccan and Ogaden) diverged approximately 400–1350 YBP (node D); that is, after the expansion of Arab populations associated with Islam. This late divergence suggests that Arabic-speaking populations maintained sufficient contact to preclude the divergence and isolation of their languages for some time, or that, in some regions such as Morocco, it was not until the last millennium that Arabic languages replaced earlier indigenous languages (Berber in this case). (d) Origin of Ethiosemitic
Our Semitic phylogeny indicates that Ethiosemitic had a single, non-African origin; Ethiosemitic forms a well-resolved monophyletic clade nested within non-African Semitic languages, no earlier than approximately 3800 YBP (node G). The simultaneous divergences of many Ethiosemitic subgroups and their current widespread distribution throughout Ethiopia suggest that Ethiosemitic underwent a rapid process of diversification and expansion upon arrival in Africa. Studies have shown that Ethiosemitic-speaking populations are genetically similar to Cushitic-speaking populations within Eritrea and Ethiopia (Lovell et al. 2005). Thus, we propose that the current distribution of Ethiosemitic reflects a process of language diffusion through existing African populations with little gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula (i.e. a language shift). Our mean estimate of approximately 2850 YBP for the origin of Ethiosemitic (node G) is contemporaneous with the rise of pre-Aksumite societies in Eritrea and Ethiopia (Connah 2001), although the associated HPD includes the early Aksumite period. This result suggests that the introduction of early Ethiosemitic languages to the Horn of Africa may have been temporally associated with the development of some of the first indigenous complex societies (Ehret 1988), Aksumite or pre-Aksumite, and coincided with a period of South Arabian influence in northern Ethiopia approximately 2400–2700 YBP (Michels 2005). Previous SectionNext Section 5. Conclusion
We used Bayesian phylogenetic methods to elucidate the relationships and divergence dates of Semitic languages, which we then related to epigraphic and archaeological records to produce a comprehensive hypothesis of Semitic origins and dispersals after the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic in Africa (figure 1). We estimate that: (i) Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant, followed by an expansion of Akkadian into Mesopotamia; (ii) Central and South Semitic diverged earlier than previously thought throughout the Levant during the Early to Middle Bronze Age transition; and (iii) Ethiosemitic arose as the result of a single, possibly pre-Aksumite, introduction of a lineage from southern Arabia to the Horn of Africa approximately 2800 YBP. Furthermore, we employed the first use of log BFs to statistically test competing language histories and provide support for a Near Eastern origin of Semitic. Our inferences shed light on the complex history of Semitic, address key questions about Semitic origins and dispersals, and provide important hypotheses to test with new data and analyses.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You posted all this for nothing, because it is a non-sequitur.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting aside the non-sequiturical nature of your post for a momment, your citation says this:
Our mean estimate of approximately 2850 YBP for the origin of Ethiosemitic (node G) [i]is contemporaneous with the rise of pre-Aksumite societies in Eritrea and Ethiopia (Connah 2001[/b]), although the associated HPD includes the early Aksumite period. This result suggests that the introduction of early Ethiosemitic languages to the Horn of Africa may have been temporally associated with the development of some of the first indigenous complex societies (Ehret 1988), Aksumite or pre-Aksumite, and coincided with a period of South Arabian influence in northern Ethiopia approximately 2400–2700 YBP (Michels 2005).
As I have noted here and elsewhere before, this postulation means the following things:
That Ethio-Semitic was introduced as a "ready-made" language from the Arabian plate. Should this be the case, then naturally, pretty much all of Ethio-Semitic "Neolithic" agricultural subsistence root terms should be duplicitous renderings of the Arabian counterparts. If so, lay these terms on me, as asked in the opening notes. This should not be difficult, as the Semitic language introduced would have already been a differentiated or fully developed Semitic language.
The empirical evidence of Epigraphic scripts found in the African horn, contemporaneous with said cultural exchanges with south Arabia, shows that there was already an existing language in Ethiopia, distinct from South Arabian, which is reported to be "proto"-Ge'ez. If the introduction of Ethio-Semitic was coincidebtal with the "period of south Arabian influence northern Ethiopia", then why was this language already there? Why was this language not an exact replica of an Arabian plate language, since after all, it would have been introduced. Why was it necessary to communicate in two distinct languages; one clearly from south Arabia, and the other, in another/different language. And if the latter language was not a local one, why were two different "foreign" languages needed? Mind you, "proto"-Ge'ez is not Ge'ez, but its ancestor.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Semitic languages are divided into four groups: North-east Semitic, Northwest Semitic, Southeast Semitic and Southwest Semitic. The Ethiopian Semitic languages belong to the Southeast Semitic subgroup. In ancient times modern Ethiopia and Somalia was called Punt. As a result I call the Semitic languages of Ethiopia: Puntite languages. In the Sumerian texts these Puntites may have been called Meluhhaites.
