posted
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East.
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Apr 29.
Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. Department of Anthropology, PO Box 103610, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA.
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. IntroductionSemitic languages comprise one of the most studied language families in the world. Semitic is of particular interest due to its association with the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia (Lloyd 1984), the Levant (Rendsburg 2003) and the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001), which gave rise to several of the world's first major religious traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and literary works (e.g. the Akkadian poem The epic of Gilgamesh). The importance of Semitic dates back at least 4350 years before present (YBP) to ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia, where the Akkadian language replaced Sumerian (Buccellati 1997). From this time forward, archaeological evidence for Semitic among the Hebrews and Phoenicians in the Levant (Diakonoff 1998; Rendsburg 2003) and the Aksumites in the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001) suggests that Semitic-speaking populations and their languages underwent a complex history of geographical expansion, migration and diffusion tied to the emergence of the earliest urban civilizations in these regions (Lloyd 1984; Connah 2001; Richard 2003b; Nardo 2007). Uncertainties about key details of this history persist despite extensive archaeological, genetic and linguistic studies of Semitic populations. A more comprehensive understanding of the precise origin and relationship of Semitic populations to each other is necessary to fully appreciate their complex history.
Although multiple genetic studies of extant Semitic-speaking populations have been conducted (Nebel et al. 2002; Capelli et al. 2006), much is still unknown about the genealogical relationships of these populations. Most previous genetic studies focus on time frames that are either too recent (the origin of Jewish communities in the Middle East and Africa; Hammer et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2001; Rosenberg et al. 2001) or too ancient (the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans; Passarino et al. 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999) to provide insight about the origin and dispersal of Semitic languages and Semitic-speaking populations.
Previous historical linguistic studies of Semitic languages have used the comparative method to infer the genealogical relationships of Semitic (for review, see Faber 1997). The comparative method is a technique that uses the pattern of shared, derived changes in language (vocabulary, syntax or grammar), termed innovations, to assess the relative relatedness of languages, although this method cannot date the divergences between languages (Campbell 2000). Cognates, which are words that generally share a common form and meaning through descent from a common ancestor (e.g. the English word ‘night’ is a cognate with the German word ‘Nacht’), serve as the data used most often in comparative analyses.
The field of Semitic linguistics has generally coalesced around a model that places the ancient Mesopotamian language Akkadian as the most basal lineage of Semitic (Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). This standard model divides Semitic into East Semitic, composed of the extinct Akkadian and Eblaite languages, and West Semitic, consisting of all remaining Semitic languages that are distributed from the Levant to the Horn of Africa. West Semitic is in turn divided into South (consisting of Ethiosemitic, Epigraphic South Arabian and Modern South Arabian (MSA)) and Central linguistic groups, but the genealogical relationships of the languages within these two groups are poorly defined (Huehnergard 1990, 1992; Rodgers 1992; Faber 1997). Additionally, no consensus exists for placing Arabic in either the Central or South Semitic group (Hetzron 1976; Blau 1978; Diem 1980; Huehnergard 1990, 1992; Faber 1997), which makes Arabic's genealogical location simultaneously uncertain and interesting, as Central and South Semitic are geographically and genealogically distinct entities.
Dating language divergences has been controversial, especially when linguistic clocks are involved (for discussion, see Renfrew et al. 2000). The existence of a linguistic clock is controversial as it assumes that languages evolve at a fixed rate (Ehret 2000), whereas there is evidence for variation in rates of change between words and languages and no reason why languages should evolve at fixed rates (Blust 2000). However, recent studies have shown that much variation in the rates of linguistic change may follow generalized rules that apply across language families (Pagel et al. 2007; Atkinson et al. 2008). This suggests that variation in the rates of change between words and languages can be modelled by applying techniques used in evolutionary biology (e.g. probabilistic modelling of relative rates of word change with relaxed clock or covarion models of language evolution). Computational phylogenetic methods such as these are consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the linguistic comparative method (i.e. inferring relationships by the comparison of similar features between languages) and provide an objective statistical framework to accurately estimate language divergences. Furthermore, Bayesian phylogenetic methods offer distinct advantages by allowing for the inclusion of multiple lines of evidence as prior probabilities, incorporating the uncertainty of model parameters in posterior probability estimates, and providing straightforward statistical comparisons of models via Bayes factors (BFs).
In this study, we analyse lexical data from 25 Semitic languages distributed throughout the Middle East and Horn of Africa (figure 1) using a Bayesian phylogenetic method to simultaneously infer genealogical relationships and estimate divergence dates of the Semitic languages investigated here. In order to calibrate a relaxed linguistic clock and increase the accuracy of our divergence date estimates, we use epigraphic data (text inscribed in stone or tablets) from extinct Semitic languages (Akkadian, Aramaic, Ge'ez, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic) combined with archaeological evidence for the sampling dates of the epigraphic data (the time at which the materials were inscribed). We employ a log BF model-testing technique to statistically assess alternative Semitic histories and investigate different ways of modelling language evolution. Finally, we combine our divergence date estimates with epigraphic and archaeological evidence from all known Semitic languages to create an integrated model of Semitic history.
Map of Semitic languages and inferred dispersals. The locations of all languages sampled in this study, both extinct and extant, are depicted on the map. The current distribution of Ethiosemitic languages follows Bender (1971) and distribution of the remaining languages follows Hetzron (1997). The ancient distribution of extinct languages is also indicated (i.e. Akkadian, Biblical Aramaic, Ge'ez, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic; Bender 1971; Hetzron 1997). The West Gurage (Chaha, Geto, Innemor, Mesmes and Mesqan) and East Gurage (Walani and Zway) Ethiosemitic language groups in central Ethiopia are depicted as two combined groups. The map also presents the dispersal of Semitic languages inferred from our study. An origin of Afroasiatic along the African coast of the Red Sea, supported by comparative analyses (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004), is indicated in red, although other African origins of Afroasiatic have been proposed (e.g. southwest Ethiopia; Blench 2006). The assumed location of the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic between the African coast of the Red Sea and the Near East is indicated in italics. Semitic dispersals are depicted by arrows coloured according to the estimated time of divergence (see coloured time scale at top of figure), and important nodes from the phylogeny (figure 2) are placed on the arrows to indicate where and when these divergences occurred.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
2. Material and methods(a) Wordlists and cognate coding Wordlists were modified from Swadesh's 100-word list of most conserved words (Swadesh 1955), with the final lists containing 96 words for 25 extant and extinct Semitic languages (fig. S1 in the electronic supplementary material). Wordlists for the Ethiosemitic languages (Amharic, Argobba, Chaha, Gafat, Ge'ez, Geto, Harari, Innemor, Mesmes, Mesqan, Soddo, Tigre, Tigrinya, Walani and Zway) and Ogaden Arabic were drawn from Bender (1971). Wordlists for Moroccan Arabic, South Arabian languages (Jibbali, Harsusi, Mehri and Soqotri) and extinct non-African Semitic languages (Akkadian, Biblical Aramaic, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic) were constructed from previously published lexicons (Leslau 1938; Gelb et al. 1956; Sobelman & Harrel 1963; Rabin 1975).
