...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Theophile Obenga's "Negro-Egyptian" linguistic phylum (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Theophile Obenga's "Negro-Egyptian" linguistic phylum
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Great topic. To summarize, it looks like the truth about the Afroasian language is now being told. All the lies by previous linguist is now being exposed.

Ehret cracked the door and Obenga blew it wide open

Diop and Lilias Homburger cracked the door before Ehret or Obenga.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Besides post dating Obenga, Ehret does not see
Egyptic, Tamazight, and Semitic as unrelated.
He maintains the Greenberg unity of those three.

As a sidebar here's a repost from April 2005 on
the evolution of Obenga's Egyptian-BlackAfrican
language macrophylum:

1913 - Homburger formulates theory of commonality of languages from
the North-east African Nile to the Atlantic coast, across the swathe of
the Sudan, i.e. "Negro-Africa." She excludes North Africa and Berber.

1924 - Delafosse employs the term Negro-African. He excluded Afrasian
(Tamazight, Egyptian, Cushitic, Semitic) and Khoisan from this group.
'Groupe senegalo-guineen'
in A. Meillet & M. Cohen (eds)
Langues du Monde
Paris: Champion, 1924

1941 - Homburger proposes Egyptian as the source of Negro-African
with Dravidian as the possible source for both language groups.
L. Homburger
Les langues negro-africaines et le peuples qui le parlent

Paris: Payot, 1941

1974 - Obenga delineates between Negro-African and Berber. He says
Berber shares no typological, morphological, phonemic, lexicological, or
syntactic similarities in the least with Egyptian.
Report of the symposium on
'The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script'
The General History of Africa - Studies and Documents No. 1

Paris: Unesco, 1978

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In addition to Obenga's new book,L'égyptien pharaonique: une langue négro-africaine, mentioned in this thread by Asar Imhotep. Here's another book which also built on his pioneer work:

 -


Origine des langues africaines: essai d'application de la méthode by Jean-Claude Mboli

I don't have the book, only read some excerpt off the web, but after explaining the comparative methodology, debunking Greenberg classification among other things. He use the comparative method to compare Middle Egyptian, Copte, Sango (his native language), Zande, Hausa, Somali. Proving that they are genetically linked.

Combined with Obenga's new book in which he compares Ancient Egyptian with Niger-Congo family languages (and Bahr El-Ghazal language which I don't know their family). This should provides another fundamental entry into African comparative linguistic and history.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB][/QB]

Don't forget Cheikh Anta Diop too including the book Parenté génétique de l'égyptien pharaonique et des langues négro-africaines (1977) among others.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Afro-Asiatic and Semitic genealogical trees (version of Alexander Militarev).

 -

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Regardless of however you want to group things, Semitic, Egyptic, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, and Berber are all related to each other.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Regardless of however you want to group things, Semitic, Egyptic, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, and Berber are all related to each other.

Certainly not what the linguistic evidences from this thread suggest as the so-called Afro-Asiatic phylum has been debunked by people like Obenga and a few others.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How can something be debunked when it hasn't even been replicated and peer reviewed. How many researchers have independently come up with something even remotely resembling Obenga's phyla propositions in peer reviewed journals? Is Obenga even a linguist?

What multi-disciplinary evidence is there for Negro-Egyptian? We know all pristine Afro-Asiatic speakers (including relict and at times excluded Omotic speakers) had/have a group of NRY E-M35 and mtDNA M1 sublineage carriers as their signature common ancestors, so we know they descent from the same proto-language speaking community at some point in the terminal pleistocene.

We know all Afro-Asiatic speakers have/had specific cultural traits like henotheism in common. We know the Berber language is strongly correlated with NRY E-M81, which branches off the same Y chromosome that unites all Afrasan speakers (E-M35). We know Afrasan speakers have words for specific inventions like grindstones in common.

What are such fundamental, unlikely to have been acquired by simple borrowing/liaisons, but rather, common ancestry indicating multi-disciplinary unifying traits within ''Negro-Egyptian''?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Correct. The problem with Obenga and other Africanist scholars like him is that in their hellbent approach to show commonalities and relations between the various cultures of Africa, especially Egypt, they propose all sorts of 'Pan-African' language phyla. This mentality was betrayed by Clyde Winters when he admitted that the goal is to emulate (my paraphrase) the Indo-European phylum of Europe. Problem is Indo-European does NOT comprise all the languages of Europe nor is a Pan-African phylum even necessary to demonstrate the various features common the cultures and languages of the African continent. By constructing some false 'Pan-African' phylum, all they are doing is reducing the linguistic and cultural diversity of Africa which is a much larger continent with much older (the oldest) populations.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^ This drivel by Djehuti is completely baseless. For one, which is the most important thing, it's not base on any linguistic arguments; just fluff and emotions. I don't think Djehuti or his companion Swenet even read Obenga's work or other such books cited above.


quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ Correct. The problem with Obenga and other Africanist scholars like him is that in their hellbent approach to show commonalities and relations between the various cultures of Africa, especially Egypt, they propose all sorts of 'Pan-African' language phyla.

That's rich for somebody who's hell bent on showing us commonalities between Africans and Semites [aka the Hamito-Semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family].

quote:

Problem is Indo-European does NOT comprise all the languages of Europe nor is a Pan-African phylum even necessary to demonstrate the various features common the cultures and languages of the African continent.

For one,the Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum doesn't comprise ALL the languages of Africa either. African languages such as Berber languages are not included, nor are the Khoisan African languages or African languages such as Ge'ez or Amharic. So that point is moot, even if it was moot to begin with since it's not based on any linguistic arguments.

quote:

By constructing some false 'Pan-African' phylum, all they are doing is reducing the linguistic and cultural diversity of Africa which is a much larger continent with much older (the oldest) populations.

That's ridiculous. Obenga's Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum was a language spoken by African people a very long time ago. Since then, African languages had time to evolve into their current diversity.

For example, the Indo-European phylum is comprised of: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi, and Urdu.

Language such as English, Urdu, Russian and Italian are considered to be from the same family! It doesn't mean that it's not diverse. They are just genetically related from a long time ago. Similar case with African languages such as Bantu languages (already proven to be related), Ancient Egyptian, Yoruba, Kanuri, Afar, Dogon, Wolof which are genetically related. It doesn't negate their diversity in any way since they had a lot of time to evolve into their current form since the Negro-Egyptian/Afro-Egyptian days.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Funny you should talk about fluff and emotions after showing up here to defend Obenga, while only responding to the most convenient post (which wasn't even directed towards you), and letting the more pertinent posts go unadressed.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Correct. The problem with Obenga and other Africanist scholars like him is that in their hellbent approach to show commonalities and relations between the various cultures of Africa, especially Egypt, they propose all sorts of 'Pan-African' language phyla. This mentality was betrayed by Clyde Winters when he admitted that the goal is to emulate (my paraphrase) the Indo-European phylum of Europe. Problem is Indo-European does NOT comprise all the languages of Europe nor is a Pan-African phylum even necessary to demonstrate the various features common the cultures and languages of the African continent. By constructing some false 'Pan-African' phylum, all they are doing is reducing the linguistic and cultural diversity of Africa which is a much larger continent with much older (the oldest) populations.

Indeed. We've had our share of revisionist crap here on ES. They were all swearing they were on to something, but their hidden agenda (even Obenga's) is laughably obvious. They're all have an axe to grind and are all motivated by nothing more than petty ethnocentric ego-stroking. Its not enough that various African groups with (imaginary) prestige are African; they have to be part of the exact same lineage as them, so they can feel extra special.

Topic: Ancient Egyptians came from Akele
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007178

Topic: Were Ancient Egyptians from Eritrea?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003892

Topic: Was the earliest Egypt a Bantu Civilization
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006714

Topic: Ancient Egyptian language was Igbo and Igbo is an Ancient Egyptian language
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008193

Topic: Proof the sumerians came form Ethiopia.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000301

Topic: The Egyptian Origin of the Fulani
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006400

Topic: HEBREW: THE TRUE IDENTITY OF AFRICAN SLAVES TO AMERICA
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004683

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
they have to be part of the exact same lineage as them, so they can feel extra special.

Funny from somebody who pretend Africans and Semites are from the same lineage aka the Hamito-semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family to use your own kind of argumentation (or lack thereof).

For the 10th times, I don't believe Africans are from the same lineage not more than the English, French, Russian, Urdu, Hindi are considered from the same lineage [Beside the fact we're all humans off course, sprung from the same African Mitochondrial Eve]. Since the days of the Negro-Egyptian (Afro-Egyptian) phylum Africans had a long time to evolve into their current diversity and lineages. Africa is a mosaic of diversified and inter-related cultures and people.

In Africa, there's a lot of commonalities and a lot of differences as well. People who want to undermine the commonalities or differences have an agenda.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since this subject matter is obviously way over Amun's head (judging by his bizarre reasoning and intransigent attitude towards basic facts), anyone?

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How can something be debunked when it hasn't even been replicated and peer reviewed. How many researchers have independently come up with something even remotely resembling Obenga's phyla propositions in peer reviewed journals? Is Obenga even a linguist?

What multi-disciplinary evidence is there for Negro-Egyptian? We know all pristine Afro-Asiatic speakers (including relict and at times excluded Omotic speakers) had/have a group of NRY E-M35 and mtDNA M1 sublineage carriers as their signature common ancestors, so we know they descent from the same proto-language speaking community at some point in the terminal pleistocene.

We know all Afro-Asiatic speakers have/had specific cultural traits like henotheism in common. We know the Berber language is strongly correlated with NRY E-M81, which branches off the same Y chromosome that unites all Afrasan speakers (E-M35). We know Afrasan speakers have words for specific inventions like grindstones in common.

What are such fundamental, unlikely to have been acquired by simple borrowing/liaisons, but rather, common ancestry indicating multi-disciplinary unifying traits within ''Negro-Egyptian''?


Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As the resident geneticist of ES I'm curious, Dr. Mindlessovermatter/Sweetie, where did you receive your specialist training?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^ totally useless troll comment,

knows nothing about the topic but worse doesn't care to know. A loser troll in desperate need of attention

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
they have to be part of the exact same lineage as them, so they can feel extra special.

Funny from somebody who pretend Africans and Semites are from the same lineage aka the Hamito-semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family to use your own kind of argumentation (or lack thereof).

For the 10th times, I don't believe Africans are from the same lineage not more than the English, French, Russian, Urdu, Hindi are considered from the same lineage [Beside the fact we're all humans off course, sprung from the same African Mitochondrial Eve]. Since the days of the Negro-Egyptian (Afro-Egyptian) phylum Africans had a long time to evolve into their current diversity and lineages. Africa is a mosaic of diversified and inter-related cultures and people.

In Africa, there's a lot of commonalities and a lot of differences as well. People who want to undermine the commonalities or differences have an agenda.

people believe that Semitic languges are a branch of Afroasiatic that begins in Egypt. What's wrong with that?
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ My point exactly. The general consensus among linguists is that Semitic or rather its ancestor originated in Africa among Africans before migrating to Asia. I don't see how that view is somehow anti-African when it is the opposite!
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Certainly not what the linguistic evidences from this thread suggest as the so-called Afro-Asiatic phylum has been debunked by people like Obenga and a few others.

Yet as Swenet has pointed out, since when has the linguistic work of Obenga and those 'few other' scholars been taken seriously enough by the linguistic community??
quote:
^^ This drivel by Djehuti is completely baseless. For one, which is the most important thing, it's not base on any linguistic arguments; just fluff and emotions. I don't think Djehuti or his companion Swenet even read Obenga's work or other such books cited above.
You're accusing me of "fluff and emotions" when there is nothing emotional about my claims whatsoever. My claims are rooted in what scholarship says plain and simple. I've actually read Obenga's works, and while they do a lot to reaffirm Egypt's African identity and roots the only thing I disagree with are his diffusionist claims as well as his linguistics.

quote:
That's rich for somebody who's hell bent on showing us commonalities between Africans and Semites [aka the Hamito-Semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family].
LOL You do realize that technically speaking 'Semite' is a linguistic group the same way 'Latino' or 'Hispanic' is, and that Semite also includes African groups in Ethiopia. Again, I'm not hellbent on anything. The linguistic evidence is as plain as day.

quote:
For one,the Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum doesn't comprise ALL the languages of Africa either. African languages such as Berber languages are not included, nor are the Khoisan African languages or African languages such as Ge'ez or Amharic. So that point is moot, even if it was moot to begin with since it's not based on any linguistic arguments.
Strawman. I never said the Negro-Egyptian phylum included all African languages, all I'm saying is that for Clyde Winters at least, he wants that phylum to be the major phylum for Africa as Indo-European is for Europe. But again Europe is a small subcontinent while Africa is a large continent with the oldest and most diverse populations. That Obenga's phylum includes Egyptian but excludes its relatives Berber and Semitic such as Geez and Amharic is just one of the various reasons that makes his phylum faulty.

quote:
That's ridiculous. Obenga's Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum was a language spoken by African people a very long time ago. Since then, African languages had time to evolve into their current diversity.
Yet we are talking about a genetic basis for relativity. What exactly is the genetic basis for including Niger-Congo with Egyptian but excluding Berber and Semitic?? One may argue that Semitic originated in Southwest Asia but what about Berber which is spoken exclusively in Africa??

quote:
For example, the Indo-European phylum is comprised of: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi, and Urdu.

Language such as English, Urdu, Russian and Italian are considered to be from the same family! It doesn't mean that it's not diverse. They are just genetically related from a long time ago. Similar case with African languages such as Bantu languages (already proven to be related), Ancient Egyptian, Yoruba, Kanuri, Afar, Dogon, Wolof which are genetically related. It doesn't negate their diversity in any way since they had a lot of time to evolve into their current form since the Negro-Egyptian/Afro-Egyptian days.

My answer is the same. Indo-European is divided into the extent subfamilies namely: Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian. The commonality becomes more apparent the farther back you go in time that is, the when the older ancestral languages are reconstructed. Tell me what is the ancestral or proto-language that is ancestral to Egyptian and Bantu but is not ancestral to Semitic??

The Key word is genetic. In order to prove a genetic relation one must find the ancestral mother tongue that is common to sister languages. You can't say that Bantu and Egyptian are genetically related based on some similarities here and there. There has to be very close syntax, vocabulary, and grammar and these features must be stronger the farther back you go in time.

Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL You do realize that technically speaking 'Semite' is a linguistic group the same way 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'

There you have it. Notice that Obenga uses the same fallacy. Its interesting to note that Obenga's material has extra appeal to those who are already susceptible to this fallacy. I've always suspected that Obenga and a large part of his following are secretly letting 'race' become a factor to the issue of whether the Berber and Semitic languages are related to Cushitic and Egyptian.

Obenga's & Amun's fallacy reminds me of the resistance in some early Eurocentric quarters to incorporate the Chadic family in Afrasian, because many Chadic speakers are darker skinned, and not particularly close in phenotype to the average Afrasan speaker to the East. Obenga is doing the EXACT same thing to Berber and Semitic, only difference is he's using a mirror opposite pseudo-scientific ideology.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
As the resident geneticist of ES I'm curious, Dr. Mindlessovermatter/Sweetie, where did you receive your specialist training?

 -
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

No seriously Mindless, you always post as if you were a specialist in the field and everybody else were amateurs. I thought you were a geneticist until Dana enlightened me. You are very defense when your "integrity" is questioned. Your pretentious posts makes sense now. In fact was wondering if you applied to a university program and got turned down or something so you take refuge on the net with this huge chip on your shoulder. I can't blame them, however, I mean if you are going around claiming Europeans as hybrids of Bay Area Chinese and Central African pygmies then it's no wonder they rejected your dumbass. lol

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn, you're onto my little secret. Oh no, not this right after exposing me for being mindovermatter. Please don't tell anyone.

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL You do realize that technically speaking 'Semite' is a linguistic group the same way 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'

There you have it. Notice that Obenga uses the same fallacy. Its interesting to note that Obenga's material has extra appeal to those who are already susceptible to this fallacy. I've always suspected that Obenga and a large part of his following are secretly letting 'race' become a factor to the issue of whether the Berber and Semitic languages are related to Cushitic and Egyptian.

Obenga's & Amun's fallacy reminds me of the resistance in some early Eurocentric quarters to incorporate the Chadic family in Afrasian, because many Chadic speakers are darker skinned, and not particularly close in phenotype to the average Afrasan speaker to the East. Obenga is doing the EXACT same thing to Berber and Semitic, only difference is he's using a mirror opposite pseudo-scientific ideology.

Yes and unfortunately Diop despite his brilliant accuracy in other things made the same error when he tried to dissociate Berber from Egyptian and other Afrisian languages as 'European' despite Berber languages being exclusive to Africa. Even Clyde Winters takes it to the next level where he dismisses Berber as Eurasian yet includes Dravidian as African. [Eek!] [Roll Eyes]

These guys are obviously consumed with racialism.

Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeingdumb:

As the resident geneticist of ES I'm curious, Dr. Mindlessovermatter/Sweetie, where did you receive your specialist training?

Let's say you aren't playing pretend about your profession the same way you like to do about my sexuality... [Embarrassed] Your logical fallacy would then be 'Appeal to Authority' since being an authority on a subject does not mean you are correct about the subject. How many times have we debated the conclusions and works of experts in this forum before? Even you yourself love to pounce on Bowcock and Sforza even though their conclusions about African admixture among Euros is correct. [Wink]
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mindless is the resident geneticist of ES, stupid. I think you are one too. [Big Grin]
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Asar Imhotep
Member
Member # 14487

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Asar Imhotep   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I disagree on some points espoused by Amun, he is correct in this sense. Everyone who claims to be against Obenga's work has never read ANY of his linguistic arguments and it is obvious. I have also noticed that these same persons do not keep up with linguistic research and know the different schools of thought or what the real arguments have been. They never attend linguistic and historical conferences and have no clue of what the "consensus" is. If you have a disagreement with his research, you have to debunk it linguistically and not one of the detractors above has proposed a linguistic argument against what he has actually written.

As I have stated before on this forum, Negro-Africaines is NOT Diop and Obenga's brainchild. It is L. Homburger before Diop. They have advanced the work of her thesis and others have corroborated it in many ways. Secondly, Obenga is NOT the only one questioning the validity of Afro-Asiatic as a super language family. Amun has already cited NON OBENGA SOURCES and NON AFROCENTRIC SOURCES which make this same claim. So if one is to attack Obenga, one must attack all of the other qualified linguists who say the same thing as Obenga.

If one was to read Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse's book _African Languages: An Introduction (2000)_ one could read the chapter on Afro-Asiatic by Richard Hayward and get a sense of the shakiness by which this family is defended. If one was to go down further and read Paul Newman's article on "Comparative Linguistics" in the same cited work, he states the following:

quote:

Heine and Nurse (2000: 161-2)

(c) The job of the comparative linguist is to provide the best explanation possible consistent with the facts. In proposing a classification, it is not necessary that a linguist 'prove' that the classification is absolutely certain by the presentation of conclusive evidence. In response to widely speculative classifications that had been offered at various times by irresponsible scholars, many careful, emperically based linguists jumped to the opposite extreme and took the position that all languages should be treated as unrelated unless and until proved otherwise. This was thought to be a prudent scientific requirement. However, on close inspection, the requirement turns out to be untenable and not in keeping with standard scientific procedures. All that the comparative linguist can be expected to do is look at a pair or group of languages. If resemblances show up that appear to be greater than could be expected by chance, the linguist has to ask why. Could the resemblances be accounted for by universal sound symbolism, could they reflect areal characteristics, could they perhaps be due to borrowing from one language into another, or are the resemblances of the kind that are indicative of common origin? If the latter is the case, the linguist is justified in postulating a genetic relationship even if the evidence is still somewhat on the weak side. For example, in the opinion of some scholars, the evidence supporting the relationship between Chadic language family and other language groups in the Afroasiatic phylum, such as Semitic and Berber, is not compelling. Nevertheless, some points of resemblance in morphology and lexicon are so striking that if one did not assume relationship, they would be impossible to explain away. The classification of Chadic within the Afroasiatic is thus fully justified, not because it has been 'proved' as in a court of law, but because it is the explanation most consistent with the facts as a whole.



This is telling and informs us of the changes in attitudes as it regards language classifications. I argue it is because of linquists like Obenga who have constantly challenged them on the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis, that these attitudes have changed in such a way that they can put a 'loop-hole' in the method so they can keep their established language phylums. The author above would place Obenga in the "extreme" category of those who require "proof" of the language family. By using the comparative method, Afro-Asiatic cannot be said to be a language phylum. However, if we use the criterion from the quote above, if we have "just enough evidence," we would be justified in positing a language family. This releaves the Afrisan proponents from having to demonstrate rigorous proof of the phylum. This is what got Greensberg in trouble with Asian and Native-American languages. They require proof before categorization, where as the Africanists do not.

The problem is that when this is done in the reverse, one wants to move the goal post in the middle of the game. For if this is the case, then Wolof, Bantu and Nilo-Saharan languages belong to the same family as Egyptian as established by Diop, Obenga, Bilolo, Anselin, Oduyoye, Ndigi, Lam, Pfouma, Sambu and others who have established the relationship, using sound linguistic methods, between Egyptian and Kongo-Saharan languages, which forces a reclassification of African languages which Obenga has attempted to do.

The more I study this, the more Obenga is being vendicated by the evidence from various different areas of study. As I stated before, my problem with Obenga's past work is that the same criteria used to NOT establish Afro-Asiatic as a language family, is the same that doesn't establish Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan. So it is an issue of consistency as he uses those proposed families unchecked in his Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

So with this said, it would be of benefit to actually take the time out and study the field of linguistics so one can come to a linguistic conclusion and not one based on how one feels.

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't around at the time and reconstructed proto
languages at a family stage are all only guesses. I
have to have some stock in African born linguists who
by necessity speak at least two African languages all
their lives. Born and raised African linguists have an
advantage, they think and dream in (an) African
language(s).

Questioning Obenga's qualifications (link) -- the opposite
of accepting non-African linguists no questions asked --
shows forgetfulness of what "esteemed non-African
specialist" J. Devisse concluded 39 years ago after
UNESCO's symposium of 18 "esteemed Arab and Euro
specialist" and 2 "presumed knucklehead negroes"
not of the "I'll take your word for it old boy" network.

 -
 -

Fuhgeddabowt characterizing African professors as
chronic hopped juiced on gin dumb assed homeboys
unless they agree in toto with god almighty whitey.
The white country club academia days are finished.
Credentialed Africans are recognized authorities on things
African. The era of out of hand rejecting Africans' theories
about themselves is over and not ever returning.

So enough with Obenga ad homina. Only linguistic evidence
is evidence for linguistic refutation. All dissenters must
rationally address Obenga's linguistic demonstrations against
Afrisan as posted on this thread's previous page, please.

I'm far from a linguist. Qualified African and non
African linquists present opposing cases for the
once Hamito-Semitic language family. To me they
are both possibilities. In the non-African camp
some doubt Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian
are distinct phyla and others separate at least
Semitic, if not all Afrasian, from African roots.
Lkewise African linguists have their differences
about current and proposed phylum assignments.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obenga's primary premise is not "since whites have
Indo-European then blacks must have Negro-African."
We already established a white man Delafosse invented
the term Negro-African, pre-Obenga, way back in 1924.
[See 2nd post this page]

The Indo-European envy thing is a wilful distortion
in that the methodology establishing Indo-European
as a macrophylum is Obenga's basis:
quote:

The method used here is the one, in comparative linguistics,
that established Indo-European, Semitic and the other world
families of languages. The details of this method of comparison
applying to Egyptian and modern African languages have been
debated and passed in the International Cairo Colloquium.

. . . .

The goal is the reconstruction of the common ancestor, as
it has been done for Indo-European, Semitic, etc. Africanists,
who are often poor comparatists, misguide African researchers
who are methodologically weak, to erroneous methods that are
presented as logical inventions, whereas their premises are
completely false.

I have debated with the fiercest supporters of Afroasiatic and
Hamito-Semitic during colloquiums, symposiums, international
scientific meetings. I have answered some of their works in
writing. The African side always comes out victorious in these
encounters between specialists.

And for you who don't know, an Africanist is one whose
profession is African studies. Africanist is no code word
for pan-African ideology. Africanists were the academic
arm of colonialism. Ben-Jochannan was always harping
about white Africanists' anti-black biased ethnocentrism
like white Berbers founded Wagadu (Old Ghana) or
caucasian ancient Egypt or late external introduction
of iron to inner Africa and so on. Above you can see
Obenga distancing himself from Africanist of whom
he has a very poor opinion.

Also the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is
referencing an authority outside their field of
study. Citing authorities in their very discipline
is never an appeal to authority, it's the way
theses are regularly supported.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pertinent quotes from the UNESCO symposium:

I.B.6 p63
 -

I.B.8.abc p64
 -

I.C.5 p75
 -
 -

I.D pp76-7 see Conclusion screensave 2 posts above

I.E.3 p78
 -

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
... Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

As explained earlier Obenga excludes Berber and
Khoisan (sic) from the Negro-Africain macrophylum.

* Couchitique
* Tchadique
* Nilo-Saharien
* Nigero-Kordofanien
are phyla of Negro-Africain while Berber is not.

This is readily ascertainable from Obenga's separate
tables of Negro-Egyptien (Table 1) and Berbere (Table 3)

Per Obenga there are
"3 African language macrophyla:
* négro-égyptien
* berbère
* khoisan"



-------------------------------------


 -
 -
 -

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
according to an un sourced statement from a wikipepdia article;


"Some scholars believe that Yemen remains the only region in the world that is exclusively Semitic, meaning that Yemen historically did not have any non–Semitic-speaking people"

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I question the accuracy of that unsourced statement since just because an area has exclusively speakers of a language for a long time does not mean no other languages existed there or that the language spoken there now has always been there.
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:

Obenga's primary premise is not "since whites have
Indo-European then blacks must have Negro-African."
We already established a white man Delafosse invented
the term Negro-African, pre-Obenga, way back in 1924.
[See 2nd post this page]

The Indo-European envy thing is a wilful distortion
in that the methodology establishing Indo-European
as a macrophylum is Obenga's basis:
quote:

The method used here is the one, in comparative linguistics,
that established Indo-European, Semitic and the other world
families of languages. The details of this method of comparison
applying to Egyptian and modern African languages have been
debated and passed in the International Cairo Colloquium.

. . . .

The goal is the reconstruction of the common ancestor, as
it has been done for Indo-European, Semitic, etc. Africanists,
who are often poor comparatists, misguide African researchers
who are methodologically weak, to erroneous methods that are
presented as logical inventions, whereas their premises are
completely false.

I have debated with the fiercest supporters of Afroasiatic and
Hamito-Semitic during colloquiums, symposiums, international
scientific meetings. I have answered some of their works in
writing. The African side always comes out victorious in these
encounters between specialists.


If this post is a response to mine, I am well aware of Obenga's goal and the whole Indo-European envy was something I deduced about Winters! I never doubted the common features that the different languages of Africa had even if they are of different phyla.
quote:
And for you who don't know, an Africanist is one whose
profession is African studies. Africanist is no code word
for pan-African ideology. Africanists were the academic
arm of colonialism. Ben-Jochannan was always harping
about white Africanists' anti-black biased ethnocentrism
like white Berbers founded Wagadu (Old Ghana) or
caucasian ancient Egypt or late external introduction
of iron to inner Africa and so on. Above you can see
Obenga distancing himself from Africanist of whom
he has a very poor opinion.

Also the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is
referencing an authority outside their field of
study. Citing authorities in their very discipline
is never an appeal to authority, it's the way
theses are regularly supported.

I am well aware of what the term Africanist entails which is why my qualm is only with some Africanists and not all. There are some who like to use the term as a euphemism for 'Afrocentrist', yet to me it does not matter when one is dealing with something African. In fact, while I disagree with some aspects of Obenga and even Gadalla's works, there are other aspects I agree with entirely.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:

 -
 -


quote:
Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
... Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

As explained earlier Obenga excludes Berber and
Khoisan (sic) from the Negro-Africain macrophylum.

* Couchitique
* Tchadique
* Nilo-Saharien
* Nigero-Kordofanien
are phyla of Negro-Africain while Berber is not.

This is readily ascertainable from Obenga's separate
tables of Negro-Egyptien (Table 1) and Berbere (Table 3)

Per Obenga there are
"3 African language macrophyla:
* négro-égyptien
* berbère
* khoisan"

compare:

 -

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is important to understand is that languages are usually not spread by a single lineage but by populations which are usually composed of many different lineages (for example, many different SNPs, many different STR alleles). African people are the people with the greatest genetic diversity in the world.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What multi-disciplinary evidence is there for Negro-Egyptian? We know all pristine Afro-Asiatic speakers (including relict and at times excluded Omotic speakers) had/have a group of NRY E-M35 and mtDNA M1 sublineage carriers as their signature common ancestors, so we know they descent from the same proto-language speaking community at some point in the terminal pleistocene.

That's certainly a strange way to look at things. The genetic distance between people who speak languages derived from the Negro-Egyptian phylum is much shorter than between Semitic speakers and African Cushitic and Chadic speakers (that is the "Afro" branch of the debunked Afro-Asiatic language phylum). Only Berbers and Semites are closer to each other probably due to recent (7th Century Muslim conquest) or past back migration.

You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):
 -
People who speaks the Negro-Egyptian languages are those from the labelled "Sub-Saharan African" groupings (even if many of them actually live in North Africa and the Sahara).

People who speaks the Semitic language are those from the groups labelled "North Africa" and "Arabian".

So the genetic basis for the Negro-Egyptian language phylum is solid.

quote:

We know all Afro-Asiatic speakers have/had specific cultural traits like henotheism in common. We know the Berber language is strongly correlated with NRY E-M81, which branches off the same Y chromosome that unites all Afrasan speakers (E-M35). We know Afrasan speakers have words for specific inventions like grindstones in common.

All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations. From the Somali to the Zulu passing by the Yoruba and the Beja including Ancient Egyptians of course.

Yes, E-M35 and E-M78 are ancient African haplogroups (while E-M81 is recent in Berbers and is mostly limited to them) which then spread in Africa and some neighboring places around the world. That is they are SNPs (single nucleotide events) which happened in Africa among speakers descendants of the Negro-Egyptian languages. Many of them were E-P2. E-P2 is the most dominant Y-Chromosome lineage in Africa and exists at lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe. It combined and is ancestral to both E-M2 and E-m35(E-M78).

It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

Even more significantly:
 -
From Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese (Hassan 2008)

The whole graph is interesting but you can note among other things that Masalit and Fur people have some of the highest frequency of E-M35 (E-M215+E-M78 on the graph). Masalit got a frequency of 72% (23/32) and the Fur got 59% (19/32). Easily some of the highest frequencies of M35 in the world!! You can also note that Masalit and Fur don't have much "foreign" haplogroup such as J. So they derive their M35 directly from the ancestral population in which the M35 mutation was birth. They are not admixed.

Obviously the fact that the Masalit and Fur are not admixed can easily be seen visually as well. They look like typical un-admixed black African people (they are Nilo-Saharans).

In comparison, Semitic speakers like Bedouins got only 10.7% of M35, Omanite 7.7%, United Emirate Arab 7.3% (taken from Table 1). Bedouins and United Emirate Arab even got 3.6% and 7.3% respectively of E(xE3b) (E excluding E3b). Pale in comparaison of the Masalit 72% of the M35 mutation.

Obviously all those haplogroups trees and analysis derived from them always changes when new samples and populations are added (even site of origin changes). A fact noted by Cruciani in the above study (see the conclusion to the introduction). At the moment they are based on too few ethnic groups and sample size. The Masalit and Fur example (ignored by Cruciani) is a prime example. Many more important ethnic groups (for population structure study) may be ignored yet as well. Hopefully this will change in the future.

quote:

What are such fundamental, unlikely to have been acquired by simple borrowing/liaisons, but rather, common ancestry indicating multi-disciplinary unifying traits within ''Negro-Egyptian''?

All the contrary, the linguistic analysis and the archaeological analysis (which I posted a graph before) demonstrate that all Negro-Egyptian languages comes from Sudan and neighboring area. The genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers). They are from the E and E-P2 haplogroups. Which can be found elsewhere in the world in lower frequency but is mainly found in Africa among Negro-Egyptian speakers.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's certainly a strange way to look at things. The genetic distance between people who speak languages derived from the Negro-Egyptian phylum is much shorter than between Semitic speakers and African Cushitic and Chadic speakers (that is the "Afro" branch of the debunked Afro-Asiatic language phylum).

When you're trying to piece together the phylogenetic structure of an ancient proto-population (Proto-Afrasan speakers), you're not supposed to count other admixture events that postdate their split, dummy. This sounds strange to you because you're such a google scholar.

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):

They/their data certainly don't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions.

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations.

None of this would have been specific to the proto Negro-Egyptian community. These are all either easily borrowed (don't need descent from a proto-community to explain their distribution) or they predate the time frame Obenga is talking about. Also, provide evidence that Semitic speakers and Berber speakers didn't have these traits.

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

All outdated information. None of this Cruciani stuff is current. Also, if you're going to reply to my posts, make sure you read the goal post. Those E-M35 y-chromosomes in non-Afrasan speaking groups are all the result of admixture events--not through common descent.

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers).

See above. You're not supposed to confound post-split admixture events with genetic material that defines a proto-group.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Obengo currently using this term "Négro-Egyptien" ?
(Eng: Negro-Egyptian)

Amun Ra how can you support the idea of Egyptians inspring Greeks

but not Eguptian inspiring semetic languages, hense "Afrasian' ?

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of Swenet post this time is even devoid of genetic argumentation. All smokes and mirrors.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
When you're trying to piece together the phylogenetic structure of an ancient proto-population (Proto-Afrasan speakers), you're not supposed to count other admixture events that postdate their split, dummy. This sounds strange to you because you're such a google scholar.

Can you dial down the insults please. They are not necessary and reduce the quality of your post. As for using google, I didn't used second hand website opinions but genetic studies (frequency distribution of Haplogroups) to base my opinion.


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):

They/their data certainly don't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions.

Sure they do.


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations.

None of this would have been specific to the proto Negro-Egyptian community. These are all either easily borrowed (don't need descent from a proto-community to explain their distribution) or they predate the time frame Obenga is talking about. Also, provide evidence that Semitic speakers and Berber speakers didn't have these traits.

I don't have to prove that. Beside the central linguistic argumentation, I just need to show that Negro-Egyptian speakers did indeed shared many similar archeological and cultural traits like religions. To stick with what I already said, I didn't see many traditional African Headrests among the Semitic speakers (or even Berbers) while I we can see them in almost all Negro-Egyptians descendants.


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

All outdated information. None of this Cruciani stuff is current. Also, if you're going to reply to my posts, make sure you read the goal post. Those E-M35 y-chromosomes in non-Afrasan speaking groups are all the result of admixture events--not through common descent.

That's the only time in this post Swenet even attempts to use some genetic argumentation. Here he wants us to believe that:

Massalit, Fur having 72%, 59% of M35 is not proof of common descent but that Bedouins 10.7% of M35, Omanite 7.7%, United Emirate Arab 7.3% of M35 is proof of common descent. That's the level of ridiculousness Swenet is trying to dupe us.


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers).

See above. You're not supposed to confound post-split admixture events with genetic material that defines a proto-group.
Please what's unite the "Sub-Saharan African","Native American", "East Asian", "Middle Eastern" families are not recent SNP events but ancient SNP events obviously. Wolof in Senegal, Yoruba in Nigeria and Zulu in South Africa don't share recent ancestors but ancient ones. At the time many of their ancestors were in the Sudanese and neighboring region with many of them speaking the Negro-Egyptian language. Many of them having the E and E-P2 lineages.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Is Obengo currently using this term "Négro-Egyptien" ?
(Eng: Negro-Egyptian)

Amun Ra how can you support the idea of Egyptians inspring Greeks

but not Eguptian inspiring semetic languages, hense "Afrasian' ?