The Puntites lived in the Eastern desert of Egypt and Arabia for many years and on the Horn of Africa. The earliest representatives of this group are depicted on the Ivory label of King Dan (Udimu) of the first Dynasty of Kemit.
The Punt empire was made up of people speaking diverse languages. The culture bearers may have been the Tigrinya speakers who call their language Habesha,i.e.,Abyssinian par excellence. (Doresse 1971)The term Habesha seems to represent an old name for Abyssinia (the ancient name for modern-day Ethiopia) and may be connected with the Amharic word washa "a cave or cavern".
The Puntite languages are characterized by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and vowel patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian languages: Sabaean, Minaean and Hadramautic, are slightly different from modern South Arabic, but analogous to the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the Jectanid tribes on South Arabic. It is clear that the Proto-Puntite speakers lived in Africa. Wolf Leslau (1951,1957) has made it clear that Ethiopic and South Arabic form a dialectical unity. Dialectical unity means that two or more languages form a unified dialect.
According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same group of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great geographical distance. This is surprising considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian are separated by many hundreds of years. The best example of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism .(Leslau 1951) The linguistic feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the first consonant of the imperfect. (Hertzron & Bender 1976, p.23)
For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ett 'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root. This results from the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words formed with double consonants.
The fact that Southeast Semitic has shared archaicism with Puntite shows that at the time the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine and Arabia between 1300 B.C. and 900 B.C. Semitic verb root Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian
Clearly Black African language forms the base of most Semitic words. Diop (1978 ,p.113) recognized that in relation to Arabic words, once the first consonant was suppressed, there is often an African root. This phenomenon was also recognized by Wiener (1922, v.III) who believed that many African words were of Arabic origin.
The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of the Puntite languages.
Cushitic English Semitic Saho la wild cow *la-at Samoli la id. id.
This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient times. The evidence discussed above makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in Neolithic times by the Anu, was probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers. Modern Ethiopians originated in Africa, not Arabia.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: The country of Punt was actually a region, the same region that the Kememou referred to as "Ta Nter" or "God's Land/Ancestral Land/Holy Land" or quite simply the "country" of Africa, reaching as far south as Mozambique. The Somali coast served merely as a stepping-off point for any efficient journey into the East African interior.
The products of Punt were the products of the entire East African regions which, in part, explains their diversity: incense known as antyu, ivory, ebony, gum, antimony, tin, gold; the skins of giraffes, panthers, cheetahs; live baboons, giraffes, panthers, cheetahs...
For the intrepid, the word is formed from p + won + it or -Pounit; pwonit (p.wohn.ee): "country of the first existence" (Kind of anticipates modern anthropological discoveries.)
Punt, the original home of the ancestors...
"after inspecting the results of her (Hatshepsut) expedition, the queen immediately presented a portion of them to Amon, together with the impost of Nubia, with which Punt was always classed." - J.H. Breasted, A History Of Egypt, Part 1, pp274-277
p_won_t ("country of the first existence"; "country of our ancestors", etc) was the African interior..
"Ta Nter," "Punt," "Iau" are all synonyms for the same neighborhood. It wasn't a nation, it was Eritrea, Somalia, Southern Sudan, Kenya, Mozambique...
posted
You have not shown any evidence, short of parroting researches uncritically, that Ethio-Semitic is not local to begin with.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You have not shown any evidence, short of parroting researches uncritically, that Ethio-Semitic is not local to begin with.
can't be proven definitively, lack of evidence either way
I'll speak to kitchen about it
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Putting aside the non-sequiturical nature of your post for a momment, your citation says this:
Our mean estimate of approximately 2850 YBP for the origin of Ethiosemitic (node G) [i]is contemporaneous with the rise of pre-Aksumite societies in Eritrea and Ethiopia (Connah 2001[/b]), although the associated HPD includes the early Aksumite period. This result suggests that the introduction of early Ethiosemitic languages to the Horn of Africa may have been temporally associated with the development of some of the first indigenous complex societies (Ehret 1988), Aksumite or pre-Aksumite, and coincided with a period of South Arabian influence in northern Ethiopia approximately 2400–2700 YBP (Michels 2005).
As I have noted here and elsewhere before, this postulation means the following things:
That Ethio-Semitic was introduced as a "ready-made" language from the Arabian plate. Should this be the case, then naturally, pretty much all of Ethio-Semitic "Neolithic" agricultural subsistence root terms should be duplicitous renderings of the Arabian counterparts. If so, lay these terms on me, as asked in the opening notes. This should not be difficult, as the Semitic language introduced would have already been a differentiated or fully developed Semitic language.
