The Middle/Near East is frequently conceived of and taught as "white" or "Asian" in the United States, but I would like to know whether there are commonaties besides Afrisan languages that can be observed between the Middle East and Africa. I know that language does not equal ethnicity, and that the "one-drop" rule is limited to the United States. But if the Afrisan speakers originated in East Africa and then spread into the "Middle East," then they must have carried with them cultural features beyond language that would make the "Middle East" culturally as much a part of Africa as Asia, if not more so. Also, have any genetic studies determined a link between this area and East Africa? In terms of history, when do the first people enter the Middle East, and when do Afrisan speakers enter it? Who introduces agriculture and other features that make people think that the "Near East" saw the birth of civilization?
Al Takruri, you might be particularly helpful with this, but I would welcome answers from everyone.
Thanks.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
People are thinking linearly in regards to time and considering the millenial span between the neolithic and the bronze & iron ages.
Though the NRY J and mtDNA M&N first bearers are obviously only geographically one step from continental Africa, many suppose they were other than African phenotypically (an impossibility).
People look at the familiar faces from the region as shown by the media and never see all the faces on the back streets and non-urban areas which more than likely resemble the original indigenees even before E3b bearers introduced Afrisan and the beginnings of neolithic industries.
It was the good life Afrisan speakers initiated and the indigenees nurtured that made the place a magnet for immigrants to cross the Daryal Gorge to infuse themselves in SWANEA. And Indo-European speakers continued to migrate in whatever numbers especially in Roman Byzantine and Crusader eras. Not to count the sexual slave trade (particularly in Circassian females) with the rise of Islam.
Sorry to butt in before others make more substantial and detailed posts zeroing in on the heart of your questions.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
And then looking at the origins of Afrasian and its dispersal into Asia second.
And then lastly evaluating the identity and history of the so-called 'Arab' peoples.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Poor place to start, unless you're a Coonian anthropology booster and Arab basher to boot. Surely some page exists without all the baggage bred from subjective sociology and personal anecdote that discolors and biases what little science that actually is presented.
^ You're right about the flaws in that source. I forgot to point that out myself.
Of course the Coonian stuff not withstanding I take a little bit of the finds considering Paleolithic OOA migrations.
I'm not at my home pc so I don't have the other more accurate sources, especially the ones showing several other waves of OOA migration into Arabia.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Something worth considering in regards to Afrisan:
quote: The date of ancestral Afro-Asiatic is likely to be as much as 15,000 BP and possibly more (Ehret, 1979, 1984, personal communication; Fleming, 1974, personal communication). Conservative estimates place the date at 12,000 BP. There is no archaeological evidence for agriculture in Africa, Europe, or Asia consonant with these dates. More important, reconstruction of ancestral Afro-Asiatic (irrespective of its date) using all of the family’s members does not reveal terms for plant or animal domestication (Ehret, 1979, 1984, 1995, personal communication). In other words, speakers of Common or proto-Afro-Asiatic cannot be shown to have been food producers but were apparently intensive users of wild grasses. The dates and reconstructions fit with the archaeological findings of intensive plant use in the upper NileValley (see Wetterstrom, 1993).
The evidence is also consistent with Africa being Afro-Asiatic’s place of historical differentiation and source of spread (see Bender, 1975; Blench, 1993; Diakonoff, 1981; Ehret, 1984; Greenberg, 1966, 1973; Ruhlen, 1991). The location of ancestral Afro-Asiatic was likely in the northeast quadrant of Africa, in or near the Horn, but also possibly the Sahara, based on the principles of greatest diversity and least moves (cf. Bender, 1975; Ehret, 1984; Nichols, 1997). Five of the six branches of this family are only found in Africa (Omotic, ancient Egyptian, Chadic, Cushitic, and Berber). Semitic alone is found in Asia (Diakonoff, 1981; Greenberg, 1973). Omotic, found only in Ethiopia, has characteristics likely to be relatively similar to those in ancestral Afro-Asiatic. At a time before postulated movement into Africa (of a Nostratic branch), there is evidence for substantial movement out of Africa, specifically the northern Nile Valley, into the Levant (Bar-Yosef, 1987). (This archaeological “signal” may connote the movement of preproto- Semitic speakers into the Near East; however, caution is in order when looking for such correspondences.)
