Re: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)

----- Original Message -----
From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 8:15 PM
Subject: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)


> >
> > Perhaps Semitic /?rD/ "earth, soil", Arabic /?arD/.
>
> I thought "soil" was *'-d-m-h (hence Adamah)?
>

Maybe in other Semitic dialiects the root /?dm/ signified soil. In modern
Arabic it has only persisted in the meaning of "skin" and "Adam, human" of
course. There is the phrase though "?adiim al-?arD" meaning "surface of the
earth".

> > Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt? Ethiopia, the presumed
> Semitic homeland, is also one of the "centres of origin" of
> agriculture.
>
> Dennis, there was a long discussion about this earlier on the list.
> I
> proposed an Ethiopian origin, crossing the Red Sea to Yemen, and was
> shot down in flames. Despite the fact that Semitic languages in
> Ethiopia are more numerous and more diverse than elsewhere
> (evidence of potential origin sites), it was pointed out that the
> Ethiopian crops for the origin of Agriculture were domesticated only
> post 3,000 BCE, too late for the appearance of Semites to be
> associated with a dispersal zone from Ethiopia.
>

I don't know much about this period - I'm only feeling my way in response to
your interesting discussions with Glen. I got this info from what seemed an
impeccable source :
http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/gepts/PB143/lec10/pb143l10.htm
quoting a J.R. Harlan 1971, American Association for the Advancement of
Science. However no dates were given, but Ethiopia was listed alongside 7
other centres.
Either way, it seems more likely that the AfroAsiatic languages point of
departure was Ethiopia, rather than the middle of the Sahara, as shown in
your map (which BTW I had no trouble downloading - but I've got MS
Powerpoint here), with Egyptian moving north, Semitic across the Horn of
Africa into Arabia, and Chadic west (Berber and Omotic being somewhat
later).


> Dennis wrote
> >Given that the lower Nile valley was probably
> >impenetrable marshy jungle, isn't it more likely they came via the
> >grasslands of the Arabian peninsula, bringing their Ethiopian
> >agricultural techniques (and Ubaid pottery) with them?
>
> The "impenetrability" of the lower Nile in pre-historic times was not
> that impenetrable. It was the route that Aurignacians took on the
> movement from North Africa to Palestine 40,000 BCE.... and also the
> route by which Sebilian III mesolithic culture, transmogrified into
> Kebaran entered Palestine circa 15,000 BCE.... The Semites followed
> the same routes. There is also no evidence of Ethiopian techniques
> or crops (eg. tef, finger millet, coffee) in Arabia. The
> domesticates
> for Ubaid were all Middle Eastern in origin, and Ubaid shows a clear
> derivation from the previous cultures of the Middle East (see above).
>

Yes, but weren't these movements in drier phases? The period we're talking
about here was, I believe, a period when the Sahara and Arabia were
reasonably well watered grasslands. Which would suggest that the Nile valley
and Fayyum would have been much wetter and therefore more lush.
Also I'm not suggesting that the Semites brought their crops with them, just
the knowledge of agriculture.

<snipped>
>
> > > Another example. Proto-IE *kwelkwlo (wheel) has been linked to
> > > Akkadian Semitic galgal. But this word seems derived from
> Sumerian
> > > gigir and even Kartvellian grgar. We can therefore suppose,
> rather
> > > than a Semitish-PIE loan occurring in the Balkans, that the
> > > technology
> > > of wheels, starting in Southern Mesopotamia, tended to carry the
> > > words
> > > for their use as they travelled northwards, across the Caucasas.
>
> Thanks for the etymologies for galgal.... Certainly interesting. It
> would upset contemporary archaeology to have Semites rather than
> Sumerians inventing the wheel, but hey! upsets in archaeology have
> happened before.
>

The IE word for wheel seems to be well established in IE from /kWel/
"revolve". So maybe the similarity is just that - or coincidence or
contamination (in the linguistic sense).


> On the basis of the origins of farming there is about 300 years so
> far
> in separating between the Anatolian, Zagros and Palestinian farmers,
> with Anatolian and Zagros both occurring slightly prior to Palestine.
> <snipped>
Thanks for the info. As I said I'm only starting to feel my way around here.

> I would suggest you read a little more of Flannery.
> <snipped again to save space>

I've never read Flannery at all. Just surfing. Again, thanks for the info.

> > So, now on to part II - the Egypt of Ramses II under the cultural
> and economic domination of Mycenae? Hmmm, doesn't seem likely on the
> face of it.
>
> It is interesting that while Minoans and Mycenaeans are portrayed on
> the walls of Egyptian tombs, there are no Egyptian portayals in
> Mycenaean or Minoan pallaces.
>

Amongst many others. Anyway, I've posted my reply. Make of it what you will.


Cheers
Dennis