The empirical evidence of Epigraphic scripts found in the African horn, contemporaneous with said cultural exchanges with south Arabia, shows that there was already an existing language in Ethiopia, distinct from South Arabian, which is reported to be "proto"-Ge'ez. If the introduction of Ethio-Semitic was coincidebtal with the "period of south Arabian influence northern Ethiopia", then why was this language already there? Why was this language not an exact replica of an Arabian plate language, since after all, it would have been introduced. Why was it necessary to communicate in two distinct languages; one clearly from south Arabia, and the other, in another/different language. And if the latter language was not a local one, why were two different "foreign" languages needed? Mind you, "proto"-Ge'ez is not Ge'ez, but its ancestor.
Lioness doesn't know what she's talking about. Anyways, I emailed them when this study first came out rasing the same questions, and this was Dr. Kitchen's response (also posted, with full context in the original thread, here):
quote:Dear xxx,
Thank you for writing--your interest in African linguistics is most welcome.
Indeed, you are correct that Conti Rossini's work has been superseded by scholarship suggesting that urban cultures in the Horn are not simply transplanted versions of Arabian culture. We certainly did not mean to try to re-wind the clock in that regard. Rather, our analysis of the linguistic data--in which we did not impose and constraints on the time to most recent common ancestor of Ethiosemitic--suggests that these languages originated in a (large) interval of time during which both urbanization (which is itself means different things to different scholars) and Arabian influences were occurring. It bears mentioning because it is entirely reasonable that the two (urbanization/state formation and Arabian contacts) may have been related, and it does not directly follow--and I hope we did not imply in our writing--that urbanization and state-building in the Horn were dependent upon Arabian contacts. Rather, it is possible that indigenous developments (such as a strong state with its own foreign policy or a diffuse state with wide-ranging merchants operating from urban enclaves in the Horn) prompted or provoked Arabian contacts. So, simply mentioning the confluence of language, urbanization/state development, and Arabian contacts does not necessarily lead to the primacy of one over the others.
On the other hand, our analysis does suggest that Semitic did not originate in Africa, but rather in the Near East / Levant, implying that Ethiosemitic was likely brought to the Horn at some point of time. Since this appears to have occurred with a minimum of gene flow, it is entirely likely that the inhabitants of the Horn adopted Semitic "on their terms" and to their advantage (I'm speculating). Either way, it appears that Semitic was brought to the Horn in some way.
In the end, it is unclear how Ethiosemitic, the development of the first states (such as D'mt) and highly urbanized societies, and substantial Arabian influences are related to one another, much less a chain of causality. This is a very interesting area of research, and I wish you the best of luck pursuing it!
Once again, thank you for your interest.
Best wishes, Drew Kitchen
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I suppose Sundjata thinks that Semitic did not originate in Africa based on what Kitchen said
dana would have a similar view to Dr. Clarke, that Arabia was populated by all black folk at the time so it doesn't matter if the phylogenetic analysis shows Arabian origins. I don't know why Explorer is not posting this on a linguistics forum instead of rehashing this with the same old people here, less of the knowledgeable ones left then before. It must come out of boredom.
Does somebody have the complete of the below?
Human Dispersals Out of Africa: Mitochondrial and Y chromosomal Genetic Analysis of Eritrean and Omani Populations
Investigator(s): Connie Mulligan (PI) Sponsor: University of Florida, FL 32611 3523923516 Start Date/Expiration Date 2005-07-15 to 2006-06-30 (amended 2005-07-29) Awarded Amount to Date: $98,277 Abstract: Genetic, archaeological, and paleoanthropological data indicate that all major migrations of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) originated in Africa and recent data suggest that key dispersals emerged from Horn of Africa. Thus, Horn of Africa and neighboring regions on the Arabian Peninsula are critical to our understanding of the worldwide dispersal of humans out of Africa. There is a dearth of information available on key populations in this region, particularly in southern Arabia. The proposed study combines fieldwork, original laboratory and computational analyses, international collaborations, and innovative outreach programs to reconstruct population movements critical in the dispersal of humans. The project will provide powerful tests of the best current hypotheses of human migrations and generate new data to design future hypotheses. The project builds on past success in reconstructing simple migration histories (Europe and the New World) and serves as a model to determine the utility of genetic variation patterning and phylogenetic methods to reconstruct more complex migration histories. Eight hundred DNA samples from linguistically and geographically diverse populations in Eritrea (Horn of Africa) and Oman (southern Arabia) will be assayed for genetic variation across the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome. These data will be used to formulate new hypotheses as well as to test the following hypotheses: 1) a southern dispersal route out of Africa, 2) migration and back-migration between Horn of Africa and Arabia, and 3) expansion of the Semitic language family. Broader impact. 1) An important component of the proposed project is an expedition to collect blood samples in Eritrea (previously unsampled) and Oman (one published study). Genetics workshops will be taught in Eritrea and Oman and necessary laboratory equipment will be donated to each host institution. Aliquots of all collected samples will be shared with Eritrean and Omani colleagues. The proposed collaboration will allow African and Arabian collaborators to retain control of their own genetic resources as well as develop and direct independent research in the future. Eritrean colleagues have already developed a project to investigate resistance to malaria in Eritreans, a subject of national priority. 2) Furthermore, a unique program has been developed in which University of Florida journalism and communications graduate students will participate in University of Florida Department of Anthropology research projects in order to gain hands-on laboratory experience and create a media product for inclusion in their graduate portfolio. This program will have maximum impact because it provides training to the individuals charged with communicating current scientific research to the general public.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] So I suppose Sundjata thinks that Semitic did not originate in Africa based on what Kitchen said
^I suggest you read the thread in context. Like I said, I put fourth some of the same questions that The Explorer put fourth and honestly, his response to me mostly concerned the presumed introduction of semitic in NE Africa as some civilizing force. He never addressed the epigraphic (archaeological/linguistic) evidence. Please don't assume that I agree with everything he wrote, which is why I posted the thread for context (really for you).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kushit, Semitik, Milohitic, Kemetik, Puntic, what about Fantastic??????????
