User Tag List

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

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

    33 26.19%
  • In Anatolia

    2 1.59%
  • In Arabia

    3 2.38%
  • In the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia and surroundings)

    35 27.78%
  • In Chadic speaking regions, since the Chadic branch has most languages

    1 0.79%
  • Around the Red Sea

    23 18.25%
  • Nile Valley

    8 6.35%
  • Eastern Sahara

    5 3.97%
  • I don't have an opinion

    14 11.11%
  • Martin Bernal's Black Athena!

    2 1.59%
Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 505

Thread: The proto-Afro-Asiatics were proto-Caucasoids from the Fertile Crescent (Mashriq)2542 days old

  1. #1
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,713
    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 The proto-Afro-Asiatics were proto-Caucasoids from the Fertile Crescent (Mashriq)

    Since I'm intentionally getting ignored by Charlie Bass in the main Afro-Asiatic thread, I'm starting this thread, and I'm going to allow the sources to speak for themselves. First of all, let's just be clear on some of the basic facts here.

    1) Berbers and Egyptians are largely from the Middle East:

    “Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa.”
    Risch et al. 2002

    2) The ancient Egyptian language does not have Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan substrates (real Negro languages):

    “Numerous similarities have long been apparent in the grammar, lexicon and phonology of ancient Egyptian and the Semitic languages. Because of this, it is often stated that Egyptian is either a Semitic language obscured by change or a creole language resulting from the mixing, in Predynastic times, of an ‘African’ and a Semitic language. This African language is sometimes identified as a Hamitic language (which sometimes is, and sometimes is not, believed to be distantly related to Semitic) and sometimes as a ‘Negro’ language (Lambdin 1961, Vergote 1970). Such speculation has been closely related to theories that there were various migrations into Egypt from south-western Asia in prehistoric times and that these have resulted in ethnic and cultural changes.
    Borrowings from some Semitic language or languages are well attested and Knees and others are probably correct in concluding that these languages exerted a strong influence over Egyptian in late Predynastic times, when there is also evidence of south-west Asian influence in the realms of art and material culture (Knees 1961, p. 42). There is, however, no evidence of an ‘African substratum’ in ancient Egyptian, in the sense that it can be proved that all of the similarities with the Semitic languages found in Egyptian are borrowings superimposed on an identifiable, specifically African language. On the contrary, Greenberg (1955, pp. 43-61) has shown that many of these similarities are not borrowings at all, but indicate that both Egyptian and the Semitic languages are derived from a common ancestor. He has also demonstrated that Semitic, ancient Egyptian and Cushitic, found to the east of the Nile (principally in Ethiopia), and Berber and Chadic, found in the western Sudan, constitute five co-ordinate branches of the Afroasiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) language family. It now seems likely that the Cushitic languages constitute not one, but two, major branches of Afroasiatic (Cushitic proper and Omotic) alongside Berber, Egyptian, Chadic and Semitic (Fleming 1969). Greenberg has the impression that Old Kingdom Egyptian and Akkadian are slightly more differentiated than Romanian and Portuguese, which would suggest 5500 to 6000 BC as the time when the branches of Afroasiatic became separate from one another...”
    — ISBN 052122215X, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 488, The Cambridge history of Africa: From the earliest times to c. 500 BC, By J. D. Fage, J. Desmond Clark, Roland Anthony Oliver

    3) The reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic vocabulary in terms of flora and fauna, is of Middle Eastern environment, not Horner:

    There are two quite separate bodies of opinion concerning AA prehistory. One school, for which linguists Christopher Ehret (1979, 1995, 2003), Lionel Bender (1982), and Roger Blench (1993, 1999) are perhaps the main proponents, favors a homeland in northeastern Africa on the grounds that five of the six AA subgroups (excluding Semitic) occur only in Africa, including those perceived to be the most ancient in phylogenetic terms. The precise location of the homeland varies a little according to the author, oscillating through Ethiopia and Sudan toward the Red Sea coast, where live the Beja, apparently representing a very early linguistic split within the Cushitic subgroup. These linguists tend to regard early AA expansion as pre-agricultural, although not pre-herding in Ehret's view, thus perhaps to be equated with population spread into the eastern Sahara consequent upon the postglacial wetter climatic conditions after about 10,000 years ago. Ehret (2003), for instance, states that Cushitic, Chadic, Berber, and Semitic all have independently derived agricultural proto-vocabularies, but that Proto-Cushitic already had some cattle vocabulary at the time of its break-up, and thus may have had an incipient herding economy.
    The other major school, composed mainly of Russian linguists, strongly favors a Southwest Asian and specifically Levant homeland. This opinion is based entirely on vocabulary reconstruction rather than the “center-of-gravity” assumptions of the Northeast Africa school. Apart from one rather isolated claim for an AA expansion out of the Levant during the Aurignacian over 30,000 years ago (McCall 1998), the core case for the Levant school is based on the following observations:

    1. Glottochronological considerations, calibrated against data on ancient Egyptian and Semitic languages (Greenberg 1990:12), suggest that PAA is perhaps a little older than PIE (between 10,000 and 7000 BC).
    2. The reconstructed vocabulary of PAA does not contain any specifically agricultural cognates, but it does include names for a number of plants and animals that are of Asian, not North African origin (sheep, goat, barley, chickpea, for instance: Blazek 1999; Militarev 2000, 2003). Militarev favors early agricultural correlations.
    3. Proto-Semitic is of undoubted Levant origin and has a full agropastoral vocabulary (Dolgopolsky 1993; Diakonoff 1998).

    These observations do not form conclusive proof of a Levant origin for the whole AA family, and we seem to be sitting on a slightly unyielding fence. My suspicions, with Colin Renfrew (1991), are that PAA does indeed have a Levant rather than a Northeast African origin, but I have to admit that this view is based more on an understanding of the record of early Holocene population movement than of any absolute markers of linguistic phylogeny.
    — Peter S. Bellwood, The first farmers: the origins of agricultural societies, p. 209, ISBN 0631205667

    4) The flora/fauna vocabulary of proto-Semitic places its urheimat in the northern Levant (this is also consistent with J1c3-P58 Y-STR diversity):

    The Semitic ecological lexicon indicates the Semitic homeland was in the Northern Levant
    (Kogan 2009, 18-19). The home of the Akkadians was Northern and Central Mesopotamia.
    From the time of the Sargonid Empire (24/23rd cent. BCE) Akkadian began to push Sumerian
    into Southern Mesopotamia. Akkadian also spread into Elam, Syria, and Anatolia. In the 2nd
    mill. BCE the southern dialect, Babylonian, was used as a diplomatic language in the Near
    East, including Egypt.
    Source: AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

    4.1) Proto-Semitic originated in the Levant:

    “A recent Bayesian analysis of Semitic languages supports an origin in the Levant 5750 years ago and subsequent arrival in the Horn of Africa from Arabia 2800 years ago,11 thus providing an indirect support of our phylogenetic clock estimates.”Chiaroni et al. 2009

    5) Non-Afro-Asiatic languages of the ancient Middle East have a proto-Afro-Asiatic substratum (and vice versa):

    The Semitic family is a member of the larger Afroasiatic family, all of whose other five or more branches are based in Africa. Largely for this reason, the ancestors of Proto-Semitic speakers are believed by many to have first arrived in the Middle East from North Africa, possibly as part of the operation of the Saharan pump, around the late Neolithic.[7][8] Diakonoff sees Semitic originating between the Nile Delta and Canaan as the northernmost branch of Afroasiatic. Blench even wonders whether the highly divergent Gurage languages indicate an origin in Ethiopia (with the rest of Ethiopic Semitic a later back migration). However, an opposing theory is that Afroasiatic originated in the Middle East, and that Semitic is the only branch to have stayed put; this view is supported by apparent Sumerian and Caucasian loanwords in the African branches of Afroasiatic.[9] A recent Bayesian analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the latter possibility and identifies an origin of Semitic languages in the Levant around 3,750 BC with a single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC.[10]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Origins

    5.1) Expanding more on point five:

    Afroasiatic homeland. The assumed locations usually correlate with the areas of individual
    branches:
    Cushitic/Omotic: North Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea between the Nile-Atbara and Red Sea -
    Ehret (1979, 165); similarly Fleming (2006, 152-57), Blench (2006). Hudson (1978, 74-75)
    sees in Greater Ethiopia a homeland of both Afroasiatic and Semitic.
    Area between Cushitic & Omotic, Egyptian, Berber and Chadic: Southeast Sahara between
    Darfur in Sudan and the Tibesti Massiv in North Chad - Diakonoff 1988, 23.
    Chadic: North shores of Lake Chad - Jungraithmayr 1991, 78-80.
    Berber-Libyan: North African Mediterranean coast - Fellman 1991-93, 57.
    Egyptian: Upper Egypt - Takács 1999, 47.
    Semitic: Levant – Militarev 1996, 13-32. This solution is seriously discussed by Diakonoff
    (1988, 24-25) and Petráček (1988, 130-31; 1989, 204-05) as alternative to the African
    location.
    The fact that five of six branches of Afroasiatic are situated in Africa has been interpreted as
    the axiomatic argument against the Asiatic homeland of Afroasiatic (Fellman 1991-93, 56).
    But it is possible to find serious counter-examples of languages spreading from relatively
    small regions into distant and significantly larger areas: English from England to North
    America, Oceania; Spanish from Spain to Latin America; Portuguese from Portugal to Brazil;
    Arabic from Central Arabia to the Near East and North Africa; Swahili from Zanzibar to
    Equatorial Africa. Among language families the chrestomathic example is Austronesian,
    spreading from South China through Taiwan to innumerable islands of the Indian and Pacific
    Oceans from Madagascar to Rapa Nui.
    These arguments speak for the Levantine location:
    Distant relationship of Afroasiatic with Kartvelian, Dravidian, Indo-European and other
    Eurasiatic language families within the framework of the Nostratic hypothesis (Illič-Svityč
    1971-84; Blažek 2002; Dolgopolsky 2008; Bomhard 2008).
    Lexical parallels connecting Afroasiatic with Near Eastern languages which cannot be
    explained from Semitic:

    Sumerian-Afroasiatic lexical parallels indicating an Afroasiatic substratum in
    Sumerian (Militarev 1995).
    Elamite-Afroasiatic lexical and grammatical cognates explainable as a common
    heritage (Blažek 1999).
    North Caucasian-Afroasiatic parallels in cultural lexicon explainable by old
    neighborhood (Militarev, Starostin 1984).

    Regarding the tree-diagram above, the hypothetical scenario of disintegration of Afroasiatic
    and following migrations should operate with two asynchronic migrations from the Levantine
    homeland: Cushitic (& Omotic?) separated first c. 12 mill. BP (late Natufian) and spread into
    the Arabian Peninsula; next Egyptian, Berber and Chadic split from Semitic (the latter
    remaining in the Levant) c. 11-10 mill. BP and they dispersed into the Nile Delta and Valley.
    Source: AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

    5.2) Some more clarification:

    4.4 The Urheimat
    Apart from Semitic incursions into Africa, the present distribution of the six AA families has not changed significantly over the period known to history, and any discussion of the AA homeland involves speculation about prehistorical events. Clearly the two candidates are Africa and south-west Asia, and both have their advocates. Given that five language families, now very distinct from each other, are exclusive to Africa, it is easier to envisage a scenario having an original epicentre in African. In his earlier work, Diakonoff (1988: 21ff) located the P-AA homeland in what is now the south-east Sahara. The north-eastwards migration of the ancestral Semitic speakers into Asia was then seen as an event that took place some 9,000 years ago. Recently however he has revised this somewhat by placing the proto-Semites from an early age between Palestine and the Nile Delta, where they would remain in contact with the African-based Berbero-Libyans and Proto-Bedauye/Beja speakers (Diakonoff 1998: 216f). Those who argue for an Asian Urheimat (Militariev and Shnirelman 1984) do so largely to explain the existence of lexis shared by AA languages of Africa, Sumerian, and languages of the Caucasus. Assuming these to be loans, one has then to ask where the contact for this occurred; and clearly a non-African locale would be favoured. Much has been written on the subject, and the interested reader will find guidance in an overview by Isserlin (1975).
    — Richard J. Hayward, African Languages: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521666295, p. 96

    6) Proto-Cushitic was most likely spoken in the Arabian peninsula at some point, until the ancestral Cushitic language was replaced by migrating Semites (proto-Arabs):

    Having identified a Cushitic-like substratum in Modern South Arabian, Militarev (1984, 18-19; cf. also Belova 2003) proposes that Cushites originally lived throughout the Arabian Peninsula; thus they would be the original southern neighbors of the Semites, who then assimilated those Cushites who did not move into Ethiopia. This hypothesis is supported by Anati (1968, 180-84), who analyzed the rock art of Central Arabia. He connected the pictures of the ‘oval-headed’ people depicted with shields with the Arabian ‘Cushites’ from the Old Testament [Genesis 10.6-12; Isaiah 45.14] described also with specific shields [Jeremiah 46.9; Ezekiel 38.5].
    Source: AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

    7) And this last source sums up and corroborates the previous sources:

    AFROASIATIC, ELAMITE AND SUMERIAN AND THE QUESTION OF THE AFROASIATIC HOMELAND

    The following language families are usually included in Afroasiatic (=Semito-Hamitic/Hamito-Semitic=Erythraic=Lisramic etc.): Semitic, Cushitic, Omotic, Egyptian, Berber and Chadic (see also Blench, this volume). Their common origin is generally accepted, but their internal classification and the site of their common homeland remains disputed. Two basic hypotheses for a localization of the Afroasiatic homeland have been presented: (1) northeast Africa and (2) west Asia. Diakonoff (1991:12-13) provides a valuable overview of these alternatives. The main reason for rejecting an Asiatic homeland (besides an a priori rejection of Biblical tradition) is the fact that all branches of Afroasiatic except Semitic are/were spoken in Africa; but it is doubtful whether the question of a homeland can be solved mechanically in this way. There are many examples of similar or even more disproportionate dispersal (Latin and Romance, Arabic, Indonesian, Swahili, English, Turkic). Whilst not rejecting a priori the African hypothesis, the following arguments appear to support an Asiatic homeland:

    1 The neolithic character of the Proto-Afroasiatic cultural lexicon. The only area where the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ starts before the disintegration of Afroasiatic (ca. eleventh-tenth millennium BC) is its primary area: the Fertile Crescent in the Near East. Militarev and Šnirel’man (1984) and Militarev et al. (1988) identify the Proto-Afroasiatic ethnos with the early neolithic Natufian culture from the Syro-Palestinian region (elevent-ninth millennium BC). This agrees with the fact that Egyptian cereals are of Asiatic origin (Diakonoff 1981:45).
    2 The zoological lexicon reconstructible for Afroasiatic reflects the wild fauna not of northeast Africa but of the Near East (e.g. elephant, hippo, but not giraffe or rhino—cf. Blažek 1994).
    3 Very early mutual borrowings between Afroasiatic (not only Semitic) and northern Caucasian (Militarev and Starostin 1984, 1994).
    4 The Afroasiatic stratum in Sumerian (§2), representing perhaps one originally independent dialect of Afroasiatic, later lost in the ‘melting pot’ of Sumerian glottogenesis (Diakonoff 1981:66; Militarev 1984a, 1989; Kovalev and Militarev 1994).
    5 An exclusive Cushitic—South Semitic/dialectal Arabic isoglosses reflecting probably a Cushitic substratum of Arabian peninsula (Militarev 1984b:18-19; Belova 1989).

    More controversially, the Nostratic hypothesis proposes a genetic relationship between many of the language phyla of the Old World (Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic and Yukaghir, Altaic, Dravidian, Elamite; probably also Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Nivkh and Eskaleut). The most natural ‘epicentre’ of such a primary disintegration would again be the Near East. Preliminary estimates of the time of divergence of Proto-Nostratic are not very different from the hypothetical time-depth of Afroasiatic (thirthent millennium BP).
    — Blench, Roger - Archaeology and Language IV: Language Change and Cultural Transformation, Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415117860, pp. 51-52

    That said, I now understand how frustrated Polako became over the "Indigenous Aryanist" Indians, as you can read here. It's very frustrating to have another racial group come and steal the cultural heritage of your ancestors, and while both Indians and Horners/Negroes are dark, it's not their dark pigmentation that's bothering me. I would have been equally annoyed at Japanese folks if they made the same arguments, that proto-Afro-Asiatic somehow came from Japan.

    It's very much the same story here as in the Out of India debate, except that, it seemed like for a long time that Negroes had the upper hand in the more numerous branches of Afro-Asiatic in "Africa" and the E1b stuff. When I started my original Afro-Asiatic urheimat thread, my understanding of linguistic urheimats wasn't nearly as good as it is today (I've done a lot of reading on the proto-Indo-European urheimat in the past year). I had no idea back then what linguistic palaeontology was, and the various for and against arguments.

    However, the more branches of Afro-Asiatic in "Africa" is not really a good argument, and the centre of gravity cannot overrule the real linguistic evidence, because unlike linguistic palaeontology, the centre of gravity model is not real linguistic evidence, since languages have different rate in evolving into new branches, not to mention, that some languages are either poorly documented in a certain region (read JP Mallory's, The Homelands of the Indo-Europeans for good criticism of the centre of gravity model), or they became replaced before making it into documented history.

    So what actually happened, is that as Afro-Asiatic speakers migrated into "Africa" from the Middle East, they rapidly branched out new daughter languages to proto-Afro-Asiatic, in part because they were influenced by Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan speakers in some regions of the continent (not so much with Berbers and Egyptians, but more with some Cushitic speakers, like Ongota; which possibly has a Nilo-Saharan substratum not found in proto-Semitic, meaning, it's not a substratum that existed in proto-Afro-Asiatic). Not all languages evolve at an equal rate.

    Recently, there was a linguistic comparison study published, and Dienekes Assthinkeros also blogged about it:


    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09...d-ancient.html

    The authors were also able to reject the "broad" Afroasiatic group "comprising Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Dravidian and Uralic". I think this makes some sense, since Afroasiatic is basically an African language family with a Near Eastern offshoot, so I did not expect it to group with the Eurasian language families.Dienekes

    This study has been championed by the "Indigenous Africans" crowd as the be-all, end-all of the PAA debate. However, such studies should be taken with a grain of salt, and Jaska recently published his cogent refutation of the Bouckaert et al. 2012 study that supported the Anatolian hypothesis:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    OK, I have finished my critical review on the computational phylogenetic method recently used by Bouckaert et al. (2012) and claimed to "prove" the Neolithic Anatolian homeland for Indo-European:
    http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphak...logenetics.pdf
    And he did that, based on the quality of the reconstructed words (securely reconstructed cognates denoting flora, fauna and ancient technology or lack thereof, that give us an important glimpse into the past environment of the original speakers of the proto-language) vis-à-vis the quantity of the words, which may very well give you a skewed perspective and relationship between language families, and is arguably a very pseudo-scientific method:

    However, the findings have not found universal acceptance. Prof Petri Kallio from the University of Helsinki suggests that several cognate words describing technological inventions - such as the wheel - are evident across different languages.

    He argues that the Indo-European proto-language diversified after the invention of the wheel, about 5,000 years ago.

    On the phylogenetic methods used to date the proto-language, Prof Kallio added: "So why do I still remain sceptical? Unlike archaeological radiocarbon dating based on the fixed rate of decay of the carbon-14 isotope, there is simply no fixed rate of decay of basic vocabulary, which would allow us to date ancestral proto-languages.

    "Instead of the quantity of the words, therefore, the trained Indo-Europeanists concentrate on the quality of the words."
    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19368988

    So, why have Negroes been saying for years now that proto-Afro-Asiatic is a sub-Saharan language? Well, I think it's because of political agendas and ideological reasons, associated with the prestige of ancient Egypt for the most part. The problem with a Negroid Egypt is that if the ancient Egyptians really were in the main, descended from the Negroid race, then we should be able to find a similar Egyptoid culture/civilisation amongst sub-Saharan Negrids. However, such a culture and/or civilisation just can't be found. In its absence, I think it's about time many black members here concede serious intellectual defeat in this debate.

    What do you other impartial members think? Those of you who are of European, Chinese and so on ancestry, and have no stake in the Afro-Asiatic homeland debate. As far as I'm concerned, given the linguistic evidence, it's pretty much impossible to argue a proto-Afro-Asiatic urheimat anywhere other than the Middle East.

    Edit:

    Note that, once again, am I posting this informative post from Ubuntu (nigger linux) 10.04 LTS aka Lucid Lynx; the reason for that is simple: I'm elucidating the facts to the misguided souls among us

    Poll added.

    //mod
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2012-10-04 at 01:58.
    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

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    BookGremlin (2012-12-13), cinnamona (2012-10-02), David Noi (2012-10-16), joseph capelli (2012-10-02), Kurukuru (2019-01-15), Layane (2014-11-22), nk191919 (2012-10-02), Pioterus (2012-10-02), Zakar-Baal (2012-10-02)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #2
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,600
    Gender

    Default

    I think the evidence that you've provided is pretty conclusive. From the beginning it was flawed for people to associate quantity and diversity with a homeland. Simply look at Indo-European as an example.
    The fact that there is a Sumerian substrate in African based Afro-Asiatic languages is decisive proof. The linguistic paleontology such as middle eastern plants and fauna in those languages is simply the icing on the cake.
    I have no idea how anyone could sanely argue against such demonstrations.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zakar-Baal For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2012-10-02), joseph capelli (2012-10-02)

  6. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,713
    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 Lol_Race View Post
    I still believe Northeast Africa (north of Ethiopia) is the most parsimonious location, with the Middle East as a strong second candidate. You may not admit it, but the lack of diversity of Asian Afroasiatic poses a big problem for a Middle Eastern Afroasiatic homeland, although it doesn't exclude one.
    Actually, it doesn't pose a problem at all, and that's not denial, mind you. I'll elaborate more on it further down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    On the African side of the Red Sea, we have Omotic, Cushitic (with Beja almost being a branch of its own), and Ancient Egyptian.
    More of the majority rules type of argument It's not the amount of branches that is of utmost importance in locating an urheimat; it's the qualitative but minor information in a language that is of major importance when you date the language and locate where it was spoken. For example, a language with the word, "spaceship", can never have been spoken in Ethiopia 2,000 years ago. While proto-Afro-Asiatic obviously did not have a word for spacecrafts, the principle remains very much the same: linguistic palaeontology really is stronger evidence than multiple branches in "Africa".

    Moreover, the geographic distribution of Afro-Asiatic in the "African" content is actually huge; too large to support the Horn of Africa as the urheimat. Berber alone, for example, is spoken in a huge area, and that is the peripheral effect, similar to for example, the distribution of Indo-Iranian languages (from Mesopotamia to Nepal).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    On the Asian side, Semitic does not appear older than a single one of the African branches. If anything, it may be the opposite.
    Which is exactly why the PAA homeland existed in the Middle East if Semitic really is the youngest branch; the innovations always occur in the centre. So that's why for example Icelandic is much more conservative than Norwegian, even though Icelandic is an off-shoot from Norway (another example is Finland-Swedish, which is actually more conservative than Rikssvenska, or American English being more conservative than British English with their "gual core" dialect, and so on). Under the circumstances that the original language family survives uninterrupted by other language families in the original urheimat, the urheimat typically produces the latest offshoots, whereas its older dialects are preserved further away from the urheimat.

    Moreover, Semitic languages in the Fertile Crescent don't even have a Cushitic substratum, whereas south Arabian and Ethio-Semitic do have Cushitic substrates. If Semitic was as young as you think it is, it would have at least a Cushitic substratum, or a Chadic substrate, or something like that, because Semitic would have stronger influences from the unique innovations that exist in the "older" Chadic/Berber/Cushitic branches. Sorry to disappoint you, but Semitic really is a direct descendant of proto-Afro-Asiatic straight from the original PAA urheimat, and Semitic is really the only branch that survived in the original PAA urheimat, where it was isolated from the innovations that shaped the other PAA daughter languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    So if Afroasiatic did indeed originate in the Middle East, it should at least have been in an area closer to Africa.
    That doesn't make any sense at all. If Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East, it originated in the Middle East. It shouldn't be closer to Africa than it already is ("Africa" is huge you know, if you mean the Horn, then I'll have to disagree there as well, because of the linguistic palaeontology).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    I'm not very familiar with Militarev's work, but I presume this may be one of the reasons why Militarev places PAA in the Natufian culture of the Levant. North Mesopotamia seems too peripheral; the Semitic ancestors of north Mesopotamian Assyrians (Akkadians and Arameans) are known to have spread from farther south.
    North Mesopotamia isn't too peripheral when you keep in mind where Elamite, Sumerian and proto-Caucasian were spoken. That makes north Mesopotamia the central hotspot.

    As for the ancestors of Assyrians, the Akkadians came from the north originally, as did the Aramaeans, before they settled in more southern parts of the Middle East. Surely, you don't think Akkadian is native to southern Iraq, do you? Eblaite refutes this notion. Akkadian much like Aramaic, are both derived from the northern Levant, which is pretty much where Assyrians are from too (Assyrians have migrated just a little bit more north-east).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    Also keep in mind that Militarev is a Nostraticist, which is a rather dubious grouping, particularly when it includes Afroasiatic. That may affect his views on proto-Afroasiatic.
    The Nostratic hypothesis is quite controversial. However, it is valid in the sense that it matches perfectly with the biogenetic gap we can see between SSA Negrids and various OOA Eurasians. The internal phylogenetic structure of Nostratic may be radically different than the current concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    About the linguistic paleontology, there is no common Afroasiatic farming vocabulary according to Ehret, that can only be reconstructed within the major branches. This would support that Afroasiatic itself may predate farming.
    Obviously, proto-Afro-Asiatic existed before farming, and PAA dispersed slightly before, during and some time after the Neolithic Revolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    Omotic supposedly predates the spread of Middle Eastern agriculture. It's already well-established that North African agriculture descends from the Middle East, but what happened may have been that the previous inhabitants (such as the hunter-gatherers of the Capsian culture 10,000-6,000 B.C., or the natives of the Nile Valley) were already Afroasiatic-speaking before adopting agriculture and mixing with the incoming farmers.
    That sounds like a too complicated and highly unlikely scenario, which requires special pleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lol_Race View Post
    I don't think an Afroasiatic stratum in Sumerian really supports a Middle Eastern origin over a Northeast African one. If it was the other way around, and there was a Sumerian stratum in Afroasiatic, that would be a different story.
    I disagree. What this tells us, is that not proto-Semitic, but proto-Afro-Asiatic, had a presence in the Middle East before it spread to "Africa".

    Here's something you must understand about urheimats: the geographic distribution of any urheimat, cannot be too large (that's also, by the way, one of the main arguments against a proto-Indo-European urheimat in Poland, because Poland to Andronovo is too wide a region for one unique language family to take shape). So you can't have a proto-Afro-Asiatic urheimat spanning from Somalia to Assyria, just so that Sumerian can have its PAA substratum. It's either the Fertile Crescent or the Horn, and since linguists have yet to find a proto-Afro-Asiatic substratum in Negro languages, it's pretty much settled that proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken exclusively in the Middle East, before its speakers migrated into "Africa". The Caucasoid admixture in Horners, corroborates this. Unless you can find proto-Sumerian inscriptions in Ethiopia or some wild hypothetical scenario like that.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2012-10-02 at 14:34.
    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

  7. #4
    Established Member
    CIVIS ROMANVS SVM
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-11-06
    Posts
    2,694
    Gender
    Phenotype
    med - MENA
    Religion
    Physics

    Default

    Let's say the greater Red sea region, to avoid terms like African or Asian. I think everybody agree that it did not originate in the African tropical forest or the Eurasian steppes thus it do not share much, apparently, with the languages of these areas.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tsukonin For This Useful Post:

    pgbk87 (2012-10-02), Sanjub_Saraswati (2012-10-04), TerryCarr (2014-01-01), voyager14 (2018-08-01)

  9. #5
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    It's quite hard to argue against linguistic paleontology, so you got my vote here.

    BTW: But It's not like giving up on CE PIE homeland I mind you , now CE homeland supporters have to find ancient remains of all the flora and fauna, that is attested by linguistic paleontology of PIE, inside CE zone simply

    But above shows the strength of linguistic paleontology argument.
    Last edited by Pioterus; 2012-10-02 at 14:18.
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

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

    EliasAlucard (2012-10-02), Power77 (2017-07-24)

  11. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,713
    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 think the evidence that you've provided is pretty conclusive. From the beginning it was flawed for people to associate quantity and diversity with a homeland. Simply look at Indo-European as an example.
    The fact that there is a Sumerian substrate in African based Afro-Asiatic languages is decisive proof. The linguistic paleontology such as middle eastern plants and fauna in those languages is simply the icing on the cake.
    I have no idea how anyone could sanely argue against such demonstrations.
    What do you mean by Indo-European as an example? If anything, Indo-European languages have more diversity and quantity in eastern Europe, which matches the PIE urheimat ten times better than India or Anatolia. Afro-Asiatic is actually diametrically opposed to Indo-European in that sense, in that Afro-Asiatic languages have more diversity (currently known diversity anyway) in the Horn of "Africa", whereas Indo-European languages really do have highest diversity quite close to the PIE urheimat.

    I think what this tells us, is that if the linguistic diversity meets the requirements set by linguistic palaeontology, then they meet and it's a match. If they don't meet, then they don't meet and linguistic palaeontology has the upper hand as conclusive evidence. Simple as that really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsukonin View Post
    Let's say the greater Red sea region, to avoid terms like African or Asian. I think everybody agree that it did not originate in the African tropical forest or the Eurasian steppes thus it do not share much, apparently, with the languages of these areas.
    Red Sea is unlikely, but I've added the Red Sea to the poll in any case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    It's quite hard to argue against linguistic paleontology, so you got my vote here.
    Yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    BTW: But It's not like giving up on CE PIE homeland I mind you , now CE homeland supporters have to find ancient remains of all the flora and fauna, that is attested by linguistic paleontology of PIE, inside CE zone simply

    But above shows the strength of linguistic paleontology argument.
    As I've said before, Poland is still a good contender to the PIE urheimat, mostly because of R1a. But it's up to you Poles to fulfil the requirements set by the linguistic evidence/palaeontology, that Poland indeed did have the necessary flora and fauna and technology that any Indo-European culture demands, and dig up some important archaeological cultures in Poland that can match the Indo-European expansions (so far, PC steppes is a better fit for that).
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2012-10-02 at 14:34.
    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

  12. #7
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,600
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    What do you mean by Indo-European as an example? If anything, Indo-European languages have more diversity and quantity in eastern Europe, which matches the PIE urheimat ten times better than India or Anatolia. Afro-Asiatic is actually diametrically opposed to Indo-European in that sense, in that Afro-Asiatic languages have more diversity (currently known diversity anyway) in the Horn of "Africa", whereas Indo-European languages really do have highest diversity quite close to the PIE urheimat.

    I think what this tells us, is that if the linguistic diversity meet the requirements by linguistic palaeontology, then they meet and it's a match. If they don't meet, then they don't meet and linguistic palaeontology wins as conclusive evidence. Simple as that really.
    Really, I was under the impression there was greater quantity and diversity in India. Still the point still stands that diversity and quantity =/= homeland.

    EDIT: Never mind, I realise now there are actually many more branches in Europe.
    Last edited by Zakar-Baal; 2012-10-02 at 14:38.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Zakar-Baal For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2017-07-24)

  14. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,713
    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
    Really, I was under the impression there was greater quantity and diversity in India. Still the point still stands that diversity and quantity =/= homeland.
    India certainly has more speakers than in eastern Europe, but the diversity of Indo-European languages in Asia certainly is not higher than in central-eastern Europe:

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...l=1#post522388

    In any case, I just used examples from the Indo-European debates to get my point across, this thread is about proto-Afro-Asiatic, let's concentrate on that and not go off topic with Indo-European. There are plenty of Indo-European threads to discuss the PIE homeland.

    //mod
    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. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    BerberWarrior (2012-10-02), Zakar-Baal (2012-10-02)

  16. #9
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist BerberWarrior's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,225
    Gender
    Amazigh

    Default

    Balto-Slavic languages are free of any non-PIE influence, especially Baltic languages like Lithuanian strike me as very Indo-European in nature , it is aesthetically similar to classical Latin. In India , most IE speakers derive from Sanskrit , there's no diversity.
    Last edited by BerberWarrior; 2012-10-02 at 15:36.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BerberWarrior For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2012-10-02), Pioterus (2012-10-02), Zakar-Baal (2012-10-02)

  18. #10
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,600
    Gender

    Default

    On the topic of Proto-Semitic, what evidence is there to suggest it actually is the youngest branch of Afro-Asiatic?

Page 1 of 51 1 2 3 11 ... 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
  •  
<