Cognate classes were determined for each of the 96 words using a comparative method that emphasizes the similarity of consonant–consonant–consonant roots and known consonant shifts when comparing two words. The cognate data were coded in two ways: (i) as a 25-by-96 multistate character matrix of cognate classes (‘A’–‘Q’) for each of the 96 meanings (fig. S2 in the electronic supplementary material), and (ii) as a 25-by-673 binary matrix coding the presence (‘1’) or absence (‘0’) of each of the 673 cognate classes in each language (fig. S3 in the electronic supplementary material). Loanwords were identified using lexical information from distantly related, but geographically close, language families (such as Cushitic), as well as comparisons with lexicons of languages within the Semitic family. Identified loanwords were excluded from all subsequent analyses.
(b) Phylogenetic analysis and divergence date estimation Phylogenies were constructed under a Bayesian framework using BEAST v. 1.4.8 (Drummond & Rambaut 2007). BEAST uses a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation technique to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters. All Markov chains were run for 20 000 000 generations with samples taken every 1000 generations. The first 4 000 000 generations were discarded as burn-in, and post-run analysis of parameter plots in Tracer v. 1.4 (Rambaut & Drummond 2007) suggested all chains had reached convergence by the end of the burn-in period. MCMC sampling and run conditions, and all prior distributions, were identical for all analyses unless otherwise stated.
An unordered model of cognate class evolution with equal and reversible instantaneous rates of changes between all pairs of cognate classes (i.e. the rates of A-to-B, A-to-C and B-to-A changes were identical) was used to analyse the multistate coded data, while a model with a single reversible rate was used to analyse the binary coded data. Rate heterogeneity across lexical items was modelled by a gamma distribution of item-specific rates. This model accommodated variations in the rate of change across lexical items, such that conserved items (a single cognate class for all languages) were assigned a slower rate than the mean, while highly variable items (few shared cognate classes between languages) were assigned a faster rate than the mean. Priors for the gamma shape parameter were uniform on the interval 0–50.
Divergence times were estimated using an uncorrelated lognormal relaxed-clock model that assumes a single underlying rate for the entire phylogeny, but allows for variations in rates between branches (Drummond et al. 2006). In order to calibrate the clock, we used sampling dates for the five extinct languages in our dataset (Akkadian=2800 YBP, Biblical Aramaic=1800 YBP, Ge'ez=1700 YBP, ancient Hebrew=2600 YBP and Ugaritic=3400 YBP; Rabin 1975) in a manner similar to how sampling dates are used in the studies of measurably evolving populations, such as fast-evolving viruses or ancient DNA (Drummond et al. 2003). These dates come from archaeological and epigraphic evidence associated with the linguistic source material, and thus provide the time at which the wordlists of the extinct languages were sampled (although the languages themselves often continued to exist for some time). Additionally, a set of five constraints taken from a combination of archaeological, epigraphic and historical evidence was placed on interior nodes. Such constraints allow for the inclusion of prior information and uncertainty regarding Semitic divergence times, which are strengths of Bayesian methods and have been successfully used to date the divergences of Indo-European (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Atkinson et al. 2005) and Austronesian (Gray et al. 2009) languages. These constraints are: (i) the origin of ancient Hebrew 3200–4200 YBP (Steiner 1997), (ii) the origin of Ugaritic 3400–4400 YBP (Pardee 1997), (iii) the origin of Aramaic 2850–3850 YBP (Kaufman 1997) and (iv) the origin of Amharic 700–1700 YBP (Hudson 1997). Each of these constraints spans a 1000-year interval since the earliest epigraphic or historical evidence for the language. An additional constraint (v) was placed on the time of the most recent common ancestor of the included Semitic languages to 4350–8000 YBP (the lower date is based on the earliest known epigraphic evidence of Akkadian; Buccellati 1997). An analysis was also performed without the constraint on the age of the root, which returned an estimate of 4300–7750 YBP for the root, i.e. almost exactly our constraint range. All divergence time constraints are in the form of uniform priors over the indicated interval. A uniform prior of 0.01 to 0.00001 cognate changes per word per year (0.001–1% replacement rate per year) was placed on the mean of the lognormal-distributed clock. The mean rate estimated from analysis of the binary data is 6.1×10−5 replacements per cognate per year (95% highest probability density (HPD)=4.4−7.9×10−5).
The robustness of our results was investigated using log BF tests to compare phylogenies that were constrained to model alternative Semitic histories. Specifically, we first compared two versions of the standard model of Semitic history: a model that placed Akkadian (i.e. East Semitic) at the root versus an unconstrained analysis to assess independent support for a non-African Semitic root. We then investigated the position of Arabic in Semitic history by comparing two variations of the standard model, one with Arabic nested within Central Semitic and another with Arabic within South Semitic. We also tested the ability of different models to account for variation in rates of linguistic change between lexical items and languages. In this case, we compared the standard model to two alternatives: (i) no gamma distribution to model variation in the rate of change between lexical items and (ii) no relaxed clock to model variation in the rate of change between languages. All log BF tests of Semitic history incorporated a gamma distribution and relaxed clock since our log BF tests showed support for these models. Marginal likelihoods for each model were estimated using the smoothed harmonic mean of the likelihood distribution (Newton et al. 1994; Redelings & Suchard 2005), and all log BF values were calculated by taking the difference in the log of the marginal likelihoods of each model (Kass & Raftery 1995) with log BF values reported in log units.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Previous SectionNext Section3. Results(a) Genealogy of Semitic languages Our phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages produced the phylogeny shown in figure 2. This phylogeny is based on the binary dataset and incorporates all model features that showed significant log BF support (log BF tests were equivocal in the placement of Arabic, so we placed Arabic in Central Semitic based on previous comparative studies; e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). A brief summary of the phylogeny highlights include: (i) the greater age of non-African versus African Semitic languages (non-overlapping HPDs of 4150–7400 YBP for East/West Semitic versus 2000–3800 YBP for Ethiosemitic); (ii) the near-simultaneous divergence of East, West, South and Central Semitic languages; (iii) the early divergence of Arabic of approximately 4450 YBP (HPD: 3650–5800 YBP); and (iv) the well-resolved and recent divergences (less than 3800 YBP) of Ethiosemitic languages in a monophyletic (single origin) clade (a group of related languages). It is important to note that each node in the phylogeny represents an ancestral language that is hypothesized to have existed at the time of divergence estimated for that node, whereas branch tips represent actual languages at the time they were sampled. Long branches are representative of long intervals between divergences and the presence of unsampled languages (e.g. the long branch between nodes E and F), whereas short branches indicate rapid language divergence. Posterior probability estimates are shown for each branch and indicate the probability that a group of languages is more closely related to each other than to other languages. Branches with posterior probability estimates ≤0.70 were considered to be unresolved (the relative pattern of divergence among the languages could not be ascertained) and were collapsed to reflect this uncertainty.
Phylogeny of Semitic languages. Our phylogeny of 25 Semitic languages based on binary encoded data is presented with mean divergence times to the right of each node and 95% HPD intervals indicated by light grey bars. The scale bar along the bottom of the phylogeny presents time in YBP. Posterior probabilities of branches are printed in italics above each branch with >0.75 support. Extinct languages are underlined and all other languages are considered to evolve to the present. Subgroups of Semitic are identified by colour bars to the right of the phylogeny (purple bars, East Semitic; green bars, Central Semitic; red bars, MSA; and blue bars, Ethiosemitic) and by three boxes (West, Central and South Semitic). Important nodes are indicated by letters: A, West Semitic; B, Central Semitic; C, Ugaritic–Hebrew–Aramaic; D, Arabic; E, South Semitic; F, MSA; and G, Ethiosemitic. The dashed line leading to Arabic reflects the fact that log BF tests were equivocal in the placement of Arabic, so we placed Arabic in Central Semitic based on previous linguistic studies (e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997). The topology is rooted with Akkadian, which is preferred by our log BF analyses, and follows the constraints of the standard model.