Guys come on. Science is an invention by a single individual who's name is Aristoteles.
He writes in his Organon about analytics and kategories.
By giving categories to people and languages every Scientist (EVEN WITH 500 PDH's ) is misleadingly using atificial words and brainpower without knowing a single sentence of the languages he/ she is talking about.
Semitic languages can be put in 4 categories. WTF. This way of thinking is 2500 years old. This way of thinking is the Aristotele way of thinking. It doesn't work. It jusst gets you a PHD and people will refer to you as a Scientist = Someone who thinks in the way Aristotele did.
Science is dead. Talk to the people learn the languages, visit the places, learn how to read hieroglyphs and fidel. But please don't take an scholars evidence as evidence.
Semit languages DON'T EXIST. Because the word semitic is a fiction. Introduced by Scientists. It is an ambrella a category following Aristotles mind-set.
Tigrigna occured in Akele Guzay (Eritrea) and from their the language found it's way to ethiopia, arabia and egypt.
KEFETE = He has opend.
Semitic is a kategory and doesn't help anyone knowing the origin of amarigna, arabic and hebrew.
Tigrigna is the most complex language of all the other languages that are related to it.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer can you give more detail on the Epigraphic scripts?
Sundjata can you give more info and references to the work that supersedes Conti Rossini's?
As Kitchen notes: "Conti Rossini's work has been superseded by scholarship suggesting that urban cultures in the Horn are not simply transplanted versions of Arabian culture." --------------------------------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Putting aside the non-sequiturical nature of your post for a momment, your citation says this:
Our mean estimate of approximately 2850 YBP for the origin of Ethiosemitic (node G) [i]is contemporaneous with the rise of pre-Aksumite societies in Eritrea and Ethiopia (Connah 2001[/b]), although the associated HPD includes the early Aksumite period. This result suggests that the introduction of early Ethiosemitic languages to the Horn of Africa may have been temporally associated with the development of some of the first indigenous complex societies (Ehret 1988), Aksumite or pre-Aksumite, and coincided with a period of South Arabian influence in northern Ethiopia approximately 2400–2700 YBP (Michels 2005).
As I have noted here and elsewhere before, this postulation means the following things:
That Ethio-Semitic was introduced as a "ready-made" language from the Arabian plate. Should this be the case, then naturally, pretty much all of Ethio-Semitic "Neolithic" agricultural subsistence root terms should be duplicitous renderings of the Arabian counterparts. If so, lay these terms on me, as asked in the opening notes. This should not be difficult, as the Semitic language introduced would have already been a differentiated or fully developed Semitic language.
The empirical evidence of Epigraphic scripts found in the African horn, contemporaneous with said cultural exchanges with south Arabia, shows that there was already an existing language in Ethiopia, distinct from South Arabian, which is reported to be "proto"-Ge'ez. If the introduction of Ethio-Semitic was coincidebtal with the "period of south Arabian influence northern Ethiopia", then why was this language already there? Why was this language not an exact replica of an Arabian plate language, since after all, it would have been introduced. Why was it necessary to communicate in two distinct languages; one clearly from south Arabia, and the other, in another/different language. And if the latter language was not a local one, why were two different "foreign" languages needed? Mind you, "proto"-Ge'ez is not Ge'ez, but its ancestor.
Lioness doesn't know what she's talking about. Anyways, I emailed them when this study first came out rasing the same questions, and this was Dr. Kitchen's response (also posted, with full context in the original thread, here):
quote:Dear xxx,
Thank you for writing--your interest in African linguistics is most welcome.
