User Tag List

View Poll Results: Where do you believe the proto-Afro-Asiatic urheimat was?

Voters
125. You may not vote on this poll
  • In the northern Middle East (Fertile Crescent), like Elias says

    32 25.60%
  • In Anatolia

    2 1.60%
  • In Arabia

    3 2.40%
  • In the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia and surroundings)

    35 28.00%
  • In Chadic speaking regions, since the Chadic branch has most languages

    1 0.80%
  • Around the Red Sea

    23 18.40%
  • Nile Valley

    8 6.40%
  • Eastern Sahara

    5 4.00%
  • I don't have an opinion

    14 11.20%
  • Martin Bernal's Black Athena!

    2 1.60%
Page 3 of 51 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 505

Thread: The proto-Afro-Asiatics were proto-Caucasoids from the Fertile Crescent (Mashriq)2516 days old

  1. #21
    Established Member
    Biological Anthropologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-07-29
    Posts
    6,473
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E-M4254, Q-M3, R-L2
    mtDNA
    L2b2, L3e2b
    Race
    Triracial
    Metaethnos
    Afro-Descendant
    Phenotype
    Chulo Man
    Politics
    Legalize It
    Religion
    Believe What You Want
    Belize CARICOM United States Federal Republic of Central America Jamaica Belize

    Default

    Around the Red Sea, Nile Valley or Eastern Sahara is the same answer IMO
    K=47 Results
    78.92% African
    • 59.05% West-African
    • 8.36% Central-African_HG
    • 3.32% East-African_HG
    • 2.22% Nilotic
    • 2.11% Omotic(?)
    • 1.78% Sahelian
    • 1.05% South-African_HG
    • 1.03% Kushitic(?)

    11.84% West Eurasian
    • 3.79% North-Sea_Germanic
    • 2.15% East-Euro
    • 1.39% Scando-Germanic
    • 1.26% Paleo-Balkan
    • 0.88% Central-Med
    • 0.54% NW-Indian(?)
    • 0.42% East-Iberian
    • 0.39% Baltic
    • 0.14% West-Med
    • 0.17% North-Iberian
    • 0.02% East-Med

    9.92% Native/Indigenous to Americas
    • 4.59% Meso-Amerind
    • 2.14% Amazonian
    • 2.01% Andean
    • 1.15% North-Amerind
    • 0.02% South-Indian(?)
    • 0.01% Tibetan(?)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pgbk87 For This Useful Post:

    beyoku (2012-12-03), chicken (2012-10-02)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #22
    Established Member
    Peace through power Azvarohi's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-25
    Posts
    2,428
    Location
    Middle Paleolithic
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Neanderthal
    Phenotype
    Archaic
    Politics
    Cros before hoes
    Religion
    Feet first into hell

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zakar-Baal View Post
    On the topic of Proto-Semitic, what evidence is there to suggest it actually is the youngest branch of Afro-Asiatic?
    Homogenity, rich vocabulary for Bronze Age affiliation (metals, organizations etc) and phylogenetic dating.

    The problem with Afro-Asiatic is inconsistency, with Semitic being the only serious studied of all the branches. For example Ehret doesn't even include Berber in his reconstruction of Proto-Afro-Asiatic from 1995, that would be equal to not including Celtic in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European.

    EDIT: Ehret also connects Proto-Cushitic speakers (which he believes are among the oldest branches of PAA) to prehistoric herders in Eastern Sahel, which supposedly had intensive contacts with Proto-Nilo-Saharan herders who laters migrated westwards. The herder connection with Nilo-Saharian groups migrating seems plausible with connections in archaeology, but I see no real connection to any early PAA/Proto-Cushitic-herders. Ehret's claim of domesticated cattle in Sudan as early as 7000 BCE based on a single cow skeleton of which the osteological status of "domesticated" is very inconclusive doesn't really strike me as convincing. Rather it seems likely that cattle in North Africa had two sources, one from Western Asia and one possible indigeneous domestication which took place alot later than 9000 years ago...
    Last edited by Azvarohi; 2012-10-02 at 20:05.

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Azvarohi For This Useful Post:

    chicken (2012-10-02), EliasAlucard (2012-10-02), Lol_Race (2012-10-02), pgbk87 (2012-10-02), Zakar-Baal (2012-10-02)

  6. #23
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,600
    Gender

    Default

    Many people are voting, but very few seem to be backing up their beliefs.

  7. #24
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Jonny's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-05-18
    Posts
    4,698
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    T2b
    England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    I don't really know anything about non-western European languages, as I am English , so this throws a lot of light on the controversy for me.

    Now I can see why some people are frothing at the mouth trying to argue this language family is from Africa. The above demonstrates conclusively that the roots of Ancient Egypt do not reside with Sub-Saharan Africans.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonny For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2012-10-02)

  9. #25
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:29
    Join Date
    2010-01-07
    Posts
    5,224
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a8*
    mtDNA
    L0a1a2
    Ethnicity
    "Black"
    Politics
    Praise the Sun
    Religion
    Sun Worship
    African Union(OAS) United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny View Post
    I don't really know anything about non-western European languages, as I am English , so this throws a lot of light on the controversy for me.

    Now I can see why some people are frothing at the mouth trying to argue this language family is from Africa. The above demonstrates conclusively that the roots of Ancient Egypt do not reside with Sub-Saharan Africans.
    This is not the only image available though. There are many more, some indicating migrations that went the other way. The root of "Egyptian" is in Egypt which IS Africa. Here are some addition images of AA Phylogeny:















    There are many more, familiarize yourself.

  10. #26
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Wojewoda's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:52
    Join Date
    2009-10-24
    Posts
    6,622
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    I1 Z63+ S2078+ L1237-
    mtDNA
    U3a1a
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Poland

    Default

    In these matters of course the Bible has the highest authority:

    Quote Originally Posted by WIKIPEDIA
    According to the Bible, Ham was one of the sons of Noah who moved southwest (modern compass direction) into Africa and parts of adjoining areas of Asia, and was the forefather of the nations there. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22; 1Ch 4:40. The Hebrew word for Egypt was Mizraim (a dual probably referring to the two lands), and was the name of one of Ham's sons. The Egyptian word for Egypt was Kemet (or Kmt), meaning "black land." Some scholars claim it was in reference to the fertile dark soil along the Nile Valley.[8][9][10] Ham could plausibly be a name derived from Khem (Egypt), or vice versa, via sound change, due to the change in language between Egyptian and Hebrew, corresponding to the well known phonological change of /k/ into /x/ (voiceless velar fricative) into /h/. The names of Ham's other children correspond to regions at times within Egyptian influence - Kush, Canaan, and Phut.[citation needed]
    So we have Egypt as the place where "Hamitic" languages were born. The question remains about the Semites. I would bet that they were J1c nomads living on the outskirts of the Egyptian (therefore Hamitic) civilisation and learning from it, but what do I know.

    Last edited by Wojewoda; 2012-10-02 at 22:06.

  11. #27
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Jonny's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-05-18
    Posts
    4,698
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    T2b
    England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beyoku View Post
    This is not the only image available though.
    Any old fool can make a little chart.
    The difference between these and the other is "Encyclopaedia Britannica".

  12. #28
    Established Member
    Junior Member brainblaster456's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-04-16 @ 14:25
    Join Date
    2012-02-10
    Posts
    234
    Location
    Berbera
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    T
    mtDNA
    L0a1a
    Phenotype
    Aethiopid
    Ethnicity
    Somali
    Religion
    Islam
    Djibouti Ethiopia Somaliland Somalia

    Default

    the afro-asiatic origin must be of the northern red sea region, both african and arabian sides.


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to brainblaster456 For This Useful Post:

    chicken (2012-10-03)

  14. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,709
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zakar-Baal View Post
    I searched around for that diagram. It was made from information collected by this man:
    http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~afrika/in...emid=1&lang=en
    Who retired from the Chair of African Studies at the University of Leipzig in October 2009.
    The man had an interest in African studies not near eastern studies. Make of that what you will.
    It's always good to be wary of someone's agenda, especially if he is putting forth a hypothesis, ideology or point of view that is connected to his own genetic interests and/or political motives.

    However, regardless of whether or not H. Ekkehard Wolff had an agenda, I'm actually convinced that Semitic is the youngest branch. I have no problem with that, and I don't see how that would affect the status of the proto-Afro-Asiatic urheimat in the Fertile Crescent. Moreover, it's been corroborated elsewhere in other linguistic studies, that proto-Semitic is a bronze age language:

    Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...rspb.2009.0408

    So I don't see any good reason why the date of proto-Semitic in that Britannica picture should be wrong.

    You have to understand though, my "opponents" (Game Theory, Aware_Dog etc.) whom I've been debating for years now on the urheimat and origins of Afro-Asiatic, haven't really read up on the proto-Indo-European urheimat. Much because of the origin of Indo-European languages being so elusive (the proto-Indo-Europeans did not have a unique writing script, so PIE is not documented and we have no documented knowledge on their original homeland other than what has survived into the reconstructed vocabulary of PIE) and the proto-Indo-Europeans not exactly originating from a major and known civilisation, important techniques were developed to figure out who the proto-Indo-Europeans were. One of these techniques, is linguistic palaeontology. Linguistic palaeontology not only tells us what kind of plants and animals the original speakers knew, but also what kind of technology (including weapons) they used. This gives us a very good method to not only locate, but also date the original proto-language before it began diversifying into daughter languages.

    That said, once Game Theory, beyoku and the other black race deniers begin reading JP Mallory's ISOTIE and apply the same linguistic techniques used by Indo-Europeanists, on proto-Afro-Asiatic, perhaps they'll understand how ridiculous it is to say the PAA urheimat was in south of the Sahara and that PAA was spoken by Negrids?

    I'm not expecting Dienekes to get serious and scientific about this; he has proven in the past year that he's an ideology proponent, and that politics and nationalism are more important to him than science and what really happened. It's actually quite a disappointment, because there was a time I actually had some respect for Dienekes.

    However, while we can always trust Dienekes to spread more disinformation and stupid bullshit about proto-Indo-European(s), he is not an Afro-Asiatic speaker; some of the black forum members here are, and so, it's in their interest to understand their own history, to seriously understand the linguistic evidence of proto-Afro-Asiatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    Ongota is a remote southwestern Ethiopian language spoken on the fringe of Afroasiatic territory, and it's on the verge of extinction. Show me a Nilo-Saharan substratum in regular Cushitic or Omotic languages, and you would have a convincing argument. Omotics are an old group responsible for domesticating the enset plant, and were largely isolated from Nilo-Saharans for many thousands of years. Cushites also had their own form of agriculture, but would later incorporate elements of Middle Eastern agriculture (the spread of the sheep and the goat was one such important development).
    I just read the entire Britannica article on Afro-Asiatic, quite a well written article. You might find this interesting:

    The majority of Afro-Asiatic languages are tone languages, meaning that in addition to consonants and vowels, the pitch of the voice is used to differentiate between words or smaller meaningful units. The use of tones is attested in Chadic, Cushitic, and Omotic but in neither Semitic nor Amazigh. In some Cushitic and Omotic languages, however, tonality resembles pitch accent, a linguistic feature somewhat comparable to stress in European languages, albeit relying solely on higher pitch for “stressed” syllables rather than automatically combining higher pitch with loudness or duration. Some linguists believe that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was a tone language and that daughter languages such as Semitic, Amazigh, and possibly Egyptian subsequently lost all tonal distinctions. Other authors assume Proto-Afro-Asiatic was a pitch-accent language; these linguists consider it more likely that tonality emerged independently in Chadic, Cushitic, and Omotic, assuming that tonal distinctions, at least in Chadic, developed out of the pitch-accent system of Proto-Afro-Asiatic in conjunction with the pitch-lowering effect of certain syllable-initial consonants called tonal depressors. Such automatic pitch lowering is well attested outside Chadic both within and outside Africa. Thus, long periods of contact with speakers of genuine African tone languages of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan stock may have assisted the historical shift from pitch accent to tone systems in Afro-Asiatic.
    Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...-and-phonology

    Also, as far as I'm concerned, if this grouping is correct:



    Then it simply must be because of extensive language contacts between Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan speakers, with Afro-Asiatic Chadic/Cushitic speakers (sprachbund?). Reconstructing proto-Afro-Asiatic is obviously not the easiest task (it's way more difficult than reconstructing proto-Indo-European, because there are so many extant and Indo-European languages today, many of which, such as Greek, are well documented), especially due to the inferior writing system of Afro-Asiatic languages not documenting the consonants. But the day linguists start putting some serious brainpower into reconstructing proto-Afro-Asiatic, I very much doubt that they will group together reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic with Negro languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    I'm actually not opposed to a Middle Eastern homeland for Proto-Afroasiatic, as I said it's still a strong candidate and would make sense on a number of issues.
    It's the only candidate that makes any sense. And that's not my "Negrophobia" speaking. The Middle East has always been a highly influential region, and the Middle East of the Neolithic was no different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    But then I would be really interested in finding out how all of that diversity was lost in the Middle East
    The "diversity" wasn't so much lost in the Middle East, as it came to be that proto-Semitic replaced all the other remaining Afro-Asiatic dialects in the Middle East and so, Semitic became the new and only, Afro-Asiatic standard in the region.

    This is not that different from Slavic languages being spoken all over the Pontic-Caspian steppe nowadays. Is that an argument to exclude eastern Ukraine as the PIE urheimat just because the original PIE "diversity" has been replaced by its own daughter language? No.

    Moreover, some Afro-Asiatic diversity in the Middle East was probably replaced by other Middle Eastern non-Afro-Asiatic languages as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    and why were they so successful as they crossed the Sinai (which was usually a rather strong barrier, excluding revolutionary developments such as the Neolithic) into Africa?
    Because they were culturally superior to whatever Negro tribes they mixed with in "Africa". Obviously, the culture based group competition in the Middle East is much stronger than in south of the Sahara.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    You say that the Fertile Crescent is the best candidate (based on what, I do not know), and yet the Sumerian and Elamite languages are language isolates and were spoken in a time period that postdates proto-Semitic, let alone proto-Afroasiatic.
    Yes, Sumerian and Elamite is an example of the group competition I'm talking about. Semitic outlasted both, but Semites faced a a lot of competition from both non-Semitic groups (especially from Elamites), and so, it was obviously more difficult to maintain an Afro-Asiatic language in Iran because of the Elamite barrier. The Elamites were not an easy group to dominate, and it resulted in the fall of the independence for the Assyrians to destroy the Elamite civilisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    You should add the Nile Valley and Eastern Sahara to the poll options. FYI, I don't believe Afroasiatic originated in the Horn of Africa.
    Okay, I added them, but I don't see the point in that as I agree with pgbk87 that it's the same shit, different name as the Red Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    A Sumerian substratum in African Afroasiatic would be very interesting, indeed. But, where is the evidence for that? In Elias' linked article by Militarev, he speaks of Afroasiatic loanwords in Sumerian, not the other way around. Now, Akkadian did replace the Sumerian language eventually, so it's not at all inconceivable that an earlier Afroasiatic dialect could also have influenced the Sumerians, as pre-proto-Semitic spread from NE Africa.
    But the Afro-Asiatic substratum in Sumerian is not from Semitic; it's an independent Afro-Asiatic substrate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    Elias links to the Semitic Wikipedia article, which speaks of Sumerian loanwords in African Afroasiatic. But then I looked at the source and it's actually a link to an article by Ehret, with objections to the conclusions of an article on a possible West Asian homeland. No mention of Sumerian loanwords in African Afroasiatic.
    If you look at the citation again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic...es#cite_note-8

    It says:

    Hayward 2000; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1680c (obviously, the morons editing Wikipedia screwed this one up)

    And I quoted Hayward 2000 in my first post in this thread (look up 5.2 again).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    Elias, if you have a source to support that there is a Sumerian substratum in proto-Afroasiatic, I'd like to see it.
    It doesn't really matter though, because the location of the PAA urheimat in the Fertile Crescent doesn't depend on the existence of a Sumerian substratum in PAA alone, especially as there's mutual lexical borrowings between PAA and proto-Caucasian, and above all else: linguistic palaeontology

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    No, when I refer to the age of Semitic relative to other Afroasiatic branches, what I really mean is the age of pre-proto-Semitic (the time when it split from other Afroasiatic branches). Similarly, while Proto-Berber is very young, it forms a clade that is far older relative to the other Afroasiatic branches. Semitic is not that divergent in comparison to the African branches, meaning it should share an ancestor with them that is not older than the common ancestor of the African Afroasiatic branches.

    Admittedly, Afroasiatic structure is still very much uncertain, but Semitic is rarely seen as one of the older branches.
    How come proto-Semitic lacks a Cushitic substrate considering that it's younger than Cushitic? If the Horn of Africa is the urheimat (where Cushitic is spoken), and proto-Semitic is such a young language, then Semitic should theoretically have far more influences from Cushitic, and be a lot more similar to Chadic as well.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2012-10-03 at 01:15. Reason: Semitic is bronze age
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  15. #30
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:29
    Join Date
    2010-01-07
    Posts
    5,224
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a8*
    mtDNA
    L0a1a2
    Ethnicity
    "Black"
    Politics
    Praise the Sun
    Religion
    Sun Worship
    African Union(OAS) United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny View Post
    Any old fool can make a little chart.
    The difference between these and the other is "Encyclopaedia Britannica".
    WOW.....I dont know if I should laugh or cry.


    Jonny tell me, where do you think these images come from? Like I said at least familiarize yourself. Look at the maps.....know where the places are ON the map....know WHO the people that speak the langues are.

Page 3 of 51 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 2019-01-20, 22:31
  2. Replies: 544
    Last Post: 2017-09-02, 02:37
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2012-09-20, 23:46
  4. Proto-Italic Poll
    By geomattica in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-07-06, 14:23
  5. Where did the earliest proto caucasoids evolve?
    By KRANG in forum General Genetics Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2011-02-08, 21:58

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<