I read some scholars referring to the Black-Egyptian phylum, while I used Afro-Egyptian phylum on this thread. Negro-Egyptian is ok but sounds a bit archaic.

I'm not big on Afro-centrism, so I think Ancient Greeks were already a well developed culture just to be able to appreciate the level of advancement of Ancient Egyptians even if the Ancient Egyptian and the Kushite civilization predate the Ancient Greek civilization.

On this thread, it's not about inspiration but about linguistic genetic relationship. There's no doubt that people in the Middle East and the rest of the world were relatively isolated from Africa after the initial OOA for many years. At that time they acquired mutations (new SNPs and STRs) and had time to change their physical phenotypes due to the environment as did Africans. But after that time, in more recent era, which is my point, there was also many interactions and genetic exchanges between Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world (probably to a lower degree due to geographic distance). This doesn't prove Semitic languages have a genetic relationship with Ancient Egyptian, Chadic and Cushitic languages. Although it can show the possibility of borrowing between those language families.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All you do is spout garbage. Instead of recognizing your inability to respond to my arguments, you accuse me, the very person who is putting a screeching halt to your barrage of non-sense, of not arguing right--the mark of a true looney toon whose only ammunition is being in a perpetual state of denial. You're wasting my time, I've got things to do. This is where it stands:

--When it comes to reviewing the genetic evidence for the existence of a proto-Afrasan community, you can't use traces of post-split admixture as evidence against the existence of proto-Afrasan. Its like using >90% R-V88 y chromosomes in certain Chadic speakers as evidence that they didn't belong to the proto-Chadic community at some point. R-V88 got introduced to a subset of Chadic speakers AFTER they split up and diversified. In the exact same way, proto-Berbers got introduced to the majority of their maternal genepool (Mtdna U6, H U), when they split off and headed Westward (thats why these mtDNAs play a marginal role in Siwa Berbers). These lineages are NOT signature lineages that define Proto-Berbers--they define their predecessors in the Maghreb and Europeans. Only a doorknob such as yourself would rant on and on about ''genetic distance'' within the Afrasan community, and use these exotic ancestries as evidence that the genetic evidence is unsupportive of the notion that Afrasan speakers are unified amongst each other prior to contact with these exotic groups.

--Tishkoff et al support the notion that Chadic speakers have a substratum that is CLEARLY Nilo-Saharan, and that this substratum was complemented with Cushitic ancestry, which would have happened with the introduction of proto-Chadic to these populations. Again, like I said you moron, Tishkoff et al's data doesn't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions. Its fully consistent with the linguistic trees formulated by pro Afrasan linguists.

--Masalit, Fur et al would never have had E-M78 if they didn't have shared histories with Afrasan speakers. Berber speakers, on the other hand, don't need admixture with Afrasan speakers to be related to Afrasan speakers. Two siblings don't need to exchange genetic material to be related: they already are. In fact, the position of Berbers with Afrasan groups is so strong that they have their OWN E-M35, independent of Ethiopian and Sudanese E-M35. Read a book, will ya?

--Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community?

Thought so.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community?

Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

That said, if modern Semitic people descend from a genomic and cultural substratum separate from the proto-Semitic speakers, you would think modern Semitic languages would reflect this. I mean, we would find lots of non-Afrasan words and linguistic features peppered through modern Semitic that reflect their descent from non-Afrasan peoples.

Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

That's not what I think at all. I'm discussing the genetic evidence because Swenet brought it up, he almost challenged me to do it (since his post(s) didn't involve any linguistic arguments at all and he re-posted his "genetic" post claiming I was avoiding it), but it's the linguistic evidences from Obenga's book and some other books which is convincing me. As well as other archeological evidences and yes the genetic evidences too. While it's possible for some people to adopt a language with minimal genetic exchange, I think it's not the case here. I don't see any other historic or archeological events (or genetic events) explaining this "language colonialism" from Africa. On the Negro-Egyptian side, it's all the contrary. Most African ethnic groups descendants from the Negro-Egyptian phylum are pretty close to each other genetically. They have a short genetic distance between one another. It's just something that adds up to the linguistic and archeological evidences. All the Negro-Egyptian languages have their homeland in the same region.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anguishofbeing
Member
Member # 16736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for anguishofbeing     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sweetie insists on genetics because he is a... geneticist... [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Sweetie insists on genetics because he is a... geneticist... [Roll Eyes]

You can always count on the local attention whore, Angstofbeingab!tch, to come to me for her daily dose of attention and confirmation that she's being heard and that everything is ok. Ol' attention whore is quite competent in her (failed) attempts to make her attention-seeking look like aloof sarcasm.

quote:
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

Exactly. That's why he keeps yapping on and on about the genetic distance between Semitic speakers and the populations Obenga clusters under Negro-Egyptian--as if this genetic distance between modern speakers of this phylum has any bearing on the unity of the proto-populations themselves.

These Afronuts always have to let politics, emotions and vested interests interfere with what is supposed to be objective science. It is well known that these Afronuts feel uncomfortable with the presence of Berber, and especially Semitic, in close proximity to Egyptian.

So much so, that even Ehret has noticed that these Afronuts will get their panties up in a bunch over the demonstrated ties between tongues spoken (today) by light skinned people, and mdw ntr, causing him to feel the need to reassure this portion of his readership.

quote:
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
That said, if modern Semitic people descend from a genomic and cultural substratum separate from the proto-Semitic speakers, you would think modern Semitic languages would reflect this. I mean, we would find lots of non-Afrasan words and linguistic features peppered through modern Semitic that reflect their descent from non-Afrasan peoples.

But isn't this the case? I'm pretty sure there is evidence for this out there. Ehret talked about it, but don't ask me where I read it.

There is also minor overlap with certain aspects of Indo-European, but as far as I know, this is attributed to interactions with Indo-Europeans rather than remnants of an earlier substrata.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

 -


Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.

This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.

Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:

quote:

Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going
back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also
reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)--
as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this
in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary
consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while
verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation.
Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points
are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of
a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation.
Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive
derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence
restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to
have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex
system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s
justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ...
explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has
now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because,
quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As
the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a
way of generating random noise
.

http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/ratcliffe/comp%20&%20method-Ratcliffe.pdf



There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic.


Reference:

Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic.


Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The linguistic evidence makes it clear that Romans , Greeks and other Europeans have influenced the Berbers.


Andre Basset in La Langue Berbere, has discussed the I-E elements in the Berber languages. There is also a discussion of these elements in Schuchardt, Die romanischen Lehnworter im Berberischen (Wien,1918). Basset provides a few examples in his monograph. I have posted the page so you can examine the material yourself.

 -

 -

You can also consult Note di geografia linguistica berbera more ,by Vermondo Brugnatelli :
http://unimib.academia.edu/VermondoBrugnatelli/Papers/1098593/Note_di_geografia_linguistica_berbera


.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Je me demande si les hivers lit le français??

productions lionne

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community?

Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

That said, if modern Semitic people descend from a genomic and cultural substratum separate from the proto-Semitic speakers, you would think modern Semitic languages would reflect this. I mean, we would find lots of non-Afrasan words and linguistic features peppered through modern Semitic that reflect their descent from non-Afrasan peoples.

Truth is right. It's what Keita has been saying for a long time. One must make a distinction between ethnogenesis and biogenesis. Ethnogenesis is the origins of a cultural group with include language, customs, and material culture-- any or all of which is easily transmitted from one biological population to another. Biogenesis is the origin of a biological population itself which may carry mixed lineages already. The problem is that Amun-Ra tries to identify the DNA Tribes findings with Obenga's Negro-Egyptien when the genetic data has nothing to do with linguistic groupings let alone that of Obenga's which is rejected by the linguistic academia by and large as it is!
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The linguistic evidence makes it clear that Romans , Greeks and other Europeans have influenced the Berbers.

That may well be true of the littoral Berbers of the coasts but what of the hinterland Berbers of the Sahara who have been isolated from any Europeans?? What of the Tuareg, Haratin, or Siwa??
quote:
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
Yet this runs contrary to virtually all other linguists who are able to reconstruct the proto-language. You like Obenga still have yet to prove how Egyptian is related to Mande but not Semtic or Berber even though the latter two share the same syntax and grammar as well as vocabulary especially the farther back you go with their respective archaisms.

quote:
There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic.

So says you-- the same man who excludes Berber as 'European' even though Berber languages are spoken exclusively in Africa, yet you include Dravidian as African even though no Dravidian tongue is to be found anywhere near Africa, not even in Southwest Asia. [Roll Eyes] You are indeed the par-examplar of an Afronut.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
From http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8478.html

Beginning with the Arab conquest of the western Maghrib in the 8th
century, Mauritania experienced a slow but constant infiltration of Arabs
and Arab influence from the north. The growing Arab presence pressed
the Berbers, who chose not to mix with other groups, to move farther
south into Mauritania, forcing out the Black inhabitants. By the 16th
century, most Blacks had been pushed to the Senegal River. Those
remaining in the north became slaves cultivating the oases.


 -
 -

Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

according to an un sourced statement from a wikipepdia article;

"Some scholars believe that Yemen remains the only region in the world that is exclusively Semitic, meaning that Yemen historically did not have any non–Semitic-speaking people"

I question the accuracy of that unsourced statement since just because an area has exclusively speakers of a language for a long time does not mean no other languages existed there or that the language spoken there now has always been there.
One thing I forgot to add was evidence to the contrary-- that there were indeed non-Semitic languages spoken in Yemen!

""There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both epigraphic (ESA) and modernn South Arabian (MSA) were languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethiopia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing with ESA. Beeston (1981: 181) cites an inscription from Marib which begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown language. He mentions several other texts which have similar morphology (a final –k suffix) and which may represent an unknown non-Semitic language (or possibly a Nilo-Saharan language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would be typical)."
Blench (2010). 'The Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula and the problem of its reflection in the
archaeological record'

The above study was presented by Takruri in a thread here and is an excellent source of discussion for origins of Semitic languages and how Semitic came to dominate Arabia.

I should also mention Greco-Roman writings like 'Periplus of the Eritrean Sea' and authors like Pliny who mentioned a people in Yemen who spoke a language different from the Sabaeans and whose speech sounded like bats squeaking or birds chirping. They also say such languages were spoken across the Red Sea in modern Sudan. So obviously there were once other languages besides Semitic which were spoken in Yemen.

Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The earliest civilization in Southwest Arabia date back to the 2nd Millenium. This culture is called the Tihama culture which originated in Africa (Fattovich, 2008).


At Tihama and other sites in Arabia we find pottery related to the C-Group people of Nubia (Keall, 2000;2008; Fattovish, 2008; Giumlia-Mair, 2002)The archaeological evidence indicates that C-Group people expanded from Nubia to Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.These people spoke a Niger-Congo language.

The Tihama culture is characterized by the cheesecake or pillbox burial monuments which extend from Dhofar in Nubia, the Gara mountains to Adulis on the Gulf of Zula, to Hadramaut, Qataban, Ausan, Adenm, Asir, the Main area and Tihama.

The archaeological evidence places Kushites in Arabia before Semitic speakers. This would explain the genetic relationship between Egyptian and Black African languages


Rudolfo Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the Northern Horn of Africa in ancient and Medieval Times. Retrieved 2/19/2008
http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/afr/projects/BOOK/fattowich.pdf


Keall, Dr. Edward J. Contact across the Red Sea (between Arabia and Africa) in the 2nd millennium BC: circumstantial evidence from the archaeological site of al-Midamman, Tihama coast of Yemen, and Dahlak Kabir Island, Eritrea . Retrieved 2/20/08 at: '

Keall, E. J. (2000) >Changing Settlement along the Red Sea Coast of Yemen in the Bronze Age=, First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Rome May 18-23, 1998), Proceedings, (Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F., eds), 719-31, Rome.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3