S. O. Y. KEITA EARLY NILE VALLEY FARMERS FROM EL-BADARI: Aboriginals or “European”Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 36 No. 2, November 2005 pp 191-208 (above selection from pp203-204)
Bar-Yosef, O. (1987). Pleistocene connexions between Africa and southwest Asia. African Archaeological Review, 5, 29-30.
Bender,M. L. (1975). Omotic: A new Afro-Asiatic language family. Carbondale: University Museum, Southern Illinois University.
Blench, R. (1993). Recent developments in African language classification and their implications for prehistory. In T. Shaw, P. Sinclair,B. Andah, & A. Okpoko (Eds.), The archaeology of Africa (pp. 126-138). London: Routledge.
Diakonoff, I. M. (1981). Earliest Semites in Asia. Altorientalische Forschungen, 8, 23-74.
Ehret, C. (1979). On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia. Journal of African History, 20, 161-177.
Ehret, C. (1984). Historical/linguistic evidence for early African food production. In J. D. Clark & S. Brandt (Eds.), From hunters to farmers (pp. 26-36). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ehret, C. (1995). Reconstructing proto-Afroasiatic (proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fleming, H. (1974). Omotic as an Afroasiatic family. Studies in African Linguistics, 5(Suppl.), 81-94.
Greenberg, J. (1966). The languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1973). African languages. In E. P. Skinner (Ed.), Peoples and cultures of Africa (pp. 34-58). Garden City, NY: Doubleday Natural History Press.
Nichols, J. (1997). Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 359-384.
Ruhlen, M. (1991). A guide to the world’s languages. Volume 1. Classification. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wetterstrom, W. (1993). Foraging and farming in Egypt, the transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture in the Nile Valley. In T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah, & A. Okpoko (Eds.), The archaeology of Africa (pp. 165-226). New York: Routledge.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Who introduces agriculture and other features that make people think that the "Near East" saw the birth of civilization?
It seems that the introduction of Afro-Asiatic languages in the Levant precede farming, and that neolithic revolutions in the Nile Valley, Ethiopia and the Levant are all independent. However it seems that early farming occurred in the Nile Valley before it appeared in the Levant:
Prof. Fred Wendorf and Dr. Romuald Schild, of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University, have evidence of early agriculture in Upper Paleolithic times at Wadi Kubbaniya, on the Kom Ombos plateau, of Egypt, including a mortar and pestle, grinding stones, several harvesting implements and charred wheat and barley grains - which may have been introduced from outside the region. Carbon-14 dates range from 15,000 to 16,300 BC, showing that this early grain harvesting preceded that of the Middle East by about 5,000 years. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Even though the evidence from Wadi Kubbaniya, Tuska and other sites from the Nile Valley are older than those in the "Middle East", historians are slow to update the history books to reflect this. There have been many findings in the last 30 years in the Nile Valley which contradict MUCH of the scholarly and historical conclusions from the last FEW HUNDRED years and therefore it may take a while for the newest evidence to trickle out into the mainstream.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Who introduces agriculture and other features that make people think that the "Near East" saw the birth of civilization?
It seems that the introduction of Afro-Asiatic languages in the Levant precede farming, and that neolithic revolutions in the Nile Valley, Ethiopia and the Levant are all independent. However it seems that early farming occurred in the Nile Valley before it appeared in the Levant:
Prof. Fred Wendorf and Dr. Romuald Schild, of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University, have evidence of early agriculture in Upper Paleolithic times at Wadi Kubbaniya, on the Kom Ombos plateau, of Egypt, including a mortar and pestle, grinding stones, several harvesting implements and charred wheat and barley grains - which may have been introduced from outside the region. Carbon-14 dates range from 15,000 to 16,300 BC, showing that this early grain harvesting preceded that of the Middle East by about 5,000 years.
