Since the beginning of the 6th mill. BC tribes from Asia had been moving in
North Africa (they brought there sheep, goats, wheat, barley). They seem to
represent all the Afro-Asiatic branches but the Semitic one (this does not
contradict facts however contradicts some theories). The Berberic branch was
the westernmost of them. This is the ethnic massif #1 which can be
recognized as an Afro-Asiatic one with a high probability.
Almost simultaneously (6th mill. BC) the shores of the Central and West
Mediterranean (including the Maghrib coast) were settled by people of
cultures with Cardial and related pottery. They moved from the East (first
attested on the Eastern Adriatic coast) to the West. I don't know reasons
which would suggest their Nostratic (or, particularly, Afro-Asiatic) origin.
Just a guess - they occupied the Garonne valley as well and thus
theoretically could represent the ancestors of the Basques. This is the
ethnic massif #2 without clear ethnic attribution.
In the 5th mill.BC the movement of tribes of the megalithic culture began.
It started somewhere in the West Mediterranean (the Iberian peninsula and
perhaps North Africa?) and spread eastwards (till Italy, Sicily and Malta)
and northwards where this culture covered a part of France (excluding
Aquitania - the Basque domain), the western part of Britain, Denmark and the
northern part of Central Europe. No doubts they were the best navigators of
the epoque. These were people whos descendants (the Funnel Beaker culture)
became the substrate for the Corded Ware tribes (traditionally associated
with Indo-Europeans, especially with the Germanic branch) on the territory
of Poland, Germany and South Scandinavia.
Who could be the ancestors of this "Atlantic substrate" population? Either
people of the ethnic massif #1, or people of the ethnic massif #2. The
latter seems to be more probable from the geographical point of view.
However the first variant also can not be excluded (at least I don't know
reasons for this now). In this case the Afro-Asiatic (but definitely not
Semitic, perhaps Para-Berberic ?) substrate for Germanic and perhaps some
Celtic languages could be well explained.
Alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Smith" <mytoyneighborhood@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:44 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives
> Hi David, you wrote:
>
> > A few digests ago the matter of a possible Semitic substrate across
> Europe came up. I guess the question may be, does this really exist,
> and is it a product of PIE contact with Semitic languages (early PIE -
> PSemitic relations) or over an overlay of Indo-European speakers
> over Semitic speakers (a true substrate). This seems like it would be
> an interesting debate and an important finding to determine.
>
> I asked John Croft on ABH if maybe this proposed Afro-Asiatic or
> Semitic substrate in North Western Europe could have been the result
> of contact with Phoenician traders, and thus loan-words. His reply
> was:
>
> "I have wondered the same thing. But the evidence seems to point to
> something deeper. Word order is not something that comes from
> culture contact, but may come from a substrate contact."
>
> thoughts?
>
> -Michael
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>