Indeed, you are correct that Conti Rossini's work has been superseded by scholarship suggesting that urban cultures in the Horn are not simply transplanted versions of Arabian culture. We certainly did not mean to try to re-wind the clock in that regard. Rather, our analysis of the linguistic data--in which we did not impose and constraints on the time to most recent common ancestor of Ethiosemitic--suggests that these languages originated in a (large) interval of time during which both urbanization (which is itself means different things to different scholars) and Arabian influences were occurring. It bears mentioning because it is entirely reasonable that the two (urbanization/state formation and Arabian contacts) may have been related, and it does not directly follow--and I hope we did not imply in our writing--that urbanization and state-building in the Horn were dependent upon Arabian contacts. Rather, it is possible that indigenous developments (such as a strong state with its own foreign policy or a diffuse state with wide-ranging merchants operating from urban enclaves in the Horn) prompted or provoked Arabian contacts. So, simply mentioning the confluence of language, urbanization/state development, and Arabian contacts does not necessarily lead to the primacy of one over the others.
On the other hand, our analysis does suggest that Semitic did not originate in Africa, but rather in the Near East / Levant, implying that Ethiosemitic was likely brought to the Horn at some point of time. Since this appears to have occurred with a minimum of gene flow, it is entirely likely that the inhabitants of the Horn adopted Semitic "on their terms" and to their advantage (I'm speculating). Either way, it appears that Semitic was brought to the Horn in some way.
In the end, it is unclear how Ethiosemitic, the development of the first states (such as D'mt) and highly urbanized societies, and substantial Arabian influences are related to one another, much less a chain of causality. This is a very interesting area of research, and I wish you the best of luck pursuing it!
posted
The most solid evidence is what had been written
The earliest written example of Tigrinya is a text of local laws found in the district of Logosarda, southern Eritrea, which dates from the 13th century
The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are in Akkadian, dating to ca. the 23rd century BC (see Sargon of Akkad) and Eblaite, but earlier evidence of Akkadian comes from personal names in Sumerian texts. Researchers in Egypt also claim to have discovered Canaanite snake spells that "date from between 3000 and 2400 B.C.
^I suggest you read the thread in context. Like I said, I put fourth some of the same questions that The Explorer put fourth and honestly, his response to me mostly concerned the presumed introduction of semitic in NE Africa as some civilizing force. He never addressed the epigraphic (archaeological/linguistic) evidence. Please don't assume that I agree with everything he wrote, which is why I posted the thread for context (really for you).
Agreed.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The issue of the Epigraphic scripts in what is now Eritrea came up here: Link See if you can glean anything from the exchanges in that link, and if you still have questions, then let me know. I'll give it my best shot to answer.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Explorer raised a good issue.
What are the best studies that suggest Ethio-Semitic language originates in Africa? please post primary research less than 15 years old
a "civilizing force" is a separate issue.
"Diakonoff (1998) showed an exclusively African origin (Diakonoff, 1981, 1988) for the family. He explicitly described proto-Afro-Asiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and linked it to pre-Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt. Moreover, Ehret. (2003) suggested that early Afro-Asiatic languages were spread by Mesolithic foragers from Africa into the Levant. On the contrary, Diamond and Bellwood (2003) suggested that food production and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion—in other words, by a migration of food-producing peoples. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom (1993) does not support this latter suggestion, however, and indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an existing indigenous foraging strategy and only over time developed a dependence on horticulture.
In conclusion, the crucial linguistic finding is that the three deepest clades of the Afro-Asiatic family are localized in Eritrea and Ethiopia. All the other languages of the family outside that region belong to subclades of just one of those deep clades. This kind of cladistic distribution is a basic criterion of the genetic argument for the genetic lineage origins well understood by geneticists. It applies to linguistic history as well…”
See "Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations." Human Biology 82.4 (2010): 367-384 Posted originally by Zarahan.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehret is a co-author of that 2009 article positing non-African origins for Semitic that Lioness posted.
How Shiferaw Assefa signed off on it, in light of the logic of no priority evidence of EthioSemitic in Arabia beats me. It sure didn't net him tenure at UCLA.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Explorer raised a good issue.
What are the best studies that suggest Ethio-Semitic language originates in Africa? please post primary research less than 15 years old
a "civilizing force" is a separate issue.
" Moreover, Ehret. (2003) suggested that early Afro-Asiatic languages were spread by Mesolithic foragers from Africa into the Levant.”
See "Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations." Human Biology 82.4 (2010): 367-384 Posted originally by Zarahan.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ehret is a co-author of that 2009 article positing non-African origins for Semitic that Lioness posted.
How Shiferaw Assefa signed off on it, in light of the logic of no priority evidence of EthioSemitic in Arabia beats me. It sure didn't net him tenure at UCLA.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Explorer raised a good issue.
What are the best studies that suggest Ethio-Semitic language originates in Africa? please post primary research less than 15 years old
a "civilizing force" is a separate issue.
" Moreover, Ehret. (2003) suggested that early Afro-Asiatic languages were spread by Mesolithic foragers from Africa into the Levant.”
See "Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations." Human Biology 82.4 (2010): 367-384 Posted originally by Zarahan.