(b) Semitic language divergence dates In addition to delineating the relationship between different Semitic languages, our phylogenetic analysis provides dates for the divergences of the investigated languages. The mean estimates of all language divergence times, with associated 95 per cent HPDs, are depicted in years on the phylogeny in figure 2. Our phylogeny indicates the most basal divergence within Semitic occurred at 5750 YBP (HPD: 4400–7400 YBP), suggesting an origin of Semitic during the Early Bronze Age (Ehrich 1992). This result implies that a hypothetical ancestral language was extant during this period and gave rise to all of the Semitic languages investigated in this study. The deepest four branches of the phylogeny indicate the divergences of East (root), West (node A), South (node E) and Central (node B) Semitic; these divergences are nearly coincident with largely overlapping HPDs (3300–7400 YBP), suggesting that Semitic underwent a period of rapid diversification upon its origin.
Central Semitic (node B) initially diverges at approximately 4450 YBP (HPD: 3650–5800 YBP) into Arabic and a group of ancient languages from the Levant (Aramaic, ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic), which in turn diverge (node C) at approximately 4050 YBP (HPD: 3750–4400 YBP). The Arabic languages (node D) have an estimated divergence time of approximately 850 YBP (HPD: 400–1370 YBP).
On the other half of the phylogeny, the South Semitic clade (node E) shows an ancient divergence of Ethiosemitic and MSA languages approximately 4650 YBP (HPD: 3300–6250 YBP), which overlaps with the transition from the Early to Middle Bronze Age. The early divergence between Ethiosemitic and MSA is consistent with previous historical linguistic proposals that MSA is a deep branch of Semitic, linguistically distant even from its closest relatives within the Semitic family (e.g. Murtonen 1967). The hypothetical ancestor of the MSA clade (node F) dates to approximately 2050 YBP (HPD: 1100–3100 YBP), which, coupled with the narrow geographical distribution of MSA along the southern coast of Arabia, suggests that the diversification of MSA occurred in this region.
The single, well-supported (posterior probability=0.9976) branch leading to modern Ethiosemitic indicates a single origin for Semitic languages in the Horn of Africa with their diversification into North and South clades (node G) occurring at approximately 2850 YBP (HPD: 2000–3800 YBP), during the Iron Age in the Near East and overlapping with the pre-Aksumite and Aksumite periods in the Horn of Africa (Connah 2001). The large number of small internal branches in the Ethiosemitic group indicates a rapid diversification of these languages. The South Ethiosemitic languages separate into three monophyletic clades that correspond to accepted groupings of Ethiosemitic (Bender 1971) and show near-coincident divergences at approximately 1200–1600 YBP.
Our analysis of the multistate-encoded data produced divergence date estimates and 95 per cent HPDs that were consistent with those estimated from the binary encoded data (see fig. S4 in the electronic supplementary material). The mean divergence dates are also altered: the divergences of East versus West Semitic, Central versus South Semitic, MSA versus Ethiosemitic and Ethiosemitic are older in the multistate estimates, and the divergences of Central Semitic and MSA are younger relative to the binary estimates. The topologies are essentially the same with several small changes within the Ethiosemitic languages and a closer clustering of Arabic and Aramaic in the multistate analysis. Importantly, all of the mean divergence date estimates from the binary analysis fall within the HPDs of the multistate analysis. For figure 2, we chose to present the phylogeny based on the binary dataset following conventions of previous linguistic phylogenetic studies (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Atkinson et al. 2005; Gray et al. 2009).
(c) Log Bayes factor tests We assess the robustness of our analysis by statistically testing alternative Semitic histories. This was done using log BF model tests, which compare the probabilities that various models produced for the observed data (i.e. the lexical list data). Log BF values (all values are in log units) in the intervals 0–0.5, 0.5–1, 1–2 and greater than 2 are considered ‘not worth mentioning’, ‘substantial’, ‘strong’ and ‘decisive’ support, respectively, for the primary model (Kass & Raftery 1995). We test alternative Semitic histories using two comparisons. The first comparison tests models that root Semitic with Akkadian (i.e. a Near Eastern origin of Semitic) relative to an unconstrained model that allows for Near Eastern (i.e. Akkadian), African (i.e. Ethiosemitic) or Arabian (i.e. MSA) origins for Semitic. This comparison shows substantial support for a model with an Akkadian root (log BF=0.641), consistent with the consensus of comparative linguistic analyses (Faber 1997). The second comparison concerns the placement of Arabic and compares the standard model, in which Arabic is placed within Central Semitic (e.g. Hetzron 1976; Faber 1997), with a single topological modification that places Arabic within South Semitic. This comparison showed little preference for a model with Arabic within Central Semitic over one with Arabic within South Semitic (log BF=−0.438). Interestingly, the location of Arabic within Semitic is the only discrepancy in topology and divergence date estimates between our binary and multistate analyses (figure 2; fig. S4 in the electronic supplementary material).
We also use log BFs to test the ability of different models to accurately represent variation in the rates of linguistic change between words and languages. Our first comparison was between versions of the standard model that did and did not include a gamma distribution to model variation in the rate of linguistic change between lexical items. This log BF test shows substantial (log BF=0.574) support for a model that includes a gamma distribution to model rate variation between words. To place this in perspective, our estimate for the shape of the gamma distribution (α=24.9) indicates that there is less variation in the rate of change between lexical items than there is within codon classes in mitochondrial coding genomes of primates (Yang 1996). Our second comparison was between versions of the standard model that used relaxed and strict linguistic clocks to model rate variation between languages. This log BF test shows decisive support (log BF=13.0) for a model that includes a relaxed clock to model between-language variation. These two results demonstrate that our inclusion of rate variation components in our model of linguistic evolution significantly improves the fit between the data and our model, and that there is substantial variation in the linguistic rate of change between lineages and between lexical items. All log BF tests of Semitic history reported above incorporated a gamma distribution and relaxed clock since our log BF tests showed support for these models.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The study is saying that, for Africa, both Semitic and "indigenous complex societies" result from "South Arabian influence" without much accompanying gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula.
Now what could presumably cause such a language shift that came to yield a greater diversity in Ethiopia than in the Arabian Peninsula.
Are these authors (Chris Ehret included) insinuating that Arabs ran amok in Eritrea and Ethiopia subjecting the people who tried their best to speak the language of the outlanders but unable to do so wound up speaking numerous 'dialects' simulating their bosses?
posted
Previous SectionNext Section4. Discussion(a) Semitic origins Our analysis of the Semitic language family produced a dated phylogeny that estimates the origin of Semitic at approximately 4400–7400 YBP (figure 2). The phylogeny suggests East Semitic (represented by Akkadian in this study) corresponds to the deepest branch (although the four deepest branches have overlapping HPDs), and our log BF tests indicate that Akkadian is the appropriate root for the Semitic languages analysed here. These results indicate that the ancestor of all Semitic languages in our dataset was being spoken in the Near East no earlier than approximately 7400 YBP, after having diverged from Afroasiatic in Africa (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004; Blench 2006). Lacking closely related non-Semitic languages to serve as out-groups in our phylogeny, we cannot estimate when or where the ancestor of all Semitic languages diverged from Afroasiatic. Furthermore, it is likely that some early Semitic languages became extinct and left no record of their existence. This is especially probable if early Semitic societies were pastoralist in nature (Blench 2006), as pastoralists are less likely to leave epigraphic and archaeological evidence of their languages. The discovery of such early Semitic languages could increase estimates of the age of Semitic, and alter its geographical origin if these early Semitic languages were found in Africa rather than the Middle East.
