Hi Dennis
> Briefly John, as this is not the place to discuss the origins of
Egyptian civilisation, let's drop that one.
Agreed!
> I've attached some maps from the University of Southampton (UK) on
the palaeo-vegetation (together with the key) of Africa at -18K, -8K
and -5K. They are for public use. The site, though, is very
interesting :
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~tjms/adams1.html
I have come across this site before and debated using a full colour
code for the vegetation maps under my series on human origins. It is
excellent data.
> To me the most salient feature is the northward advance after -18K
of the tropical grasslands. It seems only natural to me that the
people who had been inhabiting this environment moved northwards with
it, propelled by the northward advance of the rainforests. The most
natural line of advance is along the higher ground of the Enned
Plateau-Tibesti Mountains-Tassili n Ajjer which runs from the
south-east to south of present-day Tunisia.
Agreed, but to me this is the Adamawa group of the Niger Khordofanian
languages, and the Nilo-Saharan which advanced from the south. I see
the A-A as north of that group.... but hey, either way at this date.
> The north-west, with its Mediterranean scrub vegetation, does not
seem likely as a source of a major population movement.
I am familiar with a Mediterranean area here in Western Australia.
The Nyoongar peoples were confined here 18,000 BCE too, and when the
dunes receeded spread out across half a continent. I see something
similar as happeningin North Africa between 15,000 and 8,000 BCE
Dennis wrote
> Thus I see the Capsian industry as a fusion of the meeting of the
southern grassland hunters with the northern lithic traditions,
probably in the region of southern Tunisia, and thence being
transmitted back southwards.
This is news to me. Especially since the "southern grasslands
hunters" were Negroid, whilst the Tunisians seem to have been
Mediterraneans by physical anthropology in affiliation.
> The map at -5K also shows what I had suspected, that the
desertification started in the interior of the Sahara at two points,
east and west of the central highlands. This would have forced the
people in the western Sahara to the mountains of the north-west - the
future Berbers, and to the wetter south - the future Chadics, and in
the eastern Sahara to the east into the Nile valley - the future
Egyptians, and to the highlands of the south - the future Cushites
and
Omotics.
Yes, I think we are agreed here.
Dennis wrote
> I still maintain that the Semites took no part in this. Their
ancestors migrated rather to the Red Sea region, which was also
savannah, and from there crossed to Arabia. That no boats have been
discovered is not very surprising. Have any boats been discovered
from
the presumed crossing of Ibero-Maurusian to Spain?
Yes rock paintings on both sides of the Gibraltar straits (and deep
into the Sahara) show boats.
> It appears from latest findings that HS has been present along the
Red Sea coast from very early times. And we're not talking mass
migration and big boats here.
Agreed, but as for their "racial affiliation" on the African side
until about the 6,000 increasing aridity, they were almost wholly
"Capoid" in appearance.
> I can only repeat that Capsian is a lithic industry, not a people.
I
have never heard tell of any Semitic substratum in the Nile valley at
the dates you give. And if, as you say elsewhere, that Semitic and
Egyptian were not yet distinct, how can you use this as an argument
for Semitic migration across the Nile?
Dennis, I know that the Capsian is a lithic tradition, not a
"people".
Nevertheless technological diffusions usually occur with culture
contact and the "copying" of one product into another area, ahead of
a
more widespread adoption and eventually a cultural movement from one
area to another. Like the process of "Neolithisation" (i.e. spread
of
farmers) we find at the frontier, mesolithic peoples first adopting
elements of a farming culture into essentially a hunter-gatherer way
of life. The proportion of these elements grow until a full
neolithic
is achieved. Often across the frontier, in such circumstances,
bilingual populations occur, in which elements of one language fuse
with elements of another, to make a new linguistic mix. I don't argue
for a Semitic migration across the Nile. I argue that Semitic was
developed in the Sinai as a result of a fusion between Afro-Asiatics
and the first farming cultures. The later provided the terms for
sheep and goats (for which there was no A-A equivalent as ovicaprids
had not been introduced into Egypt or North Africa by such a date.
But I am prepared to defer to you linguistically on this one.
> How can you say categorically that there were no movements out of
Africa between 18,000 and 5,800?
I argue that there is no TECHNOLOGICAL or ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence of
any movements out of Africa between these two dates. Movements of
people can occur where one people, keeping their language, move into
another area and wholly adopt a completely new culture, I agree, but
they are rare. And yet this seems to be what you are arguing in the
case of the Afro-Asiatics, crossing into Arabia. When you say
>If a people brings no new cultural or technical assets to an already
>inhabited area, how do you distinguish them from the natives? Maybe
>Semitic hunters were already roaming the grasslands of the interior
>when the Natufians developed from the Kebarans.
A people not to bring new elements into an area means that they would
have to abandon their total culture, its ways of doing things and
adopt completely new ways. Such movements may occur but USUALLY
they leave traces. Traces in perferred means of tool use, in the
traditional assemblage of tools and local techniques of manufacture,
ways of burying the dead, and disposing of corpses. It is this
evidence that leads me to speak of no ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of any
movements out of Africa between these periods.
Dennis writes
>Perhaps there was a slow integration and intermixing. Who
>knows? I only know that cultural/technical changes do not always
>correspond with population movements and language changes.
Perhaps there was. There is certainly evidence of slow intermixing
between late Nautufian (Yarmukan PPNB), with the African arrivals
circa 5,800 BCE. Such intermixing did occur at this time. There may
have been some intermixing between Kebaran and late Upper Paleolithic
traditions in Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia (to create the
Zarzian
tradition), and again with Anatolian microlithic arrivals with late
Paleolithic traditions in the Balkans, and in the Altai region even
later. Such mingling does happen.... but it usually leaves evidence
which shows up in the record.
When such intermingling occurs it is of course impossible to say
which
direction the language moves. It can move either way. A Natufian
language could have dominated the arrivals out of Africa circa 5,800
BCE. But we know that the people in this area ultimately spoke
Semitic, an Afro-Asiatic language, so it is a fair bet to claim that
the AA language dominated in this case.
Dennis continued
> Piotr's post (for which I thank you, and apologies for my imprecise
terminology) seems to show also that the most archaic phonological
features are found in Ethiopia and the Nile valley. As Piotr says, we
only have sketchy information on many of these languages, so it's
unwise to make any generalised statements about them.
> So, I'm sticking with the Ethiopian/East African source of
AfroAsiatic, and Semitic crossing into Arabia at an early date,
perhaps as early as 12,000BCE, and from there spreading back to
Africa, via the Horn and via Sinai with the onset of drier conditions
from 6000BCE, as well as spreading northwards to provide the basis of
Glen's Semitish.
Dennis this is OK, if we can assume that for some reason those
crossing the Red Sea totally abandonned their African culture roots,
to fully adopt a Kebaran derived mesolithic culture in Arabia that
did
not have any of the cultural innovations later developed by the
Natufians. To have them crossing Sinai by 6,000 with the onset of
drier conditions is to have them swimming against the tide. Sinai
from about 6,000 BCE was the site of technologies and cultures coming
out of Africa, not of technologies going into Africa. Your
hypothesis
stands if we can accept a movement of people, speaking a language,
who
are chameleons, capable of dropping their pre-existing culture and
technology at the drop of a hat, to assume, seemlessly, the culture
of
the area they move into. It is a little like Pakistanis arriving in
England, to introduce Urdu into the population, without spreading
Pakistani cooking, or customs at all.
Dennis again
>As to whether farming was invented by a Semite or not, we'll never
>know. But they were very much involved in its early development and
>dissemination.
Once we get to the "Secondary Products Revolution" post PPNB,
certainly. Like PIE, through adopting nomadic pastoralism, they
spread it far and wide. I feel we will come to know eventually who
and where farming was started by, and perhaps, eventually, what
language they spoke. But maybe I am just an optimist.
> On the genetic front, check out this article :
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/daughters000420.html
> in which it is claimed that almost all Europeans are descended from
7 mothers, who in turn are descended from one pf the three African
"Eves". "Jasmine" is particularly interesting.
Yes it is, I'll have to go hunting the Academic Abstracts for this
one. Thank you for the source.
> As for the city at Tell Harmoukar, all I know is what I've read
here
:
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/syria000522.html
Looking at the location of the City, it appears to be north of
Carchemish, which would place it firmly in Hurro-Urartuan territory
at
such an early date. It seems the trends observed towards urbaism in
the Halaf culture did bear fruit after all. Thank you again for the
source.
I have a concern. The AA discussion is important to PIE only as
regards Glens' Semitish (and my difficulty with accepting that they
were Semites). It is of peripheral interest otherwise, and I feel
that we should continue this discussion elsewhere, if that is what
others on the list feel. Lets return to a more central PIE
discussion
here.
Warm Regards
John