To me the idea that semitic dialects originated in the Levant among the Afro-Asiatic speakers there is not an unlikely proposition. There is evidence archeological, genetic and skeletal that Capsian like cultures in Africa and Asia were in fact affiliated populations and purveyors of the Afro-Asiatic dialects.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Sahara before desertification was the place where Asians and Africans mixed together their cultures and their Languages, then after desertification of the Sahara the populations started to move East and North East to the Nile Vally (forming the Egyptians, the Nubians, Ethiopians, and others) and to the North and North West forming the Berbers.
posted
When before the "desertification" was the Sahara this "melting pot"?
What cultures and languages came from the Asians?
What proof is there that ancient Egyptians, and Nubians derived from this mix between Asians and Africans?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Well I can't answer for Nabil, but I will say the development of Semitic in Asia alone while Ethio-Semitic showing no roots in Arabia is a perplexing matter.
I should point out that since epipaleolithic times there were several more waves of expansion out-of-Africa. First the Halfan culture of the Sahara spread to the Levant to become the Kebaran; then the Nile Valley Mushabian spread to the Levant to mix with the Kebaran and become Natufian; then after that the Harifians of the Delta moved into the Levant and Arabia bringing cattle culture. So with these three waves, which can truly be called 'proto-Semitic'??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the Sahara before desertification was the place where Asians and Africans mixed together their cultures and their Languages, then after desertification of the Sahara the populations started to move East and North East to the Nile Vally (forming the Egyptians, the Nubians, Ethiopians, and others) and to the North and North West forming the Berbers.
Huh?? Is this your personal opinion or do you have papers to back that up.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I have heard of worse theories, like the one where indigenous Africans somehow abandoned North Africa for 'Sub-Sahara' during the Mesolithic for Eurasians to enter and take their place. And yes, I have heard this crazy claim on more than one occasion in other anthropology blogs and sites.
These people obviously have no clue of what the actual studies say-- that indigenous Africans not only stayed in North Africa but expanded east into Southwest Asia and even North into Europe.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Where did you find the map? Ogaden is Somali Clan living land occupied Ethiopia. Somalis speak kushitic not arabic.
Hebasha and Yemen are connected everything from body plan (short limbs)to culture and language. Compare to the ancient egyptian and somalis and other kushitcs body plan and you will see the difference.
I dont know why Hebesha is the only african people in Africa that have asian body plan unlike majority of other Horn Africans with the long limbs? Maybe new to the Horn africa or returning Africans from Asia?
Puntite in horn africa= Oromo,Afar, Somali,Soho, Beja,and mixed ones like Masai
all puntites and ancient egyptians share extreme tropical body plan, language and culture and closest group to horn african body plan is Dinka in south Sudan not Hebesha.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Well I can't answer for Nabil, but I will say the development of Semitic in Asia alone while Ethio-Semitic showing no roots in Arabia is a perplexing matter.
I should point out that since epipaleolithic times there were several more waves of expansion out-of-Africa. First the Halfan culture of the Sahara spread to the Levant to become the Kebaran; then the Nile Valley Mushabian spread to the Levant to mix with the Kebaran and become Natufian; then after that the Harifians of the Delta moved into the Levant and Arabia bringing cattle culture. So with these three waves, which can truly be called 'proto-Semitic'??
I'm no linguist but maybe proto-semitic or something similar had already and still been in Ethiopia prior to Semetic's rise in the Levant, and its journey back to Ethiopia.
I'm far from a linguist but the Levant is literally a hop out of Africa and before this study came out the notion of Semetic being African fit and even now the notion of it perhaps being Egyptian, and having travelled back down the Nile with E1-M78 bearers into Ethiopian seems parsimonious. E lineages were heavily involved in Arabia it seems.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: the Sahara before desertification was the place where Asians and Africans mixed together their cultures and their Languages, then after desertification of the Sahara the populations started to move East and North East to the Nile Vally (forming the Egyptians, the Nubians, Ethiopians, and others) and to the North and North West forming the Berbers.
What did these Asians look like Nabil. And which population do you wish to link them with.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Where did you find the map? Ogaden is Somali Clan living land occupied Ethiopia. Somalis speak kushitic not arabic.
Hebasha and Yemen are connected everything from body plan (short limbs)to culture and language. Compare to the ancient egyptian and somalis and other kushitcs body plan and you will see the difference.
I dont know why Hebesha is the only african people in Africa that have asian body plan unlike majority of other Horn Africans with the long limbs? Maybe new to the Horn africa or returning Africans from Asia?
Puntite in horn africa= Oromo,Afar, Somali,Soho, Beja,and mixed ones like Masai
all puntites and ancient egyptians share extreme tropical body plan, language and culture and closest group to horn african body plan is Dinka in south Sudan not Hebesha.
Are these the same Habesha living in moderrn Ethiopia that you are saying have "Asian" body plan? Are we talking Eurasian here. I'm just a tad confused? Yemenites are a mixture of Eurasian and ancient African peoples and not a single population.
