...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BrandonP: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes. I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian. [/qb][/QUOTE]It depends on what you mean by "pure Afrocasiatic". Do you mean the hypothetical proto-language itself or the speakers from which it arose? As far as linguistics is concerned, the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at [i]least[/i] 12,000 BC if not earlier. In fact the Omotic subfamily seems to support this as it is the most divergent of all the Afrisian languages. This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny. [IMG]https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0446a063c79987183863c8d62a9c3f07-pjlq[/IMG] If Natufians do represent Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers, then Semitic is all that remains similarly, Berber is all that remains of Libyco-Berber. I also believe that Egyptic was also more diverse including A-Group and who knows what else. As for the speakers themselves, they too had to be pretty diverse. Remember that Hadza-marker is found in Natufians and other West Eurasians. And Basal Eurasian has to represent a population close to the OOA node that left out of Africa. [/qb][/QUOTE]I was assuming that the first Proto-Afroasiatic speakers would look like however we think the Proto-Egyptians' ancestors looked. However, the phenotype of Omotic-speakers does need accounting for, since many of them could be confused for Upper Nile peoples. I presume the Mota specimen had a similar appearance to them. Maybe they descend from an early dispersal of Proto-Afroasiatics that went into the Horn, where Mota-like locals absorbed them? Only other scenario I can think of is that it's the Mota-type people who would have been the first Afroasiatic-speakers, and that the branch that split away from the Omotics moved into North Africa and had the locals absorb them. IIRC, Swenet has suggested that most of whatever sub-Saharan ancestry AE and Natufians shared might be related to Mota. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3