|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 The Origins Of Afro-Asiatic (Page 1)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: The Origins Of Afro-Asiatic |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 26 December 2004 08:25 PM
  
Thought Posts: Science. 2004 Thought Writes: Does anyone have access to this research article or journal? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 03:28 PM
Thought Writes: I was able to obtain the Letter to the Editor from a local library. I don't have it in electronic form, but will give you some selected quotes. The Letter entails an initial Letter to the editors from Ehret, Keita and Newman in response to the Review "Farmers and their languages: the first expansions" by Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood dated April 25, 2003. Bellwood responds to Ehret et al. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 27 December 2004 03:29 PM
quote: Much obliged! IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 03:36 PM
Thought Writes: Essentially Ehret, Keita and Newman use linguistic (Afro-Asiatic), archeaological (Mushabian Complex) and genetic (M35/215 lineage) in support of a Horn of Africa or South East saharan origin for the Afro-Asiatic proto-family. We have been through most of this before so I will only offer one of the most interesting quotes; "Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not support demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistant with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy." IP: Logged |
|
S.Mohammad Member Posts: 252 |
posted 27 December 2004 03:45 PM
quote: Please offer more info, thats very interesting IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 03:48 PM
quote:
This is consistent with the archaeological record in the Badarian and Naqada cultures. The Badarians were essentially semi-nomadic cattle herders who hunted, fished and raised Winter Crops on the side. This was essentially the same subsistence pattern practiced by the Western Desert folks at Nabta Playa, Dahkla Oasis, etc, except in the Western Desert they cultivated Sorghum (summer rainfall crop) instead of Wheat and barley (winter rainfall crops). The use of crops probably relates to the shift of the winter rainfall pattern to the northern Nile Valley. Summer rainfall crops would be harder to cultivate in such an ecological niche. In fact, it was not until the late Naqada II period that AE became essentially dependent on horticulture. Thought Posts: Genesis of the Pharaohs "...it seems very likely that cattle-herding was what took the Badarians away from their Nile villages on a regular basis. They combined a pastoral way of life with SMALL-SCALE agriculture, whenever the opportunity arose, and a good of hunting." IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 04:24 PM
quote: Thought Writes: Correction, I should have stated: "In fact, it was not until the late Naqada I period that AE became essentially dependent on horticulture." IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 04:27 PM
Thought Posts: Genesis of the Pharaohs " In its essential characteristics, the Naqada I period shows a great deal of continuity from the preceding phase. There is NO SUDDEN BREAK, either in the way of life or in the products which have survived in the archaeological record. People still combined cattle-herding with LIMITED AGRICULTURE...". IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 04:35 PM
Thought Writes: In fact, during the Early Neolithic along the river the ONLY permanent village site was found at merimda, and this site was less complex than the Nubian, Upper and Middle Egyptian sites. Thought Posts: Ancient Egypt in Africa "In Egypt, the only clear evidence for permanent village life during the early neolithic period derives from Merimda Beni Salama, on the fringes of the Nile Delta. The material culture of this site, and the burials found there, exhibit little sign of the technological innovations, circulation of exotic materials, and elaborate forms of personal display evident in contemporary cemeteries of the Nile Valley." IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 27 December 2004 04:39 PM
I take it the letter from Keita/Ehret was in response to Diamond and Bellwood advocating diffusion of argriculture into the Nile Valley from Mesopotamia? [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 04:53 PM
quote: Thought Writes: Actually Colin Renfrew, Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood ("Liberals" by the way) and the McDonald Institute in general seem to advocate a Natufian origin for Afro-Asiatic. Even more interesting than the Letter from Ehret et al., is the response from P. Bellwood..... IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:01 PM
Science. 2004 Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood December 2004; 306: (5702) 1680 Thought Writes: Below are selected quotes from Bellwoods response to Ehret et al. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:13 PM