Our estimate for the origin of Semitic (4400–7400 YBP) predates the first Akkadian inscriptions in the archaeological record of northern Mesopotamia by approximately 100–3000 years (Buccellati 1997). The city-states of Sumer were established and flourishing in Mesopotamia with their own indigenous languages unrelated to Semitic by approximately 5400 YBP (Lloyd 1984), so it is unlikely that Akkadian was spoken in Sumer for the entirety of the possible 3000-year interval between the origin of Semitic and Akkadian's initial appearance in the archaeological record. Furthermore, Eblaite (no Eblaite wordlists were available for our study), the closest relative of Akkadian and the only other member of East Semitic, was spoken in the Levant (specifically the northeast Levant or present-day Syria; Gordon 1997), which is also where some of the oldest West Semitic languages were spoken (Ugaritic, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew). The presence of ancient members of the two oldest Semitic groups (East and West Semitic) in the same region of the Levant, combined with a possible long interval (100–3000 years) between the origin of Semitic and the appearance of Akkadian in Sumer, suggests a Semitic origin in the northeast Levant and a later movement of Akkadian eastward into Mesopotamia and Sumer (see figure 1 for a map of our proposed Semitic dispersals).
(b) Early Semitic dispersals Our Semitic language phylogeny indicates that the initial divergence of ancestral Semitic into East and West Semitic was nearly coincident with the divergence of West Semitic into Central and South Semitic around 5300 YBP (figure 2, node A). The short interval between these two divergences and their overlapping HPDs suggests that both divergences may have occurred in the northeast Levant (see figure 1, node A). The distribution of ancient and modern Central and South Semitic languages is consistent with Central Semitic spreading westward throughout the Levant and South Semitic spreading southward from the Levant, eventually reaching southern Arabia (figure 1, nodes B and E, respectively).
The Central Semitic branch is characterized first by a divergence into Arabic and the Levantine languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Ugaritic) at least 3650 YBP and possibly shortly after East and West Semitic diverged (figures 1 and 2, node B). The Levantine languages subsequently diverged into separate lineages by approximately 4050 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node C), but possibly as early as approximately 4400 YBP. The expansion of the Levantine languages of Central Semitic approximately 3650–4400 YBP was probably part of the migration process that was definitive of the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Ehrich 1992; Ilan 2003; Richard 2003a). This period in the Levant involved the devolution of many urban societies at the end of the Early Bronze Age (Richard 2003a) and their replacement with new urban societies that were culturally and morphologically distinct at the start of the Middle Bronze Age (Ilan 2003). Our analysis suggests that the shift in urban populations during the Early to Middle Bronze Age may be temporally associated with the wider expansion of Central Semitic in the Levant.
Within South Semitic, the early emergence of a South Arabian lineage between approximately 3300 and 6250 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node E) may reflect an Early Bronze Age expansion of Semitic from the Levant southward to the Arabian desert. This lineage was ancestral to the MSA languages, for which the more recent divergence less than 3100 YBP (figures 1 and 2, node F) suggests that early MSA speakers probably inhabited the southern coasts and coastal hinterlands of the Arabian Peninsula (the current distribution of MSA). The recurrent spread of early Semitic peoples and their languages into the steppe and desert lands of the Arabian Peninsula (first South Semitic and later Arabic; see below), combined with Biblical testimony on early Hebrew subsistence, lead us to propose that the earliest West Semitic society may have had a largely pastoralist economy particularly adapted to such conditions.
(c) Recent Arabic divergence The Arabic languages, or dialects, represent the largest group of extant Semitic languages (Gordon 2005). Although our analysis provided inconsistent support for Arabic as a lineage of Central Semitic (i.e. strong support for Arabic within Central Semitic from the multistate analysis, but no support from the binary analysis), most comparative linguistic analyses place Arabic within Central Semitic (for a review, see Faber 1997). Arabic languages originated in northern Arabia and expanded along with Islam in the seventh century to occupy a geographical range that extends from Morocco to Iran in the present day (Kaye & Rosenhouse 1997). Our phylogenetic analysis indicated that the two studied Arabic languages (Moroccan and Ogaden) diverged approximately 400–1350 YBP (node D); that is, after the expansion of Arab populations associated with Islam. This late divergence suggests that Arabic-speaking populations maintained sufficient contact to preclude the divergence and isolation of their languages for some time, or that, in some regions such as Morocco, it was not until the last millennium that Arabic languages replaced earlier indigenous languages (Berber in this case).
(d) Origin of Ethiosemitic Our Semitic phylogeny indicates that Ethiosemitic had a single, non-African origin; Ethiosemitic forms a well-resolved monophyletic clade nested within non-African Semitic languages, no earlier than approximately 3800 YBP (node G). The simultaneous divergences of many Ethiosemitic subgroups and their current widespread distribution throughout Ethiopia suggest that Ethiosemitic underwent a rapid process of diversification and expansion upon arrival in Africa. Studies have shown that Ethiosemitic-speaking populations are genetically similar to Cushitic-speaking populations within Eritrea and Ethiopia (Lovell et al. 2005). Thus, we propose that the current distribution of Ethiosemitic reflects a process of language diffusion through existing African populations with little gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula (i.e. a language shift). Our mean estimate of approximately 2850 YBP for the origin of Ethiosemitic (node G) is contemporaneous with the rise of pre-Aksumite societies in Eritrea and Ethiopia (Connah 2001), although the associated HPD includes the early Aksumite period. This result suggests that the introduction of early Ethiosemitic languages to the Horn of Africa may have been temporally associated with the development of some of the first indigenous complex societies (Ehret 1988), Aksumite or pre-Aksumite, and coincided with a period of South Arabian influence in northern Ethiopia approximately 2400–2700 YBP (Michels 2005).
Previous SectionNext Section5. ConclusionWe used Bayesian phylogenetic methods to elucidate the relationships and divergence dates of Semitic languages, which we then related to epigraphic and archaeological records to produce a comprehensive hypothesis of Semitic origins and dispersals after the divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic in Africa (figure 1). We estimate that: (i) Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant, followed by an expansion of Akkadian into Mesopotamia; (ii) Central and South Semitic diverged earlier than previously thought throughout the Levant during the Early to Middle Bronze Age transition; and (iii) Ethiosemitic arose as the result of a single, possibly pre-Aksumite, introduction of a lineage from southern Arabia to the Horn of Africa approximately 2800 YBP. Furthermore, we employed the first use of log BFs to statistically test competing language histories and provide support for a Near Eastern origin of Semitic. Our inferences shed light on the complex history of Semitic, address key questions about Semitic origins and dispersals, and provide important hypotheses to test with new data and analyses.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The study is saying that, for Africa, both Semitic and "indigenous complex societies" result from "South Arabian influence" without much accompanying gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula.
Now what could presumably cause such a language shift that came to yield a greater diversity in Ethiopia than in the Arabian Peninsula.
Are these authors (Chris Ehret included) intimating that Arabs ran amok in Eritrea and Ethiopia subjecting the people who tried their best to speak the language of the outlanders but unable to do so wound up speaking numerous 'dialects' simulating their bosses?
Why don't you ever take this scepticism to your Jew studies that purport to show "commonly" and ascribe this to some uniting "Jew" gene?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here we go again. It keeps coming. . .and coming. Bros this is the Last Stand. More and more studies/Threads to seperate East and West Africans.
Suprisely T-Rex is on the Euros side???
"West are the savages and the East are the civil ones since we decended from them".
As I said we have to be "strapped" for this battle. Arm your self with knowledge. Especially genetics. They can publish all the BS they want because they control it.
At least the Nordic nonsense is out of they way. But they sticking to the last recourse they have.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: We estimate that Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant.....
Evergreen Writes: What is of interest is that this is the same time frame that Upper Egyptian Naqada rulers colonize SW "Canaan".
Evergreen Posts:
On the Periphery of the Periphery: Industrial Specialization and Nomadic Redeployment in EB II Levant
Samuel Burns
ANTHRARC 483: Near Eastern Prehistory
Professor Henry T. Wright
23 April 2008
"In the Levant, the Early Bronze Age is marked by the appearance of planned and fortified cities and the emergence of what Joffe terms a “small-scale complex society (1993, p 23).” Scholars usually divide this period into four subperiods: EB I or Proto-Urban (c. 3400-3100 BCE); EB II (c. 3100-2700 BCE); EB III (c. 2700-2350 BCE); and EB IV (c. 2350-2000 BCE) (Richard, 1987). EB I was a transitional period, whereas the true display of urbanization is found in the EB II-III periods. The EB IV period shows a sharp decline of the Levantine complex society, evidenced by the destruction or abandonment of most fortified cities (Richard, 1987).
A prominent feature of the EB in the Levant is the growing influence of Egypt. Contact between Egypt and the Levant began in the Late Chalcolithic (Naqada I in Egypt), as evidenced by various material remains found in the Canaanite sites (Miroschedji, 2002, pp Periphery of Periphery - 6 - 39-40). This contact accelerated throughout the EB Ia and Ib periods (Naqada II-III), marked by exchange of goods as well as “colonization” of south-western Canaan by Egyptian settlers (p 42). Egypt unified at the beginning of EB II (First Dynasty), which led to greater Egyptian political control. This is evidenced by the emergence of Egyptian “outposts” as well as simple settlements. These outposts show evidence of direct Egyptian administrative control, including sealings and incised serekhs (Amiran, Ilan, & Arnon, 1983; Miroschedji, 2002, p 44)."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Now, who was it that was the leading proponent for the continental African origin of Semitic languages? $$ "They always let you down when you need 'em." $$
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what is "ancestral Semitic" and where does it originate? If ancestral semitic is not a language from Africa related to Afro Asiatic, then what of Afro Asiatic? Either Semitic is a form of Afro Asiatic with an ancestral origin in Africa or it is not.
Saying that Akkadian is therefore the first "Semitic" language, while ignoring that proto-Semitic may quite likely have arisen in Africa is to play games of Semantics. The child cannot come before the parent.
quote: The Semitic Urheimat is suggested by some to be in the Middle East; more specifically, Kienast (2001) advocates the Arabian peninsula. The East and West Semitic branches spread to Mesopotamia and the Levant during the Bronze Age, while South Semitic speakers migrated to Africa before the 8th century BC (see Dʿmt) via the Yemen gap. This is also supported by the presence of nouns in proto Semitic that seemingly make an African orign for the language impossible - ice, oak, horse and camel.The camel and horse did not arrive in Africa until nearly two thousand years after Semitic languages were being written in the Mesopotamia area.
Other people suggest Syria/Mesopotamia as the homeland for proto Semitic, due to the flora and fauna described by it, which include oak, pistachio and almond trees and the horse. The presence of ice and four different words for hill also suggest a colder more mountainous area than Arabia. Eblaite, one of the oldest Semitic languages, when deciphered had almost no non Afro Asiatic nouns in its lexicon, sugesting a very long presence in the Syria area. Bitumen and Naptha were also well known and have root words, and these are resources not found in Africa or Arabia, but commonly in the Northern parts of the Levant.
Yet others believe that the first prehistoric speakers of the ancestral Proto-Semitic language came from Africa. In historic times, the Semitic languages spread throughout the region via migrations from Arabia that displaced and subjugated the local populations. This alternative scenario makes Ethiopia the Proto-Semitic homeland[1].
Since Semitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the question of the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland is a related debate.
More recently, Juris Zarins has suggested that the development of a Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex of cultures developed in the period of the 6,200 BCE climatic crisis, stretching from Southern Palestine down the Red Sea shoreline, and northeastward into Syria and Iraq, spread Proto-Semitic languages through the region[2]. This complex may have developed from the fusion of Harifian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultures in Southern Palestine. As Harifian used the Outacha retouch point technique found earlier in the Fayyum, it has been suggested that Proto-Semitic may have come from Egypt across the Sinai. Given the fact that Semitic is most closely related to the Ancient Egyptian language of all the Afro-Asiatic languages, this origin is also distinctly possible.
Such a treatment of Semitic and Proto Semitic as not being derived from Africa would to me make them NOT part of the Afro Asiatic family if one takes this to its most logical conclusion. Otherwise one would have to explain the age of Afro Asiatic languages in Africa that are ancestral to Semitic.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an extended discussion about the Ethio-Semitic complexes in this thread, here which I immediately recalled upon reading their claims concerning it. 2800 YBP unmistakably corresponds to the kingdom of Dm't in 800 B.C... There are many points that they miss in trying to address the complexity of that situation, namely the contrast in epigraphy, showing south Arabian inscriptions (which is why there's no doubt that there WAS a south Arabian presence), while royal inscriptions showed characters that were seemingly ancestral to Ge'ez and different than the south Arabian inscriptions. Can they address how such a rapid evolution/divergence can occur? Is that what they mean by "rapid diversification"? In this case, such a diversity was present at the onset of their dating, so how do they explain that?
As Yom notes, these Semitic migrants were trader colonies likely only there for a few decades.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proto means first. Ancestral means prior to. The authors are quite clear. For them, Semitic is not continental African.
As far as I can make out from the report, they're saying Semitic arose in the Levant from undefined proto-Afrisan that was current in Africa.
While in Africa proto-Afrasan never coalesced into Semitic Semitic never coalesced in Africa from proto-Afrisan as did Cushitic, Omotic, Egyptic, Chadic, and aMazight; at least as according to the report's authors.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But what is "ancestral Semitic" and where does it originate? If ancestral semitic is not a language from Africa related to Afro Asiatic, then what of Afro Asiatic? Either Semitic is a form of Afro Asiatic with an ancestral origin in Africa or it is not.
Saying that Akkadian is therefore the first "Semitic" language, while ignoring that proto-Semitic may quite likely have arisen in Africa is to play games of Semantics. The child cannot come before the parent.
quote: The Semitic Urheimat is suggested by some to be in the Middle East; more specifically, Kienast (2001) advocates the Arabian peninsula. The East and West Semitic branches spread to Mesopotamia and the Levant during the Bronze Age, while South Semitic speakers migrated to Africa before the 8th century BC (see Dʿmt) via the Yemen gap. This is also supported by the presence of nouns in proto Semitic that seemingly make an African orign for the language impossible - ice, oak, horse and camel.The camel and horse did not arrive in Africa until nearly two thousand years after Semitic languages were being written in the Mesopotamia area.
Other people suggest Syria/Mesopotamia as the homeland for proto Semitic, due to the flora and fauna described by it, which include oak, pistachio and almond trees and the horse. The presence of ice and four different words for hill also suggest a colder more mountainous area than Arabia. Eblaite, one of the oldest Semitic languages, when deciphered had almost no non Afro Asiatic nouns in its lexicon, sugesting a very long presence in the Syria area. Bitumen and Naptha were also well known and have root words, and these are resources not found in Africa or Arabia, but commonly in the Northern parts of the Levant.
Yet others believe that the first prehistoric speakers of the ancestral Proto-Semitic language came from Africa. In historic times, the Semitic languages spread throughout the region via migrations from Arabia that displaced and subjugated the local populations. This alternative scenario makes Ethiopia the Proto-Semitic homeland[1].
Since Semitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the question of the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland is a related debate.
More recently, Juris Zarins has suggested that the development of a Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex of cultures developed in the period of the 6,200 BCE climatic crisis, stretching from Southern Palestine down the Red Sea shoreline, and northeastward into Syria and Iraq, spread Proto-Semitic languages through the region[2]. This complex may have developed from the fusion of Harifian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultures in Southern Palestine. As Harifian used the Outacha retouch point technique found earlier in the Fayyum, it has been suggested that Proto-Semitic may have come from Egypt across the Sinai. Given the fact that Semitic is most closely related to the Ancient Egyptian language of all the Afro-Asiatic languages, this origin is also distinctly possible.
Such a treatment of Semitic and Proto Semitic as not being derived from Africa would to me make them NOT part of the Afro Asiatic family if one takes this to its most logical conclusion. Otherwise one would have to explain the age of Afro Asiatic languages in Africa that are ancestral to Semitic.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: We estimate that Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant.....
Evergreen Writes: What is of interest is that this is the same time frame that Upper Egyptian Naqada rulers colonize SW "Canaan".
Evergreen Writes: I have conversed with Dr. Kitchen about this and he agrees that this is a plausable scenario and a reference for future research. And this would make sense in that many of the fundemental elements of Semitic culture derive from NE Africa. The Judeao-Christian religions evolved from Nile Valley sources.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to be sure I understand this. Kitchen says it's plausable but so far he himself doesn't promote it pending future research. Is that right?
Tell me if I'm wrong. What I'm getting from the juxtaposition is that when Naqada colonized Canaan they imported the undifferentiated Afrisan that would birth Levantine Semitic? Is that right?
If so, you've uncovered precisely who implanted the parent of Semitic if not Semitic itself. Which do you hold to, ancestral Semitic or proto- Semitic as the transplant?
Not to pester, but how would you go about about positively identifying the language Naqada spoke or the language spoken by the people Naqada sent to colonize Canaan? If you're saving the answer until you hard copy publish it, I'll understand.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The study is saying that, for Africa, both Semitic and "indigenous complex societies" result from "South Arabian influence" without much accompanying gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula.
Now what could presumably cause such a language shift that came to yield a greater diversity in Ethiopia than in the Arabian Peninsula.
Are these authors (Chris Ehret included) insinuating that Arabs ran amok in Eritrea and Ethiopia subjecting the people who tried their best to speak the language of the outlanders but unable to do so wound up speaking numerous 'dialects' simulating their bosses?
Hmm. On closer scrutiny though, they do state explicitly that these societies were indigenous, albeit with South Arabian "influence" (however this is defined and to what degree). Not really different from the interpretations of Stuart Munro-Hay.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they're saying the indigenees had nothing until influenced by foreigners. Same old colonialist story of bringing light to the natives, even the very gift of speech.
Just seems like guarded language for "light out of Asia" to me.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. I am not bitching. You should realized by now I DO NOT have an inferiority complex. 2. I can face the truth 3. I am NOT complaining or bitching 4. It is the most stratergic thing for them to do. They lost the Nordic AE war. To promote their racist ways against us to had to go to their proven method. DIVIDE!! It is that simple.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: xyyman wrote:
Here we go again. It keeps coming. . .and coming.
Isn't that what your mindless ass wanted? Why are you bitching and complaining? You said that is their best course of action.
How old are you? Hard to believe that a grown man could be as dumb as you.
Enjoy your evening retard.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now Argie - -what are YOU doing about it. Are you "strapped"?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naw, I pretty much agree with you al-Takuri. I'm just a bit taken back by the fact that Ehret is used to support these kind of implications and apparently co-signs it. They seem to overemphasize said influence while not exploring what it is that influence consisted of as they let the imagination of the reader run wild. Sick stuff.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did they get to Ehret or did he wake up and realize he's got vested interest in Hamitic/dark white/caucasoid NE Africa thing. Hey, it costs to keep up the mortgage, clothe the wife, college fund the kids, and bling the mistress!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Proto means first. Ancestral means prior to. The authors are quite clear. For them, Semitic is not continental African.
As far as I can make out from the report, they're saying Semitic arose in the Levant from undefined proto-Afrisan that was current in Africa.
While in Africa proto-Afrasan never coalesced into Semitic Semitic never coalesced in Africa from proto-Afrisan as did Cushitic, Omotic, Egyptic, Chadic, and aMazight; at least as according to the report's authors.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But what is "ancestral Semitic" and where does it originate? If ancestral semitic is not a language from Africa related to Afro Asiatic, then what of Afro Asiatic? Either Semitic is a form of Afro Asiatic with an ancestral origin in Africa or it is not.
Saying that Akkadian is therefore the first "Semitic" language, while ignoring that proto-Semitic may quite likely have arisen in Africa is to play games of Semantics. The child cannot come before the parent.
quote: The Semitic Urheimat is suggested by some to be in the Middle East; more specifically, Kienast (2001) advocates the Arabian peninsula. The East and West Semitic branches spread to Mesopotamia and the Levant during the Bronze Age, while South Semitic speakers migrated to Africa before the 8th century BC (see Dʿmt) via the Yemen gap. This is also supported by the presence of nouns in proto Semitic that seemingly make an African orign for the language impossible - ice, oak, horse and camel.The camel and horse did not arrive in Africa until nearly two thousand years after Semitic languages were being written in the Mesopotamia area.
Other people suggest Syria/Mesopotamia as the homeland for proto Semitic, due to the flora and fauna described by it, which include oak, pistachio and almond trees and the horse. The presence of ice and four different words for hill also suggest a colder more mountainous area than Arabia. Eblaite, one of the oldest Semitic languages, when deciphered had almost no non Afro Asiatic nouns in its lexicon, sugesting a very long presence in the Syria area. Bitumen and Naptha were also well known and have root words, and these are resources not found in Africa or Arabia, but commonly in the Northern parts of the Levant.
Yet others believe that the first prehistoric speakers of the ancestral Proto-Semitic language came from Africa. In historic times, the Semitic languages spread throughout the region via migrations from Arabia that displaced and subjugated the local populations. This alternative scenario makes Ethiopia the Proto-Semitic homeland[1].
Since Semitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the question of the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland is a related debate.
More recently, Juris Zarins has suggested that the development of a Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex of cultures developed in the period of the 6,200 BCE climatic crisis, stretching from Southern Palestine down the Red Sea shoreline, and northeastward into Syria and Iraq, spread Proto-Semitic languages through the region[2]. This complex may have developed from the fusion of Harifian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultures in Southern Palestine. As Harifian used the Outacha retouch point technique found earlier in the Fayyum, it has been suggested that Proto-Semitic may have come from Egypt across the Sinai. Given the fact that Semitic is most closely related to the Ancient Egyptian language of all the Afro-Asiatic languages, this origin is also distinctly possible.
Such a treatment of Semitic and Proto Semitic as not being derived from Africa would to me make them NOT part of the Afro Asiatic family if one takes this to its most logical conclusion. Otherwise one would have to explain the age of Afro Asiatic languages in Africa that are ancestral to Semitic.
The point is that the next logical conclusion according to this line of reasoning is that Afro Asiatic did not originate in Africa. Which does not make any sense. Therefore to me the only way to proceed without having to make up some very convoluted logic to explain the ancient Nile Valley linguistic patterns, is to make Semitic separate from proto-Afro Asiatic. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.
The primary issue here seems to be lack of written evidence for the languages spoken in Ethiopia 5,000 years ago and hence the need to rely on "hypothetical" reconstructions based on those cultures with written languages and other "hypothetical" markers like ancient DNA dispersal. Therefore the Akkadians and later Sabean cultures with their written forms seem to provide the basis for such identifications of Semitic as Levantine. However, written evidence can not always describe or identify the extent and age of languages that are purely spoken and not written.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I seeing correctly: that we should put Ehret in the same insidious Eurocentric bag as Yurco? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The study is saying that, for Africa, both Semitic and "indigenous complex societies" result from "South Arabian influence"
Evergreen Writes: Can you please provide a direct quote from the study to support this assertion.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK.. I've e-mailed Dr. Kitchen and got a reply which should clear up some of the confusion. Some of the discussion that includes private information will of course be blanked out:
quote:
ME:
Hello Dr. Kitchen. My name is **** and I'm currently a student at ****. My area of interest is eastern Africa and as such I try and stay privy to any new revelations within the field. Just recently I came across a thought-provoking study of yours in conjunction with Christopher Ehret (whose work I'm very well acquainted with) and others about the origins of the Semitic language family. Not to take up too much of your time, I will get to the point.
[****]..Based mainly on the work of Stuart Munro-Hay, Jacqueline Pirenne, Fattovich, Schneider, A.J. Drewes, etc., the premise was that the older scholarship (namely that promoted by the earlier work of Conti Rossini) had been superseded by more robust interpretations. Reading your paper however, I get the impression that the indigenous peoples of Ethiopia are being undermined by Kitchen et al. view on the complexity of state development. Not questioning your dating, but how do we explain the royal inscriptions dating to the same period (800 BCE) as reported by A.J. Drewes (1962) and cited recently by Pankhurst, that are clearly ancestral to Ge'ez, leading others like Stefan Weninger to conclude that Ge'ez doesn't necessarily derive from or at least coincide with South Arabian migrants circa 800 BCE? What does "rapid diversification" entail?
Given this and even if this is to be disregarded, I was wondering what your paper means when it is stated that (and I'm paraphrasing) the first complex societies in the region coincide with Arabian influence. Why is this noteworthy to mention? To some this implies that the Ethiopians (albeit you mentioned the word "indigenous") didn't have dominant control over their own state development as if it depended on such influence. I may be reading into that but the paper left such open to imagination (as it wasn't explored). Anyways, assuming that you read this, thanx for your time and I respect your work.
.........................
Dear ****,
Thank you for writing--your interest in African linguistics is most welcome.
Indeed, you are correct that Conti Rossini's work has been superseded by scholarship suggesting that urban cultures in the Horn are not simply transplanted versions of Arabian culture. We certainly did not mean to try to re-wind the clock in that regard. Rather, our analysis of the linguistic data--in which we did not impose and constraints on the time to most recent common ancestor of Ethiosemitic--suggests that these languages originated in a (large) interval of time during which both urbanization (which is itself means different things to different scholars) and Arabian influences were occurring. It bears mentioning because it is entirely reasonable that the two (urbanization/state formation and Arabian contacts) may have been related, and it does not directly follow--and I hope we did not imply in our writing--that urbanization and state-building in the Horn were dependent upon Arabian contacts. Rather, it is possible that indigenous developments (such as a strong state with its own foreign policy or a diffuse state with wide-ranging merchants operating from urban enclaves in the Horn) prompted or provoked Arabian contacts. So, simply mentioning the confluence of language, urbanization/state development, and Arabian contacts does not necessarily lead to the primacy of one over the others.
On the other hand, our analysis does suggest that Semitic did not originate in Africa, but rather in the Near East / Levant, implying that Ethiosemitic was likely brought to the Horn at some point of time. Since this appears to have occurred with a minimum of gene flow, it is entirely likely that the inhabitants of the Horn adopted Semitic "on their terms" and to their advantage (I'm speculating). Either way, it appears that Semitic was brought to the Horn in some way.
In the end, it is unclear how Ethiosemitic, the development of the first states (such as D'mt) and highly urbanized societies, and substantial Arabian influences are related to one another, much less a chain of causality. This is a very interesting area of research, and I wish you the best of luck pursuing it!
Once again, thank you for your interest.
Best wishes, Drew Kitchen
Given the above, I pretty much retract my earlier criticism and apologize for misinterpreting.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm whatever happened to Semitic being spoken in the horn 'PRIOR to 2000 B.C.'
I believe i read that from Ehret himself.
I also noticed that they had an Ethiopian working on the Paper : Shiferaw Assefa
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my personal analysis disecting the quotes I've given since first posting my comments on the report. But anyway once again here's the heart of it:
For me it's easy enough to read between the lines and unravel the barely veiled euphemisms. Plainly the report says "indigenous" "development" of "complex societies" didn't happen until "the introduction of [] Ethiosemitic" from a place where it did not exist, "South Arabia[]."
I have to wonder how Arabian influence introduced a language "early Ethiosemitic," that was never present in Arabia.
And indeed this is just what the authors posit. No?
The purpose of this report is to counter the hypothesis of African origns for Semitic and to further show that Semitic was introduced to Africa lastly after every other of its lects appeared in 'Asia.'
The Light out of Asia concept of the 19th century wrapped up inbright fresh 21st century language, that's all.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The study is saying that, for Africa, both Semitic and "indigenous complex societies" result from "South Arabian influence"
Evergreen Writes: Can you please provide a direct quote from the study to support this assertion.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^So what do you think of the e-mail correspondence that I've posted above? Did he clarify anything for you?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^So what do you think of the e-mail correspondence that I've posted above? Did he clarify anything for you?
Evergreen Writes: Sundjata - good job reaching out to Dr. Kitchen on this. We want to move from hyper-sensitivity to a more scientific approach. This study is progressive and provides more data on the dating of the Afro-Asiatic languages.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nothing hypersensitive about dissecting and independently analyzing a report. It's what we do here. Disagreeing with my opinion is fine but in cases where you agree with other's deconstructive critiques there's no attempt to equate it to emotion rather than rational analysis.
I stand by what I wrote. Show me where my conclusions do not follow the science of logic and dialectic.
Perhaps hypersensitivity emits from you in taking my critique as an affront to yourself since you posted the report. I assure you that is not my intent and have credited you for pointing out Naqada as responsible for carrying some Afrisan lect to the Levant where it became Semitic.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what is being communicated is that your postmodern "deconstructive critiques" is blinded by your hyper-sensitivity for your unscientifically constructed tribal history. The purpose of the study was to trace the evolution of language, not imply an importation of complex civilisation into the Horn from Asia.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, since there was a minimum of gene flow how did it come that pre-Axumites wholesale abandoned their own language for that of a handful of foreigners and on top of that come off with a plethora of languages based on one introduced by foreigners who themselves did not speak any such language parental to the Ethiosemitic branch?
For sure an interesting area for further researchers attention.
Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.
What do statistics tell us about the *specific* root terms [for Ethiosemitic] that coincided with this acculturation process, which the given date above places at about 800 BC or so.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is my personal analysis disecting the quotes I've given since first posting my comments on the report. But anyway once again here's the heart of it:
For me it's easy enough to read between the lines and unravel the barely veiled euphemisms. Plainly the report says "indigenous" "development" of "complex societies" didn't happen until "the introduction of [] Ethiosemitic" from a place where it did not exist, "South Arabia[]."
I have to wonder how Arabian influence introduced a language "early Ethiosemitic," that was never present in Arabia.
Agreed.
They [in the citation above] don't explicitly claim an Arabian origin for "some of the first" "Aksumite or pre-Aksumite" "indigenous societies", but if not then what then explains such a change in tongues?
It's not far-fetched to argue their "Arabian influence" scenario works more smoothly if such influence is the spark or a spark of the development of aforesaid early complex societies and not just an effect of the development.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was on the lookout to see if somebody picked up on something about the above mentioned date.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, seeing that the red sea was an ancient route of interaction between Africa and Arabia, what of the process of urbanization laid out by Fattowich, which describes many ties among populations on both sides of the Red Sea going back thousands of years B.C.?
If anything this period and course of interaction was probably an ancient source of if not semitic language transfer, most surely proto Afro-Asiatic linguistic transfer from the Nile and Africa into Arabia and the Levant along with a more northern route out of Africa.
But even with the possibility of Semitic not being African in origin, the fact is that among these 'oldest' urban cultures and literary traditions were those of the Nile Valley which also was very influential on the development of the first major religions, which are not as ancient as the earliest urban centers or literary traditions.
And none of this changes the fact that much of our modern written language is not derived from semitic but derived from Sinaitic which is derived from ancient Egyptian.
So the role of African language and writing on the development of language and writing is still not changed in any real sense. No modern written alphabet is derived from ancient scripts of the Akkadians.
The earliest South Arabian scripts are found in Eritrea and those scripts are again derived from Proto-Sinaitic, at least given current thinking. So even if the spoken form of Semitic originates in the Northern Levant, the written form still originates in Africa and between Africa and Arabia. South Arabian became the basis of the North Arabian script, again according to current thinking.
quote: The ancient South Arabian alphabet (also known as musnad المُسند) branched from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet in about the 9th century BC. It was used for writing the Yemeni Old South Arabic languages of the Sabaean, Qatabanian, Hadrami (Ḥaḍramī), Minaean, Himyarite, and proto-Ge'ez (or proto-Ethiosemitic) in Dʿmt. The earliest inscriptions in the alphabet date to the 9th century BC in Akkele Guzay, Eritrea[1] and in the 8th century BC, found in Babylonia and in Yemen. Its mature form was reached around 500 BC, and its use continued until the 7th century AD, including Old North Arabian inscriptions in variants of the alphabet, when it was displaced by the Arabic alphabet. In Ethiopia it evolved later into the Ge'ez alphabet, which, with added symbols throughout the centuries, has been used to write Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre, as well as other languages (including various Semitic, Cushitic, and Nilo-Saharan languages).
So not only do you have the greatest diversity of semitic languages in the horn but also some of the earliest inscriptions of the South Arabian "semitic" languages, which themselves derive from the Nile Valley.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Hmm whatever happened to Semitic being spoken in the horn 'PRIOR to 2000 B.C.'
I believe i read that from Ehret himself.
I also noticed that they had an Ethiopian working on the Paper : Shiferaw Assefa
Evergreen Writes: It's called new information.
So true. I guess this is the first time that I have seen a date REDUCED due to "New Information" - Usually I am used to dates being increased due to new research and new findings. What prompted the idea or where was the proof that Semitic was being spoken in the Horn prior to 2000 BC anyway? How can new information reduce a date by almost 1500 years?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They don't seem to be too rigid concerning that date (800 BCE).. At least according to his reply to my inquiry.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say they are going by written sources, which means that it is near impossible to say what languages were spoken when without any written sources to analyze. Hence, since writing is one of the 'hallmarks' of civilization, it only makes sense that the advent of writing would be seen as the marker for expansion of a certain language. Hence the confluence of civilization and language expansion. However, none of this is necessarily accurate, because the remaining question is what languages were spoken in the Horn of Africa prior to Semitic?
Bayesian analysis is a method of theoretical reconstruction of tree like forms based on data input to an algorithm. The more data, the better the results.
quote: Bayesian inference in phylogeny generates a posterior distribution for a parameter, composed of a phylogenetic tree and a model of evolution, based on the prior for that parameter and the likelihood of the data, generated by a multiple alignment. The Bayesian approach has become more popular due to advances in computational machinery, especially, Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms. Bayesian inference has a number of applications in molecular phylogenetics, for example, estimation of species phylogeny and species divergence times.
quote: We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic).
Therefore I would argue that this study only reflects a bias towards cultures with written traditions from the time period as opposed to a serious understanding of language distribution during a time period when many languages were not written down. Which makes sense as algorithms are only as good as the data you give it and therefore, since most of the data is from written inscriptions, it only makes sense that it would tend to produce results that favor these cultures.
This is totally different from analysis based on existing languages, their diversity and estimates of divergence based on differences between existing and ancient languages.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may be relevant (though I need to be taught why Ogaden Arabic is an African Semitic language while Moroccan Arabic is a non-African Semitic language.
and 9 non-African Semitic languages [(Gelb et al. 1956; Leslau 1938; Rabin 1975; Sobelman & Harrel 1963)] * Akkadian * Moroccan Arabic * Biblical Aramaic * Jibbali * Harsusi * ancient Hebrew * Mehri * Soqotri * Ugaritic
gathered from previously published dictionaries and lexicons. Missing data and previously eliminated loanwords are indicated by ‘---‘. Loanwords identified in this study are highlighted in yellow.
=== For multistate and binary cognate lists of the listed words go here. Download everything now while it's free, everybody!
.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:
Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.
What do statistics tell us about the *specific* root terms [for Ethiosemitic] that coincided with this acculturation process, which the given date above places at about 800 BC or so.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote: However, none of this is necessarily accurate, because the remaining question is what languages were spoken in the Horn of Africa prior to Semitic?
Duh, what do you think? Not all of Horn of Africa speak Semetic. So i guess it would be Cushitic since both of the families are spoken by genetically same people. Btw i don't see anything remarkable being revealed on this paper, the only indigenous Afrasian languages in Africa are Berber, Cushitic, Chadic and Egyptic all semetic languages in Africa are Import, derived from some early African Afrasian language but developed in it's own form and sub-families in the Near East.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Agreed.. That was an unusual question Doug. Even the old colonialist theories proposed a "rapid" migration of Semitic-speakers coinciding with the displacement of aboriginal Cushitic-speakers in Ethiopia (who are not shown to have come from else where and by extension, neither have the Semitic-speakers).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic