Re: AfroAsiatic

Dennis wrote

>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 atthe 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.

Dennis, this sixfold split comes from the linguistics section of
Encylopedia Britannica (and Glen's site). Does this mean that EB has
failed us yet again? They claim that of this split Chadic seems most
distant from Semitic. (This would fit with my derivation of Chadic
from Ibero-Maurusian and all the others from Capsian). EB also
claims
that Omotic and Cushitic are sometimes put into a single family,
which
would be true if they were both derived from Kenyan Capsian, later
than the split-up of the other members of the family. Berber is then
claimed to be the most distinct of the three remaining families,
which
again I have included in my post, as claiming that the Berbers
descended from the "stay-at-home" later post-pottery Capsians -
Egyptians and Semites coming from those that roamed out across the
Sahara.

>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.

Hmmm. I don't know quite how to interpret this point Dennis, not
having studied Arabic at SOAS as you have done. I did Bahasa
Indonesia there from 1976-78! When were you there?
All I can suggest is that by dating the break-up of AfroAsiatic from
Ibero-Maurusian times (circa 15,000 BCE) we are talking of a
comparable time span for Nostratic (circa 15,000 BCE), so this would
hold true of the Sharan hypothesis too.

Dennis continues

>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.

This is the one I have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept
(I too used to be an Ethiopic centre man!)

>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.

And yet the splits from Chadic and Berber are greater as far as
morphology seem to show (EB again I vaguely remember).

>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.

Could have been, except on the basis of lithic traditions and stone
working styles they seem to have come not from the south and east,
but
from the north and west. Sorry Dennis.

>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.

Yup, which is what I was saying above under 1, except the North
African techniques seem to go back to the late Aterian (pre 18,000
BCE) here Dennis.

>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.

Interesting idea, except at 12,000 BCE there is no evidence of boats
anywhere in the Near East. Also, if I remember correctly Yemeni
mesolithic sites (from 11,000 BCE) show evidence of being derived
from
Kebaran (in Palestine) not of having crossed from Ethiopia at this
time. The autochthonous Yemini mesolithic cultures that developed
seem to have been part of a "pan-Arabian" tradition that survived
until the arid phase of 6,000 BCE. This "pan Arabian mesolithic" was
then confined to Oman and the Gulf (and perhaps Yemen, although here
a
hiatus is shown archaeologically).
Reoccupation of Yemen occurred from about 5,300 BCE, with the arrival
of the first nomadic pastoralists and farmers, who show clear
evidence
of having come from Sinai and Palestine.

Dennis continued

>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.

My point is that the Proto Chadics were displaced southwards by the
superior Capsian culture at about 8,000 BCE. This shift seems to be
indicated in the Saharan paintings, with the arrival of a people from
the north who were technologically more sophisticated. Otherwise
your
scenario I feel is pretty correct. They crossed the Nile, probably at
Khartoum with the Khartoum Variant Capsian excavated by A.J.Arkell
from 1040s onwards, with a dozen of the earliest sites now with
uncalibrated radio-carbon dates of 9,370 to 9,330 BP and the latest
sites at 6,480 BP (about 7,420 BCE to 4,530 BCE). The Kenyan Capsian
is a little later in date.

>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.

Here we part company Dennis. Natufian had been in Palestine from
10,000 BCE (12,000 BP) too early for the dessication scenario you
trace. Also dessication did not really start to affect the Near East
until 6,000 BCE. The dessication of post 6,000 BCE did force Semites
to move in all directions, as the Semites (with African derivative
pottery, a mesolithic culture and microburins, did take over from
Natufian derived PPNB, spreading north from the Sinai at that date).
These people learned herding of sheep and goats and then spread south
of the Timna oasis into the Hejaz and on towards Yemen, as already
mentioned above.

Dennis wrote

>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.

OK, I can accept that.

>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).

I can accept this too. This could fit the Saharan evidence as well.
The only thing here is accepting that there is a distinction between
west Saharan (Berber and Chadic losses) and east Saharan (Egyptian
and
Semitic retention) with Cushitic and Omotic somewhere in between.
This fits the Saharan evidence well.

Dennis again

>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;

Agreed

>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;

Ah. In fact there IS evidence of a movement of a late Capsian
mesolithic culture from the Qattara depression, through Siwa and
Fayyum to Sinai in the period 6,000-5,500 BCE. These did not stop
long, because the succeeding Maadi neolithic, concurrent with and
drawing influences from Upper Egyptian Naqada I and Badarian, covered
it over. I can dig out the references if you want more information.
You (Dennis wrote above)

>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.

Dennis, it seems that this mesolithic culture I spoke of would have
crossed the Nile at about the region of Memphis!

>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);

There is great argument over the "Dynastic Race". Petrie (1939),
Winkler (1938-9), Derry (1954), Kaiser (1957) and Rohl (1999) argued
for it. Helen Kantor (1944), and Midant Reynes (1992) argued against
it. Personally I feel something strange was going on down Wadi
Hammamat with the Mesopotamian-like high prowed boats and cylinder
seals, and the arrival of a new aristocratic hierarchy in the area of
Middle Egypt which from then on rapidly unified Upper and Lower Egypt
into Dynasty 1. I take the Egyptians at their word that these people
came from Punt. I suspect it was roughly this period that Semitic
languages moved across from Yemen into Ethiopia (although I have no
archaeological evidence of the fact. Enki's song of Dilmun do show
that the Sumerians were aware of Yemen and a land of Gold beyond
(Sudan? Egypt?)

Dennis wrote

>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;

Both scenarios allow this.

>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;

Ah.. here we have another problem. Dennis, your scenario allows
this,
mine doesn't, except for the degree that the substrate language which
taught middle eastern grain farming and the use of sheep and goats to
the Sinai arrivals, I argue, was the same substrate language which
Glen calls Semitish, teaching the same words to proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian
and Kartvellian. Whether this language was Afro-Asiatic or not I
don't know. Given what you say about the huge differences between
Semitic and the African Afro-Asiatic languages I suspect that it was
not.

>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).

10,000 BCE is not widely accepted yet for the onset of farming, which
is usually accepted as about 8,700-8,500 BCE. I must check Ofer
Bar-Yosef's evidence.

>This would account for the Semitic agricultural vocabulary Glen

keeps

>turning up, and gets rid of the need for unknown or hypothetical
>substrate languages.

Your thesis does have this advantage Dennis, but it would have
Semitic
splitting from the remainder of the Afro-Asiatic languages of Africa
in pre-Capsian times. I also must remind you that we do not have any
movement of cultures out of Africa between Kebaran (18,000 BCE with
an
Aterian derived mesolithic) and post PPNB (5,800 BCE with a Capsian
derived mesolithic). Thus Semitic either began before 18,000BCE or a
little before 5,800 BCE. Either one or the other. And neither really
fit the Semitish situation, unfortunately.

Dennis continued

>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. New stuff comes out of the
>woodwork every day, doesn't it? (see my post on Eridu from Semitic

-

>Arabic 3ariiD(un)).

Dennis, all the evidence I have seen suggests that the pre-Sumerian
substrate seems to be both non-Semitic and non-Sumerian. I have
suggested Hurro-Urartuan, and Glen seems to be coming around to this
view too. Can you tell me how to access your post on Eridu?

Dennis wrote

>Perhaps the Ubaid pottery makers were also fundamentally Semitic
>speaking.

This is not impossible. Ubaid culture had elements drawn from the
earlier (Semitic) Ghassulian, which was contemporaneous with Halaf.
I
suspect that there may have been groups of Semitic nomadic
pastoralists moving in and out of Ubaid territory. They may have
also
helped precipitate the increase in defensive works associated with
late Ubaid early Jemdet Nasr and Uruk sites. The problem with Ubaid
being Semitic speaking is that Ubaid was the first neolithic culture
to fully occupy southern Iraq (the Hadji Muhammed culture was only
half way down the Mesopotamian Valley. Thus THEY were the
pre-Sumerian substratum. There was no other culture that moved down
the valley until early Dynastic Sumerian.

Dennis wrote

>BTW, for John. according to Peter A. Piccione of North-Western
>University, African agriculture originated around 8000BCE in

southern

>Libya, west of lower Nubia.

I'll search this one. There is quite a bit of argument about origins
of African agriculture. Previously the date of 15,000 BCE was given
for the Kubbaniya, on the basis of finds of barley at a Kubbaniya
site. However, it is now believed that these two grains percollated
down to that level from a later settlement on the site. There is
some
evidence that cattle herding may have begum 8,000 BCE, but even that
is disputed. I would love to know what crops Piccone is suggesting
were cultivated.

Dennis continues

>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.

Now this is an interesting one. Genetically there is very little
distance between most Middle Easterners and people of Europe. There
is one group that goes against this rule - the Bedawin and Yemenites,
who are further away genetically from other middle easterners than
the
latter are from either Iranians or Europeans! I can give the
references if you are interested.

This would support both our scenarios. Your trans-Red Sea one would
suggest that Bedawin and Yemenite are intermediary between Africans
and Middle Easterners (which is true!). Equally my Sinaitic scenario
would suggest that the out-of-African post PPNB people that moved
down
to Tinma and the Hejaz had the least intermingling with the Middle
Eastern neolithic genotypes.

Dennis concluded

>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. According to your Excel file, John, this
>would make at the Natufians Semitic-speaking. Do you have a problem
>with that?

Dennis is Tell Harmoukar Yarmukian (i.e. Natufian derived)? There
were Natufians as far north as Aleppo so Northern Syria is not that
far further. You ask if I have trouble if Natufians (10,500-8,500
BCE) were Semitic? Glen considers them to be Semitish. I have no
trouble with them being Semitic, if you were to accept Kebaran
culture
(18,000-10,500BCE )was also Semitic and Aterian (30,000) as
Afro-Asiatic! There is no archaeological evidence of any movement
out
of Africa in Natufian times and Natufian developed out of the
Epipaleolithic traditions already in Palestine (the Kebaran). But
this is far too early for me.

Kebaran, I believe, were the people who carried Nostratic languages
out of Africa. Glen accepts that Nostratic came out of Africa in
mesolithic times. Natufian, by this scenario, would have been a
Nostratic language, perhaps half way between Proto-Afro-Asiatic and
Proto-Nostratic(?) Perhaps it was the fusion of these people with
the
new Afro-Asiatic arrivals in PPNB that created the languages we today
call Semitic. It was these Kebaran people who spread the microlithic
mesolithic cultures which had existed in Africa for a long while,
into
the Middle East and thence into wider Eurasia. Just like Glen
supposed the Nostratics did.

Hope this helps
John