[TIED] Re: AfroAsiatic

From: Dennis Poulter
Message: 2606
Date: 2000-06-03

Right, I've read and studied all the excellent archaeological/anthropological info you have posted, John, and have done a great deal of reading of whatever I can find on the subject on the web.
However, first, I must take issue with you on your linguistic analysis. I've been looking specifically at the language families involved, and what you say makes no sense. Your subgrouping of AfroAsiatic into Chadic/Cushitic/Omotic and Berber/Egyptian/Semitic has no linguistic basis, and can only be supported by the Saharan hypothesis.
It must be stressed that the AfroAsiatic superfamily is on a par with Eurasian, in that all the coordinate families show great divergence, and that the common features between them are based on mainly typological correspondences in morphology and phonology. Interestingly, the postulated proto-phonological system is very similar to that proposed for Nostratic. None of the languages have preserved all the elements; Chadic and Berber have preserved the least, and Semitic has preserved the most.
 
There are two schools of thought on the original location and date of the break-up.
One gives a Saharan origin and date of 8000-6000BCE for the split, which corresponds with the onset of the desiccation of the Sahara.
The other gives an East Africa/Ethiopian origin, with a much earlier date of 12000BCE for the original split, based on the fundamental differences between Egyptian and Akkadian, the oldest attested languages of this group.
 
So, I have come up with a synthesis of all this, which, I believe, does not do (too much) violence to John's cultural sequence, which accounts reasonably well for the linguistic evidence, and which may even provide a historical basis for Glen's Semitish.
Neat trick, eh? So , here goes :
 
1. Post 18000BCE, proto-Afro-Asiatic speaking nomadic hunters moved into the Sahara. They must have come from the southerly or easterly equatorial regions.
2. Capsian technology probably originated in the Sahara , and was in part based on earlier North African techniques. But it would have spread quickly through what was still a fairly homegenous Saharan population, back to East Africa.
3. Around 12000BCE occurred the first split in AfroAsiatic. Peoples inhabiting the Red Sea coastal regions may have already crossed over to the Arabian savannahs to exploit the resources there. It would seem, on the linguistic evidence, that while the speech of the Sahara evolved, the speech of the Arabian/Red Sea coastal people remained more archaic. This then would be the split between Semitic and, let's call it Hamitic.
4. With the onset of desiccation, ca. 8000BCE, probably from the interior outwards, of the Saharan region, the peoples there became isolated from one another and retreated : the proto-Berbers to the north-west and Atlas mountains, the proto-Chadics to the south and west to the Sahel and equatorial regions, the proto-Cushites (followed by proto-Omotic) to the south-east and the mountains of Ethiopia, the proto-Egyptians eastwards into the Nile valley.
5. Desiccation also affected Arabia, forcing movements of Semites in all directions: back to Africa, to Oman and the Gulf watered by the edge of the monsoons, into Mesopotamia, and westwards towards the Nile valley. It could well be that the Semitic hunters and gatherers had already penetrated into Anatolia and beyond, into Europe.
 
I believe this scenario best accounts for the linguistic facts :
1. that while betraying signs of a common ancestry, Semitic and Egyptian are profoundly different in phonology and morphology. This has been obscured by the long and intimate relationship of Egyptians and Semites (but not a la Norman/English relations, John) which has resulted in a certain amount of convergence between West Semitic and Lower Egyptian, and the fact that classical hieroglyphic Egyptian, from the Old Kingdom on, was based on the Lower Egyptian dialect of Memphis.
2. that the African branches of AfroAsiatic show a common development in phonology and morphology, such as the loss of laryngeals and emphatics (ejectives), loss of noun cases, loss of root/theme word derivation processes, development of auxiliary+verbal noun in the verb system. These changes are graduated, with greater preservation of original forms in the east (Egyptian) less in the south east (Omotic and Cushitic) and least in the south and west (Berber and Chadic).
 
It also has advantages from the cultural point of view :
1. it preserves John's north-to-south flow of Capsian technical advances, with possible sources in Ibero-Maurusian and Aterian;
2. it removes the need to postulate a movement of Semitic speech across the Nile valley from west to east, which neither stopped there not left any trace of its passage;
3. it preserves the fundamentally African character of Egypt, while allowing for the very early and important Semitic contributions to come from the east (but no dynastic race);
4. it gives ample time for the Semites to establish themselves in the Middle East, and forge the necessary technology and networks to be able to influence Egypt at such an early date;
5. it gives ample time for the Semites to penetrate into Anatolia and Europe at any early enough date to account for the ancient Semitic loans into proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian and Kartvelian;
6. it provides a very real possibility that the first farmers were Semitic speaking. A recent paper given by Harvard Univ. anthropologist Ofer Bar-Yosef claims recent findings show that the first farmers were located in the western half of the Fertile Crescent at around 10,000BCE (onset of the Younger Dryas). This would account for the Semitic argricultural vocabulary Glen keeps turning up, and gets rid of the need for unknown or hypothetical substrate languages.
 
As a postscript, archaeologists from Chicago's Oriental Institute announced on 23/5 the discovery of a city in northern Syria (Tell Harmoukar) dating to 4000BCE. This makes it contemporaneous or perhaps earlier than the earliest Sumerian cities. Perhaps the unknown substrate to Sumerian is Semitic. (see my post on Eridu from Semitic - Arabic 3ariiD(un)). Perhaps the Ubaid pottery makers were also fundamentally Semitic speaking.
 
BTW, for John. according to Peter A. Piccione of North-Western University, African agriculture originated around 8000BCE in southern Libya, west of lower Nubia.
 
Cheers
Dennis
 
 
 
 
 
 
This also allows ample time for the Semitic speaking people to have penetrated into Anatolia and Europe, and to have intermixed with speakers of PIE (or IT) and Kartvelian, to account for Glen's ancient Semitic loans into these languages. This would also seem likely given the physical appearance of Middle Easterners. Interestingly, an anthropologist at Harvard University, Ofer Bar-Yosef, claims that his latest findings narrow the location of the first farmers to the western half of the Fertile Crescent and dates it to the onset the Younger Dryas, ca. 10,000BCE. Given the earlier date for Semitic (12,000BCE), this could be the source of Glen's Semitish argriculturalists spreading their agricultural Semitic terminology far and wide. BTW, John, it seems the earliest true agricultural sites in Africa are to be found in southern Libya, to the west of lower Nubia, and are dated to 8000BCE. 
While on the subject of the Semites, on 23/5 a discovery was announced of a 6000-year-old city in northern Syria (Tell Harmoukar), which would thus appear to pre-date or be contemporaneous with the earliest sites of Sumer. New stuff comes out of the woodwork every day, doesn't it?
 
According to your Excel file, John, this would make at the Natufians Semitic-speaking. Do you have a problem with that?