Bellwood Quote: "Militarev's reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic vocabulary, whether "agricultural" or not, is also peopled with animals and plans of Levant, not African, origin and matches a Natufian cultural landscape." Thought Commentary: I would be interested in knowing SPECIFICALLY which flora and fauna he is referring to and to see Ehret’s response to this statement. O. Bar-Yosef states that Natufian fauna include Gazelle, Wild Cattle, Deer, Wild Boar, Wild Goat and the Ibex. Many of these animals are also indigenous to North Africa (Gazelle, Wild Cattle, Ibex, etc). At any rate, if Militarev reconstructs proto-Afro-Asiatic on the basis of Semitic of course these animals would have great antiquity. One would have to read Militarev’s paper in “Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis” to understand this questionable line of evidence. At any rate, this is his STRONGEST argument and it is weak at best given the fact that he gives no specifics. This entire debate really comes down to a last ditch effort to resurrect the Hamitic Hypothesis via the “Nostratic Language” concept. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:23 PM
Bellwood Quote: "The Egyptian Neolithic economy, however, was manifestly of Levant and not African origin." Thought Commentary: The funny thing is while Ehret et al. have sources and references from linguistics, archaeology, genetics and archaeology Bellwood ONLY has linguistic references to support his position. Virtually EVERY recent archaeologist that has studied the early Egyptian Neolithic realizes that the Egyptians gradually adopted Near Eastern domesticates and incorporated them INTO their pre-existing system with the gradual ecological collapse of the semi-arid Sahara. Thought Posts: The Prehistory of Egypt “From an ecological point of view, the final stages of the predynastic were characterized by the gradual movement of human settlements from the deserts towards the river valley; this phenomenon, which had been well underway as early as the Naqada II phase, was greatly exacerbated , bringing with it the relative abandonment of pastoralism, and the adoption of intensified agriculture, backed by systematic irrigation.” IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:29 PM
Bellwood Quote: "There is no significant archaeological evidence for a population movement from Africa into the Levant, whether Mesolithic or Neolithic, at the time in question". Thought Writes: This statement is puzzling given the fact that Ofer Bar-Yosef's paper on the Mushabian Complex was one of Ehret's references in the Letter and the fact that Bar-Yosef was a contributor to the book “Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis”which Bellwood edited. Other than this strange comment he offers no evidence to challenge Bar-Yosef’s archaeological evidence. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:41 PM
"The genetics papers quoted by Ehret et al. do not settle this matter. The Y chromosome evidence appears to signal complex two-way population movements with very uncertain chronologies." Thought Writes: Again, this is a puzzling statement given the fact that Peter Underhill who helped define the M35/215 lineage and its Mesolithic East African origin was another contributor to Bellwood’s book “Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis”. Bellwood offers no competing theory nor does he give us any detail as to what specific genes he believes came from Eurasia to Africa during this period. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:48 PM
Bellwood Quote: I have just published a detailed discussion of Afroasiatic prehistory from archaeological and linguistic perspectives, and the above points are made in more detail there. Thought Writes: It seems that the linguistic, genetic and archaeological contributors to Bellwood’s book “Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis” (Ehret, Underhill and Bar-Yosef) do not even agree with him. He presented no real detail for his position and seems to be simply trying to save face. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 05:57 PM
http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Publications/farming.htm  Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis Linguistic diversity is one of the most puzzling and challenging features of humankind. Why are there some six thousand different languages spoken in the world today? Why are some, like Chinese or English, spoken by millions over vast territories, while others are restricted to just a few thousand speakers in a limited area? The farming/language dispersal hypothesis makes the radical and controversial proposal that the present-day distributions of many of the world's languages and language families can be traced back to the early developments and dispersals of farming from the several nuclear areas where animal and plant domestication emerged. For instance, the Indo-European and Austronesian language families may owe their current vast distributions to the spread of food plants and of farmers (speaking the relevant proto-languages) following the Neolithic revolutions which took place in the Near East and in Eastern Asia respectively, thousands of years ago. Colin Renfrew, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK. Contents Chapter 1 'The Emerging Synthesis': the Archaeogenetics of Farming/Language Dispersals and other Spread Zones Chapter 3 The Expansion Capacity of Early Agricultural Systems: a Comparative Perspective on the Spread of Agriculture Part III Regional Studies A. Western Asia and North Africa Chapter 10 The Natufian Culture and the Early Neolithic: Social and Economic Trends in Southwestern Asia B. Asia and Oceania Chapter 16 An Agricultural Perspective on Dravidian Historical Linguistics: Archaeological Crop Packages, Livestock and Dravidian Crop Vocabulary C. Mesoamerica and the US Southwest Chapter 25 Contextualizing Proto-languages, Homelands and Distant Genetic Relationship: Some Reflections on the Comparative Method from a Mesoamerican Perspective Chapter 29 Issues of Scale and Symbiosis: Unpicking the Agricultural 'Package' IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 11:13 PM
quote: Thought Posts: The Prehistory of Egypt "It is evident that the high level of sedentism - full scale villages - that characterizes the Natufian version of the neolithic is alien to the Faiyum, where the strategy of land use seems instead to be still linked to a BROAD SPECTRUM form of SEASONAL exploitation. Indeed, although agriculture and domestication are attested, the fishing-hunting-gathering combination (reflected both in the toolkit and in the surviving remains of animal species) continued to be the dominant element in their way of life." IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 27 December 2004 11:37 PM
The Origins Of Afroasiatic Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman Science Letters Section Vol 306 December 3, 2004 "A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages. Underhill et al. state that this lineage was carried from Africa during the "Mesolithic". The distributions of the Afroasiatic branches and this lineage can best be explained by invoking movements that originated in Africa and occurred before the emergence of food production, as well as after." IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:16 AM
I'm trying to understand the structure of this debate. Are Chrsitopher Ehret and S.O.Y. Keita responding to something written prior by Bellwood or vice versa? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 10:29 AM
{I'm trying to understand the structure of this debate. Are Chrsitopher Ehret and S.O.Y. Keita responding to something written prior by Bellwood or vice versa?} Thought Writes: I apologize if I have been unclear. April 25, 2003 Jared Diamond and Peter Bellwood wrote a Review titled "Farmers and their languages: the first expansions" in which they asserted that Afro-Asiatic was brought to Africa from the Levant via demic diffusion. December 3, 2004 Ehret, Keita and Newman replied with a letter to the editor and Bellwood was allowed to respond to this letter with his own letter on the same date. The excerpts I have provided from Ehret et al and Bellwood are from these letters dated December 3, 2004. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 28 December 2004 10:31 AM
I understand now. Thanks. IP: Logged |
|
supercar Member Posts: 1165 |
posted 28 December 2004 11:30 AM
Very imformative thread! IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 03:14 PM
Bellwood Quote: "My assumption is that the spread of Afroasiatic occured as a result of actual human movement, not language diffusion alone." "My working assumption, therefore, is that early Afroasiatic languages spread from the Levant into Africa between 7,000 and 12,000 years ago, probably in more than one movement." IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 03:16 PM
quote: Thought Writes: Bellwoods basic assumption is primarily based upon the linguistic reconstructions of Militarev who seems to be the lone linguistic proponent of this out-dated concept (Hamitic Myth). IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 03:27 PM
quote:
"In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I.M. Diakonoff, rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (the work of Militarev), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa and, when all of Afroasiatic's branches are included, strongly indicates a pre-food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy." "Diamond and Bellwood adopt Militarev's solitary counterclaim of proto-Afroasiatic cultivation. However, not one of Militarev's proposed 32 agricultural roots can be considered diagnostic of cultivation. Fifteen are reconstructed as names of plants or loose categories of plants. Such evidence may reveal plants known to early Afroasiatic speakers, but it does not indicate whether they were cultivated or wild. Militarev's remaining roots are each semantically mixed, i.e., they have food-production-related meanings in some languages, but in other languages have meanings applicable to foraging or equally applicable to foraging or cultivating." IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 28 December 2004 03:36 PM
quote:How does Militarev account for the absense of any branch of Afrasan other than semetic in Eurasia. Esp. given that mdw ntr itself is not semetic? Also, there are some more radical views of the Afrasan phylum including to the effect that it does not actaully exist. Theophile Obenga argues that semetic is actually a separate language family, which is interesting as it is semetic that the Nostrasists generally use to make their connection between Indo-European and Afrasan. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 03:39 PM
quote: Thought Writes: Bellwood seems to be using the diffusion of Near Eastern domesticated plants and animals as archaeological evidence for the diffusion of Afro-Asiatic languages. Based upon this assumption, under Bellwood's paradigm Afroasiatic could not have spread into Africa prior to the sixth millennium when Near Eastern domesticated plants and animals entered the region. Hence the importance of Ehret et al’s rebuttal on archaeological grounds: Ehret et al Quote‘s: "Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not support demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy." "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P." IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 250 |
posted 28 December 2004 07:08 PM
dd [This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 28 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 250 |
posted 28 December 2004 07:14 PM
quote:How does Militarev account for the absense of any branch of Afrasan other than semetic in Eurasia. Esp. given that mdw ntr itself is not semetic? Also, there are some more radical views of the Afrasan phylum including to the effect that it does not actaully exist. Theophile Obenga argues that semetic is actually a separate language family, which is interesting as it is semetic that the Nostrasists generally use to make their connection between Indo-European and Afrasan. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 December 2004).][/QUOTE]
Négro-égyptienne further breaks down into
Obenga recognizes that Semitic languages are spoken in Africa but
In essence, Obenga strips Semitic and Tamazight from Afrasan, [This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 28 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:13 PM
Ehret Et al. Quote: “A careful reading of Diakonff shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively Africa origin for the family. He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and links it to pre--Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the family wholly in Africa. One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre-food-producing population movement from Africa into the Levant, consistent with the linguistic arguments for a pre-Neolithic migration of pre-proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai.” {How does Militarev account for the absense of any branch of Afrasan other than semetic in Eurasia.} Thought Writes: Not to be flippant, but that does not negate the possibility that this language originated in the Levant. Of course placing the Levant in Eurasia, especially during the period in question, could be challenged on geological grounds. The stronger argument for an African origin to Afro-Asiatic is the multi-disciplinary (archaeology, genetics, geology, skeletal analysis, etc.) one incorporating the fact that many of the Non-Semitic Afroasiatic languages have internal phylogenies with as much depth as Semitic. The depth of the Semitic phylogeny is in line with Diakonff’s position for a Delta/Sinai (hence Mushabian) origin of Afroasiatic and is consistent with the archaeological and genetic data that indicate out migration by Mushabian Africans (pre-proto-Semetic speakers?) during the Mesolithic period. {Also, there are some more radical views of the Afrasan phylum including to the effect that it does not actaully exist. Theophile Obenga argues that semetic is actually a separate language family, which is interesting as it is semetic that the Nostrasists generally use to make their connection between Indo-European and Afrasan.} Thought Writes: Radical indeed. Genetic data clearly indicate a common origin for Semitic and Amazigh speakers deriving from Mesolithic East Africa. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:16 PM
quote: Pardon me, that should have read: "The depth of the Semitic phylogeny is in line with Diakonff’s position for a Delta/Sinai (hence Mushabian) origin of the pre-proto-Semitic branch of Afroasiatic and is consistent with the archaeological and genetic data that indicate out migration by Mushabian Africans (pre-proto-Semetic speakers?) during the Mesolithic period." IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:21 PM
quote: However to postulate a Eurasian origin for the Afrasan language phylum, you would need semetic to be the root or base of the entire langauge family no? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:25 PM
quote: Thought Writes: This is correct, but Diakonff's position is not a Eurasian origin for Afro-Asiatic. Diakonff's position seems to be (based upon Ehret's interpretation) that pre-proto-Semitic/proto-Afro-Asiatic entered the Levant before a more generalized language diversification. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 28 December 2004 09:31 PM
If Amazigh has an internal phylogeny that dates back to at least 8,000 B.C. and Bellwood’s position argues a diffusion of Near Eastern domesticated plants and animals as archaeological evidence for the diffusion of Afro-Asiatic languages circa 6,000 B.C. his position is shallow based upon the multi-disciplinary approach. The same argument can be made on the basis of Cushitic, Chadic and Omotic as well. Ehret et al. Quote: “From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P." IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 250 |
posted 29 December 2004 12:28 AM
Does the following table on Afrasan, presented for corrections and insights, still hold true or is it outdated? Prime locations, language branches and probable date of final split: Horn & Upper Nile___ - Kushitic__ - 8th millenium BCE Lower Nile Valley___ - Egyptian__ - before7th millenium BCE Lake Tschad Regia__ - Chadic___ - 7th millenium BCE Africa Geologica North Africa_______ - Tamazight_ - 6th or 5th millenium BCE
[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 29 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 2969 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:41 AM
Here is the complete article on the formation of Afro-asiatic: http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/courses/pcb4044/2004Fall/Fire(Science).pdf IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 29 December 2004 09:13 AM
quote: Much thanks. This is one of the better threads on egyptsearch.com. I was wondering about this from Ehret et. al IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 01:06 PM
quote: Thought Writes: Linguistic, genetic and archaeological evidence indicates that populations in the Western Desert domesticated Cattle early on. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 29 December 2004 01:16 PM
quote: Yes.....wondering how Bellwood 'fits in' this data with his hypothesis; 'the manifestly levantine' nature of the Km.t economy. Ehret did mention the independant African domestication of cattle, but Bellwood's response is inadequete to this (and other) point(s). IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 02:41 PM
quote: Thought Writes: I have posed several questions to Dr. Bellwod over he past few days. He has been open enough to respond in kind. Out of respect for the confidential nature of our conversations I will not re-post his replies, but I will offer **my interpretation** of his position based upon these replies. 1) His position is not set in stone, however he favors the Levantine origin of Afro-Asiatic based upon archaeological data. 2) he does not except expansion dates for genetics, but does except mutation dates based upon assumptions of molecular clocks. 3) He wants to contact O. Bar-Yosef directly to get further clarification on the Mushabian. 4) He does not believe that language phylum’s differentiate at a constant rate, hence implying that branches of Afro-Asiatic may be internally as complex as other languages, yet have different phylogenies chronologically. 5) He believes the skeletal data for "Negroid" Natufians is old and may refelct bias. 6) He believes Afro-Asiatic entered Africa with Near Eastern domestic animals and plants after 6,000 B.C., hence Chadic Cushitic, Berber etc all post date 6,000 B.C. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 02:52 PM
quote: Thought Writes: I think this is the most important point. Badarian crania clearly cluster with Horn of Africa populations. Naqada remains had distal limb segments elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. All this implies that Upper Egyptians were of an indigenous tropical African background. As my quote from David Wengrow demonstrates, the horticulture based early Neolithic in Lower Egypt was less complex than the semi-nomadic cattle herding economy of the Badarians. This is inconsistent with in-migrating Eurasian Afro-Asiatic speakers colonizing Upper Egyptians. In fact the general trend in NE Africa is Upper Egyptians "civilizing" Lower Egyptians. In addition, as Ehret et al. point out archaeological data from Lower Egypt indicate a GRADUAL assimilation of Near Eastern domesticates into the indigenous foraging economy. This to is inconsistent with a demic diffusion model which implies colonization. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:00 PM
quote: Thought Writes: I mentioned the fact that the mutation date for E-M78 alpha is roughly 8 KY and is located in the Balkins and the mutation date for E-M78 Delta is 14.7 KY and is rooted in East Africa. E-M78 alpha is derived from E-M78 Delta, implying that E-M78 spread from East Africa to Europe sometime between 14.7 KY and 8 KY. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:07 PM
quote: Thought Writes: I found it a bit odd Dr. Bellwood knows Dr. Bar-Yosef personally, yet was unfamiliar with his conclusions about out-of-Africa migrations during the mesolithic period (i.e. Mushabian)? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:13 PM
quote: Thought Writes: The implication is that he believes the dating systems of language families is flawed. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:15 PM
quote: And Bellwood needs this E-M78 bearing population(?) to step across into the Levantine circa 8 ky, and then back-migrate into Africa, begging the question 'why bother', or implying that his hypothesis creates an artificial delimma rather than solving an actual problem? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:16 PM
quote: Thought Writes: The interesting thing about Natufian remains is that they have broader, flatter noses and are more prognathic than the preceeding Ohalo populations. Given the fact that the Levant was MORE arid during the LGM than before it it is improbable that the indigenous Ohalo populations evolved broader, flatter noses in a more arid environment. The implication, again is migration from Africa! IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1492 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:20 PM
quote:
quote:Well, it would have to be very badly flawed. Otherwise his hypothesis is a non-starter. He needs proto-semitic to be older, proto-afrasan to be younger, or the entire phylum reconstructed, but this would clearly be contrived so as to make his hypothesis less unreasonable, rather than actually explaining any existing legitimate riddle. It sounds as if he is making a mystery instead of resolving one. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 820 |
posted 29 December 2004 03:32 PM
quote: Thought Writes: : ) IP: Logged |
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EgyptSearch!
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c