The Beja or Begawi groups and Afro-Asiatic or Afro-San, speaking groups like the Hadoram/Hadorab, Hadar, Harim, Samal, Rahawayn/Rahawiyyin, Afar/Afariyya, Mahra/Meheri, Hada or Hada'Ndowa, Makhir/Makhar, Yubir, Yahar of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia have occupied Arabia as the original semites under these same names for thousands of years (as we see from ancient Himyarite inscriptions). Now what "Asians" are you talking about.
Kamal Salibi connects the name of Afar with the Apiru. The name Yahar is known Somalia Yemen and ancient Babylonia. Hadoram were the Djurham ancestors of Hijaz. These are the Arabs the semites i.e. AFro-Asiatic speakers per excellence. Which it was said long time ago that it is wrong to put some imaginary line between so called "semitic" and "Cushitic". They were unquestionably one and the same people.
Iranians and Turkish peoples who took over Yemenite capitals such as Sana'a were Asians, but Africans and their descendants - the original semitic speakers there were Africans who occupied Asia. Do Iranians have body plans of Habesha and other Africans that occupied Asia?!
As archeology shows there wasn't a difference between the populations in Africa and the Semites in Arabia. The south Arabian dialects have been variously called Hamitic or Semitic because they are the link between African and north Semitic dialects.
South Semitic came from the Yemen and those people of the pure semites i.e. African ARabians, still claim they came anciently from Africa.
Thus early on Emile Gottlieb wrote speaking about the Amorites of Mesopotamia - “The original home of this people was south Arabia, for its religions concepts and expressions as evidenced by the personal names are startingly similar to those of the later Minaeans and Sabaeans...they first invaded Syria and established their great state of Amurru even before the Akkadians completely gained control of Babylonia…place names like Sebam, Dibon, Yashmoth, Ma’on, which occur also in the South Arabian regions of Hadramaut Saba, and Ma’in a show the path taken by the Amorites.” Emile Gottlieb/ Heinrich Kraaling Columbia University Press 1918.
In fact the earliest Amurru appear to have brought the semitic dialects to Akkad according to some authors.
I'm not really sure what all the commmotion is about. Did some of these people at various times cross back over into Africa yes.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Emile Gottlieb???
You gotta be kidding.
The name Morad or Murad (known in north regions as Amurat) even in Islamic times remains the name of an African looking people in Yemen whose folktales still include stories of the mountain of Hadad the major deity of the ancient "Amurru"/Amorites.
The Murad are mentioned also in Himyarite inscriptions. They are also called Qaran in other classical Arabic writings. Thus Qaran a clan of the Maddhij in Yemen (the latter may in fact be the same name as Madjayu) are also called a clan of the Canaani in classical Arab writings along with similar living or modern cday black Arabian peoples called Ishban or Basman (modern clan of the Dawasir Arabs). The Basman (branch of Azd) and Qaran or Murad(batn or clan of Madhij), Maddhij all belong to the tribes of Kahlan brother of Himyar in Arab genealogy.
By the way Mike - I would like to thank you for putting the painting of the ancient Amorites of Mari on Egyptsearch in a better light - the spitting image of the modern Murad the Madhij tribe of Yemen.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The possibility that the first Anatolians migrated from Arabia/East Africa, is of course a possibility.
But Emile Gottlieb, folktales, the looks of modern people?
You gotta be kidding; do you realize how many thousands of years, and countless upheavals of populations are involved?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The Anatolians just don't get any respect.
Few people understand that advanced culture in Anatolia may very well predate Egypt and Mesopotamia, according to the artifacts.
And even fewer people understand that Anatolians/Amorites/Arameans were the dominate people in the region after the fall of Pharaohic Egypt on through to the Arab conquest. Iraq was ruled by Amorites before and after the first Persian dynasty.
Jesus did not just speak Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic. That was the Lingua franca of the region.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting discussion of this topic can be gleaned from Martin Bernal's Black Athena Vol. III The Linguistic Evidence. What bothers me is this notion of Afrisan being a Nostratic language which started in West Asia that came into Africa and then spread out: Bernal arguing that Afrisan started in Southern Ethiopia between the two Niles and upper Kenya with Semitic originating in Ethiopia, but in Southern Ethiopia.
My problem with this hypothesis (overall) is that certain Afrisan terms which have a bi or tri-root cannot be broken down in their languages any further. However, these same terms often in Kongo-Saharan can be further broken down. For instance, Hebrew Met'y "man of." In Bantu it is Mu-Ntu/Mwato. The m- is a prefix with the root being -t-. I doubt Niger-Congo came from AfroAsiatic/Afrisan and they in-turn separated the terms. It is more likely that the Afro-Asiatic speakers lexicalized the prefix because they no longer used the convention of noun classes. But this is a different discussion.
But Bernal analyzes many of the previous arguments and you can see their maps side by side for those interested.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: An interesting discussion of this topic can be gleaned from Martin Bernal's Black Athena Vol. III The Linguistic Evidence. What bothers me is this notion of Afrisan being a Nostratic language which started in West Asia that came into Africa and then spread out: Bernal arguing that Afrisan started in Southern Ethiopia between the two Niles and upper Kenya with Semitic originating in Ethiopia, but in Southern Ethiopia.
My problem with this hypothesis (overall) is that certain Afrisan terms which have a bi or tri-root cannot be broken down in their languages any further. However, these same terms often in Kongo-Saharan can be further broken down. For instance, Hebrew Met'y "man of." In Bantu it is Mu-Ntu/Mwato. The m- is a prefix with the root being -t-. I doubt Niger-Congo came from AfroAsiatic/Afrisan and they in-turn separated the terms. It is more likely that the Afro-Asiatic speakers lexicalized the prefix because they no longer used the convention of noun classes. But this is a different discussion.
But Bernal analyzes many of the previous arguments and you can see their maps side by side for those interested.
posted
I have found many of his analyses to be very good, while others are questionable. I think he should have explored the relationship to Kongo-Saharan in a lot of his claims. However, it is very well documented. He is not an African-Centered scholar, so of course, he is not pushing the Africanness of the Ancient Egyptians, nor is he doing cross continental comparisons, which I think, would have answered many of the questions he proposed.
I still would recommend it it. Regardless, he has added more fuel to the notion that Greece was influenced in culture and language heavily by Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Is volume 3 any good?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The possibility that the first Anatolians migrated from Arabia/East Africa, is of course a possibility.
But Emile Gottlieb, folktales, the looks of modern people?
You gotta be kidding; do you realize how many thousands of years, and countless upheavals of populations are involved?
The black people occupying neoltihic and paleolithic Anatolia didn't have anything to do with the wave of semitic people that are called Amorites or Canaanites (although the Neolithic Anatolians and Syrians probably looked alot like some of the neolithic Arabian and other east African groups.).
Amurru or Amorites (*Amurat/Murad ) were undoubtedly the same people as those called today Kena'an, Amalekites (modern Amlekh) and Phoenicians (Fenikha) in the Wadi Beish. represented modern tall coppery black people of Central and Southern Arabia still found under these same names (as I have mentioned more than once on this forum).
If nobody wants to look into the archeological anthropological facts and ethnohistory of ancient and modern Arabia then there will be argument forever over something that was resolved 50 years ago.
These Mahra-Shahra groups of so called Semitic or Hamitic speaking peoples claim a remote African origin even today.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^An interesting theory dana marniche: do you have any evidence to support this, or must I make do with your say-so?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^An interesting theory dana marniche: do you have any evidence to support this, or must I make do with your say-so?
Evidence of what that Amorites were Canaanites?
I already gave evidence many times over that the modern Dawasir tribe of Kenaana of south Arabia founded and named the early lands of Cana'an and that all of the tribes of Canaan are still living among the still near black tribes of the Dawasir of the Azd and Madhij both . I said the final proof was the fact that all of the hundreds of names of the villages and towns of Old Testament Kanaan and Israel have been located by linguist Kamal Salibi in their proper coordinates southwest Arabia from Yemen to Ta'if.
I have spoken on this many times on this forum and I'm not going to do it anymore. Many already know this information, but since few people are able to get the book for themselves, The Bible Came from Arabia, then they will have to wait another few decades until the theories come out in the mainstream. I guess there will have to be a chosen few for now that are enabled to see these facts for themselves.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Oh, okay, history by peoples names.
Did you know that Michael means "He who is like God"
Wow, I'm a Canaanite too!
Wait until I tell my friends, they will be Soooo jealous!
Actually the African-Arabian name Makullah may very well mean that Michael.
As for your trying to wish away the names of the Canaanites in their homeland so they can fit in with your theory of Anatolian Amorites, well that won't ever happen.
The chances of finding almost all of many dozen names of the "Canaanites" of Genesis and hundreds of their historical place names in the area the ancient Greeks said they came from and having it be a coincidence I'd say is in the 10 million to one range. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the topic, this makes me think of the phenomenon of lost or extinct ancient languages. For instance, we know from Greek and Roman records of distinct Indo-European languages in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere that became loss due to assimilation of other languages. I have a feeling this was case with Afrasian or as I prefer Afro-Erythrean in that there were likely other languages spoken all along both coasts of the Red Sea that were lost.
I have two hypotheses:
1. Pre-proto-Semitic left Africa in one wave to the Levant while another went south along the Red Sea coast towards the Horn.
2. Pre-proto-Semitic left Africa completely and developed in the Levant where one branch traveled down Arabia and entered Eritrea/Ethiopia before the Sabaean branch made contact with the region.
And whatever Semtic languages that existed in either Africa with the first theory or Arabia with the second that was the ancestor of proto-Ge'ez is long gone.
Can anyone else think of another explanation?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic