posted
In summation, he clearly states that the ancient "black" civilizations came from Sumer, Akkad, and brought their language with them to "Africa" about 6kya.
In his book, "From Babylon to Timbuktu", Chapter 1 - Ancient Black Civilization. A History of the Ancient Black Races Including the Black Hebrews.
I found the book to be an interesting read.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by KING:
quote: zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Great Find.
BUT
AlTakruri said that Ehret no longer believes that Semetic originated in Africa. How true is that?
Haven't heard the latest on Ehret, but it would be no big deal really. What would be important is that the CORE Afrasan language group emerged in Africa, among tropical peoples. Later on, as the centuries rolled by, Out oF Africa migrations by these tropical peoples, would spread themselves to the Sinai/Palestine/Arabian zone and Semitic would subsequently develop. But it would make little difference because it is tropically derived African peoples who settled that early area.
So you have tropical peoples in Africa speaking 5 out of the 6 AfraSan languages, and tropical peoples speaking Number 6 in Sinai/Palestine /Arabia. Across the board, its tropically derived African peoples in all their diversity. Any "backflow" of these people back to Africa is not the much hoped for "Caucasoid" backflow, but "BLACKflow", the return of tropically derived peoples to broad, general points of origin in Northeastern/Eastern Africa.
The manipulators of language have conditioned us to think of white people, or Middle Eastern types like Jews or Arabs, anytime the word "Semitic" is mentioned, but Semitic is also spoken in Africa and originated with African peoples.
posted
But since 2009 Ehret has reversed himself on Semitic's origin and no longer uses Afrasan which he coined but reverted to using Afrasian.
I don't like AfrASIAN because the phylum has nothing to do with Asia. Ancient Semitic is integral to claimants of "western civilization." "Western religion" is indebted to Hebrew and thus follows Nostratic as Semitic's macrophylum. Those not falling for Nostraticisms still would like to see Semitic and its Saharo-Erythraic macrophylum removed from Africa.
Along comes Kitchen 2009 -- Ehret among the et al -- clearly separating all branches of Semitic from originating in continental Africa and emphasizing EthioSemitic as late in time and a migrant from the Arabian peninsula.
OoA has nothing to do with these languages. The latest date for OoA is ~60kya while Semitic's origins date a mere 6kya more than enough time for diverse phenotypes to be present in the far northeast extension of Africa called SW Asia.
Search for flaws in their methodology. Nothing else will do.
I think their methodology is biased for written languages and if so gives a too young date for EthioSemitic. They show no proto-EthioSemitic north or east of the Red Sea from where it is supposed to have migrated. Also they give no explanation for the proliferation of the sub- phylum throughout the Horn or why it has the most lects out of all the Semitic sub-phyla.
Kitchen 2009 cannot be countered with racial arguments. My questioning of the methodology is based on lingusitic factors.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by KING:
quote: zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Great Find.
BUT
AlTakruri said that Ehret no longer believes that Semetic originated in Africa. How true is that?
Haven't heard the latest on Ehret, but it would be no big deal really. What would be important is that the CORE Afrasan language group emerged in Africa, among tropical peoples. Later on, as the centuries rolled by, Out oF Africa migrations by these tropical peoples, would spread themselves to the Sinai/Palestine/Arabian zone and Semitic would subsequently develop. But it would make little difference because it is tropically derived African peoples who settled that early area.
So you have tropical peoples in Africa speaking 5 out of the 6 AfraSan languages, and tropical peoples speaking Number 6 in Sinai/Palestine /Arabia. Across the board, its tropically derived African peoples in all their diversity. Any "backflow" of these people back to Africa is not the much hoped for "Caucasoid" backflow, but "BLACKflow", the return of tropically derived peoples to broad, general points of origin in Northeastern/Eastern Africa.
The manipulators of language have conditioned us to think of white people, or Middle Eastern types like Jews or Arabs, anytime the word "Semitic" is mentioned, but Semitic is also spoken in Africa and originated with African peoples.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But since 2009 Ehret has reversed himself on Semitic's origin
alTakuri, I have to ask, when has he said otherwise (when has he ever championed an African origin of Semitic)?
quote:I think their methodology is biased for written languages and if so gives a too young date for EthioSemitic. They show no proto-EthioSemitic north or east of the Red Sea from where it is supposed to have migrated. Also they give no explanation for the proliferation of the sub- phylum throughout the Horn or why it has the most lects out of all the Semitic sub-phyla.
Kitchen 2009 cannot be countered with racial arguments. My questioning of the methodology is based on lingusitic factors.
Agreed. When I emailed Dr. Kitchen and brought up the epigraphic evidence showing two distinct languages at the time they propose Ethnio-Semitic emerged (one written in characters with phonetic properties thought to be ancestral to Ge'ez, the other in standard South Arabian), he did not address it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He used to posit a continental African origin for Semitic.
quote:Conversation with Christopher Ehret:
Ehret... in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family.
. . . .
WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism descends from African models. Is that fair?
Ehret... the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
Have I misinterpreted Ehret? As I read him he moved from Mushabians introducing an undifferentiated North Erythraic into Palestine to them actually having spoken proto-Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:But since 2009 Ehret has reversed himself on Semitic's origin
alTakuri, I have to ask, when has he said otherwise (when has he ever championed an African origin of Semitic)?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apart from their literal meaning, inscriptions can yield information in the two largely independent areas of language and script. All those from Eritrea and northern Ethiopia attributed to the first millennium bc are in South Semitic languages, but they are not linguistically identical. Unfortunately, however, many inscriptions are so short or fragmentary that their linguistic affinities cannot be determined with any confidence. **A few** (designated group I by A. J. Drewes 1962: 97) are in Sabaean, linguistically indistinguishable from southern Arabian inscriptions. True Sabaean inscriptions in the northern Horn are very few, totalling only some 40 words, half of which are personal names. The other inscriptions that are linguistically diagnostic, group II, show signs of specifically African linguistic forms; their language may be designated ‘Old Ethiopic’ or ‘Proto-Ge'ez’ (Schneider 1976b), and several of the personal names that they contain are not attested from southern Arabia (Drewes 1998-9). Palaeographically, it may be shown that the group I inscriptions are not the earliest ones (Schneider 1976a).
---David W. Phillipson (2010) The First Millennium bc in the Highlands of Northern Ethiopia and South–Central Eritrea: A Reassessment of Cultural and Political Development. African Archaeological Review Volume 26, Number 4, 257-274.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the 2009 paper it doesn't seem that they are contradicting that scenario. He doesn't regard Proto-Semitic and this "North Erythraic" as mutually exclusive in the interview.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: He used to posit a continental African origin for Semitic.
quote:Conversation with Christopher Ehret:
Ehret... in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family.
. . . .
WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism descends from African models. Is that fair?
Ehret... the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
Have I misinterpreted Ehret? As I read him he moved from Mushabians introducing an undifferentiated North Erythraic into Palestine to them actually having spoken proto-Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:But since 2009 Ehret has reversed himself on Semitic's origin
alTakuri, I have to ask, when has he said otherwise (when has he ever championed an African origin of Semitic)?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mind you the interview is seven years older than the report and is evidence of Ehret's current about face.
Unless Egyptic and Berber are proto-Semitic then North Erythraic is certainly not proto-Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: In the 2009 paper it doesn't seem that they are contradicting that scenario. He doesn't regard Proto-Semitic and this "North Erythraic" as mutually exclusive in the interview.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no circumventing the report's conclusion that Semitic originates in the Arabian plate 6kya and that it did not originate in continental Africa. The abstract is very explicit in stating so.
That's what Ehret co-signed two years ago and is why he's reverted from Afrasan to AfrASIAN. It is not his position of seven years ago when he did in fact propose taking Asia out the macrophylum's name.
Anyone who persists in seeing things otherwise than stated point blankly in the report and Ehret's own abandoning Afrasan for AfrASIAN, it's alright with me.
In posting all this I just wanted to verify King's purport in referring to my posting.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Joos are very powerful in academia, Ehret if he wants to remain mainstream and "respected" knew he cant talk about any African origins for Semitic, at least not for too long. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Did you make those charts and the NileValley database? Great job!
It looks like some sources may need to be updated though.
^Yep, thanks. And those darn sources keep changing, but there are certain settled matters in the field. No doubt future research will refine the data.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OoA has nothing to do with these languages. The latest date for OoA is ~60kya while Semitic's origins date a mere 6kya more than enough time for diverse phenotypes to be present in the far northeast extension of Africa called SW Asia.
Agreed. Persons should know though that 6kya the peoples of SW Asia looked like tropical Africans (who themselves have diverse looks). Just some detail to maintain a balanced view that as you say, connects Africa with its SW Asia extension.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It should be remembered that SW Asia i.e. the Levant and Arabia are right next door to Africa. So why shouldn't they resemble Africans?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Mind you the interview is seven years older than the report and is evidence of Ehret's current about face.
Unless Egyptic and Berber are proto-Semitic then North Erythraic is certainly not proto-Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: In the 2009 paper it doesn't seem that they are contradicting that scenario. He doesn't regard Proto-Semitic and this "North Erythraic" as mutually exclusive in the interview.
I guess my point was in reference to this:
"Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this."
^He seems to be using the term interchangably with "pre-proto-Semitic" as referred to in the 2004 article you cited in another thread and in 2009, he calls it "ancestral Semitic". Hence, I honestly don't see where he does an 'about face' if he has never suggested that Semitic proper, differentiated in Africa.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesn't make any sense. Proto-Semitic, the first Semitic language did not birth Egyptic nor Omotic and Cushitic which are Ethiopian language families.
North Erythraic is certainly not proto-Semitic.
Per Ehret, in his The Civilizations of Africa pg104 North Erythraic subsumes Egyptic, Berber, Chadic, and Semitic. As in this phylogeny by Tishkoff North Erythraic corresponds to proto-BoreAfrasan.
North Erythraic/protoBoreAfrasan is ancestral to Egyptic, Berber, Chadic, and Semitic. It is not ancestral Semitic. ProtoSemitic is ancestral Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Mind you the interview is seven years older than the report and is evidence of Ehret's current about face.
Unless Egyptic and Berber are proto-Semitic then North Erythraic is certainly not proto-Semitic.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: In the 2009 paper it doesn't seem that they are contradicting that scenario. He doesn't regard Proto-Semitic and this "North Erythraic" as mutually exclusive in the interview.
I guess my point was in reference to this:
"Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this."
^He seems to be using the term interchangably with "pre-proto-Semitic" as referred to in the 2004 article you cited in another thread and in 2009, he calls it "ancestral Semitic". Hence, I honestly don't see where he does an 'about face' if he has never suggested that Semitic proper, differentiated in Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we quite agree. 6kya in 4000 BCE Arabian plate diversity would include types not resembling tropical Africans too. See your top right blurb and below.
Barry Kemp - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OoA has nothing to do with these languages. The latest date for OoA is ~60kya while Semitic's origins date a mere 6kya more than enough time for diverse phenotypes to be present in the far northeast extension of Africa called SW Asia.
Agreed. Persons should know though that 6kya the peoples of SW Asia looked like tropical Africans (who themselves have diverse looks). Just some detail to maintain a balanced view that as you say, connects Africa with its SW Asia extension.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused as to how my DNA (L2a1a) haplogroup family was found in the Levant during this period. How does one explain the migration? There must have been the same or similar groups of people between the two geographical areas.
This to me is stating that there were "African" remains found in the Levant but, this is the only haplogroup found with this DNA haplogroup:
Ancient DNA
No ancient DNA has so far been retrieved from African remains, with the exception of Haplogroup L2a1, which was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[10]
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A clear statement from Ehret that Semitic was in Africa:
Ehret... the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
Ignoring this will not make it go away.
I didn't ignore this and in fact addressed it by comparing it to Ehret's recent comment which is generally no different ("and the earliest speakers of Semitic had a northeastern African background as well"), except here, he actually uses the word "Semitic-speaker" as opposed to "Semite". Given that in the interview he associates the spread of "Proto-Semitic" into Asia with the Mushabians (whose culture emerged and died out/integrated with Kebaran culture BEFORE Semitic differentiated from "pre-Proto-Semitic"), he couldn't possibly be using "Semite" here in the context of actual Semitic-speakers. In what way are we referring to the Mushabians as "Semites"? This is an off-the-cuff interview and I wouldn't expect his language to be as prepared as if he were publishing these comments in a journal for peer review.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This doesn't make any sense. Proto-Semitic, the first Semitic language did not birth Egyptic nor Omotic and Cushitic which are Ethiopian language families.
North Erythraic is certainly not proto-Semitic.
Per Ehret, in his The Civilizations of Africa pg104 North Erythraic subsumes Egyptic, Berber, Chadic, and Semitic. As in this phylogeny by Tishkoff North Erythraic corresponds to proto-BoreAfrasan.
North Erythraic/protoBoreAfrasan is ancestral to Egyptic, Berber, Chadic, and Semitic. It is not ancestral Semitic. ProtoSemitic is ancestral Semitic.
The above classificatory scheme is not lost on me, I was simply quoting Ehret in the context of his views.
I know it doesn't make sense. Protosemitic is ancestral to Semitic, of course, but I do not believe that I quoted him out of context when he claims (again, off the cuff) that Egyptic divided from Proto-Semitic, especially as having to do with his speculations on bread-making, grindstones, and Mushabian migration. What can be argued is that he should have used another term. Likewise, in the 2009 paper they claim Semitic diverged from ancestral Semetic (i,e. "Proto-Semitic"), but didn't do so until ancestral Semitic happened to reach SW Asia. I am simply at a loss to see any contradiction here. When has he asserted specifically that the earliest Semitic-speakers (not pre-Proto-Semitic-speakers) resided in Africa? In disregarding confusing, seemingly contradicting comments made in interviews, he should have published research articles or book chapters/passages somewhere out there supporting such a position, which in turn would definitively demonstrate his 'reversal'.
There is no benefit in me discussing language families and orders of divergence when my only point of confusion (at least pertaining to your opinion) rests solidly on the above question (where is the published data reflecting this to be his 'older' position?).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^In addition to the above, in the interview he calls Semitic an "Asian" off-shoot.
Support of my opinion that his recent use of "Afrasian" was simply due to a force of habit (or maybe a defeatist acknowledgement that no one else is jumping on board) and that it wasn't due to his flipping the script in 2009, is demonstrated here, in this 1996 piece where he uses the term "Afrasian" all through out the essay.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion has allowed me to overview several Ehret works from the past two decades. I've presented that which leads to my conclusion and see no reason to modify it in the least or force anyone to see through my eyes what they will not see. It's fine with me whatever position anyone wants to hold for themself. Variety is the spice of life that makes the world go round.
One thing though, when did Ehret start using Afrasan that it should be in a work dated 1996?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No worries. Part of the above was to demonstrate a continuity in terminology and ideas but part of me posting that was indeed based on an unproven assumption that he was already using it. Earliest reference that I could find was 1999 btw.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:^Yep, thanks. And those darn sources keep changing, but there are certain settled matters in the field. No doubt future research will refine the data.
Nice. For future studies you can check out the "Uploaded Studies" thread in the ancient Egypt section. Uploaded studies are posted there quite often
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found out that Ehret has always meant that Mushabaeans carried proto-BoreAfrasian from Egypt across the Sinai and into the Levant where they met and mingled with the Keburan to birth the Natufians. Then, over millenia, pre-proto-Semitic developed in Israel-Palestine.
Whatever pre-proto-Semitic may have consequently flourished throughout the region only one branch became the proto-Semitic from which descend all known Semitic languages spoken today.
He has reverted to Afrasian because people have problems saying Afrasan and too many linguists are unsure of what family Afrasan refers to.
So I retract my incorrect opinion that Ehret ever made claim to Semitic originating in Africa and that he switched from Afrasian to Afrasan then back to Afrasian due to about faces in theories.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because of the many indications that non-Semitic languages predominated in Mesopotamia and all around its northern and eastern flanks in the pre-state eras—and that Akkadian therefore was likely intrusive to that region—the second solution seems by far the more probable of the two. The Levant regions, as the part of Asia nearest and more directly connected to Africa, also make much better sense as the proto-Semitic territory, considering the solely African locations of all the rest of the Afrasan family.
However Semitic is distinct from all the other afro-asiatic languages except the languages(berber&egyptian) that make the north-afroasiatic branch with semitic and there are as high as 40% j1 amongst copts and berbers.
The problem is that pre proto semitic migrations are too early pre-historic,in the opposite of late ie migrations,to conclude that they emerged really in ethiopia. For example countries like tchad also contain 2 aa branches(berber and tchadic)so why tchad would not be the aa homeland same as ethiopia which have also 2 aa branches(omotic and kushitic)? or for ie languages why balkan would not be considered ie homeland with as many as native branches as 3-4(ilyrian,greek,paleobalkanic,messapic)branches?
The differences between Chadic, Omotic, Cushitic and Semitic, were wider than those seen between any members of the Indo-European family and as wide as some of the differences seen within and between separate language families, for example, Indo-European and Altaic.
distinct languages in ethiopia that have some pre proto semitic lexical superstratum(kushitic)or grammatical substratum(ethiosemic=south semitic)are not the result of Ethiopia being aa languages homeland the same as Balkan or Anatolia not being ie homeland despite the historical presence in these 2 regions of very distinct ie languages(messapic,ilyrian,greek and paleobalkan branches for the balkan and hittite,armenian and palaic branches in anatolia)
Afrasian speaking groups have a large amount of J1 whereas Nilo-Saharian speaking dont have J1 but have E1b1b.
there is no attested historial semitic language in Sudan or Egypt(except linguisitc vestiges of the various semitic migrants to Egypt:amurites,hyksos,canaanites,assyrians,habiru, khilmu,arameans,hashu,qedar,hebrews...) And there is not a single semitic branch of ethiopia but rather an offspring of south arabian which itself is an offspring of southern group of western semitic branch.
Andrew Kitchen and others using Bayesian techniques in phylogenetic analysis identifies a place of origin for Semitic in the Levant, giving rise to the most basal of Semitic languages in Akkadian:
"Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East"
South Semitic may have been introduced to Ethiopia sometime before the 8th century BC. This is also supported by the presence of nouns in proto Semitic that seemingly make an African origin for the language impossible - ice, oak, horse and camel.[citation needed] The camel[8] and horse[9] did not arrive in Africa until nearly two thousand years after Semitic languages were being written in the Mesopotamia area.
Other more recent work suggests Syria/Mesopotamia as the homeland for proto Semitic, due to the flora and fauna described by it, which include oak, pistachio and almond trees and the horse. The presence of ice and four different words for hill also suggest a colder, more mountainous area than Arabia. Eblaite, one of the oldest Semitic languages, when deciphered turned out to have almost no non-Afroasiatic nouns in its lexicon, suggesting a very long presence in the Syria area. Bitumen and naphtha were also well known and have root words, and these are resources not found in Africa or Arabia, but commonly in the northern parts of the Levant.
E is mostly connected with Africanic languages(Nilo-Saharan+Niger-Kongo),african phenotype,african religions and african culture . J is mostly connected with afro-asiatic languages,mediterranean phenotype and semitic culture and religions. As J peoples historically introduced agriculture,abrahamic religions,mediterranean phenotype and alphabet to Africa it's logical to think that they also introduced aa languages to Africa in prehistorical times. Semitic languages are closer to indo-european languages(both being apophonic,inflective languages witth shared lexical stems and grammatical features as universally very rare dual and feminine pronouns)than to kushitic languages for example as kushitic langauges are agglutinative languages not apophonic inflective ones.
P58 actually imposed the Semitic language on M34, not the opposite as many think.
The idea that Nilo-Saharan was more wide spread some time in ancient time isn't a new one...Ehret puts his supposedly 9000 year old pastorals in the Sahel as (proto-)Nilo-Saharan. According to him they were supposedly marginalised and/or assimilated by incoming Afro-Asiatic speakers (of which the ones in that area would later become proto-Cushitic speakers).
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Stop quoting wikipedia. The scholarship standards there are widely known to be sub-par, which is why it can't be used as a source in any college-level discussion paper.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Lioness has been doing that alot lately... it would be nice if she at least used quotation marks instead of pretending they are her words lol. Wikipedia is never a reliable source for controversial issues, Lioness.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I found out that Ehret has always meant that Mushabaeans carried proto-BoreAfrasian from Egypt across the Sinai and into the Levant where they met and mingled with the Keburan to birth the Natufians. Then, over millenia, pre-proto-Semitic developed in Israel-Palestine.
Whatever pre-proto-Semitic may have consequently flourished throughout the region only one branch became the proto-Semitic from which descend all known Semitic languages spoken today.
He has reverted to Afrasian because people have problems saying Afrasan and too many linguists are unsure of what family Afrasan refers to.
So I retract my incorrect opinion that Ehret ever made claim to Semitic originating in Africa and that he switched from Afrasian to Afrasan then back to Afrasian due to about faces in theories.
Respect, Mon!
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop quoting wikipedia. The scholarship standards there are widely known to be sub-par, which is why it can't be used as a source in any college-level discussion paper.
that's an ad hominem criticism of wikipedia rather than addressing the accuracy of statements made. Many of the statements are supported by published articles which can be cited. Besides a large percentage of the post is not from wikipedia.
-she used some information from wikipedia it must be wrong then.
^^^non-argument + snobbery
you need to review what I posted because many important points were made. Let's let alTakruri handle it
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] ^Stop quoting wikipedia. The scholarship standards there are widely known to be sub-par, which is why it can't be used as a source in any college-level discussion paper.
that's an ad hominem criticism of wikipedia rather than addressing the accuracy of statements made.
No it is not because wikipedia is a platform, not an individual human being that I am personally attacking. That platform is flawed as any dumb azz can edit the page and the standards are loose and the refereeing process is tedious and ineffective. I know from personal experience, it is not ideal for controversial topics and not thought of as a reliable source in any college classroom or scholarly setting. If you are simply advancing ideas and statements, then think for your self, find the sources and make the statements yourself instead of plastering and pasting incoherent thoughts from a random wiki page.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] ^Stop quoting wikipedia. The scholarship standards there are widely known to be sub-par, which is why it can't be used as a source in any college-level discussion paper.
that's an ad hominem criticism of wikipedia rather than addressing the accuracy of statements made.
No it is not because wikipedia is a platform, not an individual human being that I am personally attacking. That platform is flawed
but some of it's not flawed. Some of it is a direct quote from Ehret and others. You're just having trouble with dealing determining what is a "flaw" and what is not. In fact I can put up the published studies and you will come in and say some of that is flawed. I'm done with you and L' for the moment. Call up Explorer and alTurkuri. They would be able to correct the "flaws" rather than run in a mouse-like fashion
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
But seriously, what happened to the days when half the board would chime in on discussions? When did this place become a dueling ground between two individuals at a time? Everybody has got some insight they could contribute no matter its relative weight compared to others' input on a topic. Bring back the vox pop!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, are the more astute of the "trolls" the only ones left here with the temerity to express their non group think alternatives, options, and opinions?
posted
COurtesy of Sundjata - shedding more light on grouping of Middle Eastern limb lengths with Africans rather than Europeans: [QUOTE]:
"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
E is mostly connected with Africanic languages(Nilo-Saharan+Niger-Kongo),african phenotype,african religions and african culture . J is mostly connected with afro-asiatic languages,mediterranean phenotype and semitic culture and religions.
^^The problem with this nonsense is that numerous 'E" peoples speak Afro-Asiatic languages, and indeed said Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, where 'E" is most frequent.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trades and occupations aside from the fishing?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Who were Lord Nakht, Antefoger and Prince Amenkhep?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The name Nakht means "the strong one." Several men named Nakht are known, one in the Middle Kingdom and others in the New Kingdom. Most held positions of some note within the Egyptian bureaucracy.
So much of the time, attention is given to the treasures and actions of the kings, their armies, and their diplomatic lives. The focus is usually on the burial process and ceremony undergone by the kings. After all, so much of the mystery and exotic ambience of Egypt that we feel today comes from the rich gold, jewelry, great monuments, and "legendary curses" that fuel movies and the modern western mind.
If we take notice of "lesser beings" such as viziers, governors, and other nobles, we want to know of their treasures, and their activities as far as where they fit in with the King of the time.
But sometimes even what we "know" of the upper classes is truly nothing at all. All we have is quantity, not quality. Sometimes, what we know of the common people, the workers, bakers, weavers, stonemasons, gives us a richer picture of ancient Egyptian life, and make us feel more akin to these people from five millennia ago.
Two particular men, both named Nakht, illustrate this point. One was a humble weaver, who told us much of his life even after the passage of millennia. The other Nakht was a temple Scribe, with an honored position. Let us look first at Scribe Nakht.
Our first Nakht was a scribe and "Observer of the Hours of the night" at the Temple of Amun, which meant he was either an actual astronomer, or at least he was responsible for assuring that rituals were carried out at the correct times. He was married to a woman named Tawy, who herself held the position of "Chantress of Amun," meaning she was a temple musician, an honored position in itself.
Nakht’s tomb has been found in Thebes, along with many others, and studied. It contains a number of now fairly familiar scenes of daily life. When the tomb was originally discovered, a number of objects were noted in the burial chamber, and removed for transportation. One object was a kneeling statuette, depicting Nakht holding a stela with a hymn to the sun god Re. Unfortunately, the ship carrying the funerary equipment was torpedoed and sunk during WW I, so nothing is left of the originals.
There is another scene of hunting in the papyrus thickets. The hunt has been a common part of tomb decoration since the Old Kingdom, a thousand years earlier. Nakht is shown launching his throw stick at birds while his wife and two children look on. The caption reads: "Enjoying and beholding beauty, spending leisure with the work of the marsh goddess by the confederate of the Mistress of the Catch, the Observer of Hours of Amun, the Scribe Nakht, justified. His wife, the Chantress of Amun, the Mistress of the House, Tawy, says, "Enjoy the work of the goddess of the marsh. Waterfowl were assigned to him for his time.""
To the right of that scene, Nakht is spearing fish. The caption reads, "Crossing the marshes and wandering through the swamps, amusing himself with spearing fish, the Observer of Hours, Amun, justified."
In another scene, Nakht stands in a boat, watched by his wife and three children. It is not clear if these were representations of real children, who may have died after the paintings were complete and thus could not sustain the funerary cult for Nakht, or if these were a fiction for the afterlife.
Nothing is known of Nakht’s work, how he served his office in the temple, what prayers he may have offered, when he died, if he had illnesses or misfortunes. His name appeared to be effaced in places within the chamber, so possibly he fell out of favor at some time.
More is known of another named Nakht, this one a young boy of the peasant class. What is known of him is possible only because his corpse, unembalmed, was donated as part of a study of ancient bodies to learn more about the physiological conditions known to the ancient Egyptians.
Nakht the weaver had been laying in his humble wooden coffin, stashed in the Royal Ontario Museum museum’s basement storeroom. When studies demanded a body about which at least the provenance was known, and the location where it had been found, the curator of Egyptology offered Nakht for examination
Not much info on Amenkhep what I know is that he was Queen Nefertiti's son. He was the Queens First Born. Thats all I know. Hopefully someone else can post what they know about Amenkhep
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks KING. Just wondered which one of the Nakht's are in the pic below.. I think Jari or Djehuti originally posted the pics..
The prince per pic posters..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolic meaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006).
The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
--Dr. Alain Anselin (University of Antilles-Guyane) Some notes about an early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egyptian civilization. In:
Egypt in its African Context. 2009. Proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ENgland. Karen Exell (ed). BAR International Series 2204 2011 Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28
"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]."
--Holiday, T. (2010) Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data. AmerJrPhyAntrho, 142: 2. 287-302
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
KITTLES AND LONG 2003, 2010, DEBUNK RACE AS BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
quote: The belief that human genetic diversity on a global scale can be reduced to simple statistical partitions has limited our understanding of diversity and thwarted training in biological anthropology. For example, a current textbook (Boyd and Silk 2000) states, “Geneticists computed the amount of variation in these characters within each local group, among groups within each race, and among the races. They found that there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among local groups or among races themselves. Differences within local groups account for about 85% of all the variation in the human species. To put this another way, suppose a malevolent extraterrestrial wiped out the entire human species except for one local group, which it preserved in an extraterrestrial zoo. The alien could pick any local group at random—the Efe, the Inuit, the citizens of Ames, Iowa, or the people of Patagonia—and then wipe out the rest of the humans on the planet. This group would still contain on average 85% of the genetic variation that exists in the entire human species.” However, our analysis indicates that it would make a great difference which group is chosen. For example, no gene diversity would be lost if the Sokoto were chosen while nearly one-third would be lost by choosing the subpopulation from Papua New Guinea. It is important to point out here that the rich genetic diversity within Africans is a robust finding that is not peculiar to the loci or specific samples analyzed here. Recently, Yu et al. (2002) assayed nucleotide substitutions in 50 randomly chosen noncoding DNA segments (~500 base pairs) in 30 individuals: 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. The subjects within each continent were chosen widely from dispersed geographic locations. Interestingly, nucleotide diversity was greater within the Africans than within either Asians or Europeans. More importantly, the nucleotide diversity was greater within Africans than between Europeans and Asians.
--Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races. Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2 (2003). Human Biology, v75, no.4. pp. 449-471
quote: Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub- Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans..
--Update to Long and Kittles’s “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races” (2003): Fixation on an Index. Jeffrey C. Long1 (2010). Human Biology, v81, no5-6, pp. 799-803
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Part of the above was to demonstrate a continuity in terminology and ideas but part of me posting that was indeed based on an unproven assumption that he was already using it. Earliest reference that I could find was 1999 btw.
Printer-friendly view of this topic