^ In order to circumvent this intriguing possibility, some ws.t scholars try to play games with definitions of sedantism, civilisation, writing, Neolithic, etc..
The goal is to make the definition of civilisation one that specifically matches up with whatever arbitrarily unique set of events occur in so called Mesopotamia. [another invented term that describes no nation and no people that ever existed]
This might seem to be manifestly contrived, but look at how much contrivance they routinely get away with.
The very comparison between Mesopotamia and Km.t [Egypt] is one-sided.
The one is a nation state - irrefutably the worlds oldest, with a specific origin/date and history.
The other is a 'culture region' defining nothing specific, and as a consequence it's hazy 'origin' can be driven back into remotest antiquity based on scant evidence.
This unequal comparison is tactical and instinctive on the part of ws.t scholars and no accident.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Excellent points noted.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Thank you all for the information. It is definitely true that textbooks and universities are slow and/or unwilling to keep up with current research. At the university I attend Mesopotamia is still taught as the origin of civilization, and in an Akkadian course I took, the professor stated on several occasions that Egyptian writing derives from Sumerian cuneiform.
I do not the following, however:
Prof. Fred Wendorf and Dr. Romuald Schild, of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University, have evidence of early agriculture in Upper Paleolithic times at Wadi Kubbaniya, on the Kom Ombos plateau, of Egypt, including a mortar and pestle, grinding stones, several harvesting implements and charred wheat and barley grains - which may have been introduced from outside the region. Carbon-14 dates range from 15,000 to 16,300 BC, showing that this early grain harvesting preceded that of the Middle East by about 5,000 years.
Why "may it hav e been introduced from outside the region"? Maybe further south in Africa, but one could derive the assumption that it may have been introduced from the "Middle East." Again, whenever something that confounds European racist mythology is discovered, researchers are quick to mention that this something could have been introduced from outside the region - because Africans apparently cannot come up with things by themselves. But whenever a fossil with African phenotype appears outside Africa, it is "negroid" - but not actually indicative of a "Negro." They play the same nonsense within Africa, e.g. Hamites. And when it comes to dates of artifacts and sites, they seem to give conservative estimates in Africa, whereas they are quick to point to pyramids in Europe.
Anyway, I hope I do not sound too paranoid or ignorant, and thank you all for the information. I would appreciate more though. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:charred wheat and barley grains - which may have been introduced from outside the region.
Depending on how you read it [it's poorly written], they may be referring to the crops themselves.
Many of the early domesticated crops of the early Nile Valley are not Native to Africa, whereas domesticated animals such as cattle are African in origin and may have been introduced into Europe from Africa/and SouthWest Asia.
Africa also has earlier sites for pottery than the Levantine, so it's possible that potting techniques were introduced into the Levantine from Africa, which may have helped usher in the "neolithic" in Eurasia.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:is definitely true that textbooks and universities are slow and/or unwilling to keep up with current research.
Especially when new research contradicts prior believe, which eventually deginerates into dogma.
'Mesopatamian cradle of civilisation'
'The Greek Miracle'
= Dogma.
The current concensus is that mdw ntr and cuniform were contemporaneous with unclear origins with respect to one another.
And Greek civilisation is no 'miracle'. It's built on the shoulders of African and SouthWest Asian civilisations which preceded it by several thousand years.
The phrase Greek miracle is itself revisionist history, invented by classicists to obscure the fact of African and Asian origins of "European" civilisation.
Rather than acknolwedge the Black mother, Eurocentrists invent and immaculate conception hypothesis.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: ... thank you all for the information. I would appreciate more though.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Thank you all for the information. It is definitely true that textbooks and universities are slow and/or unwilling to keep up with current research. At the university I attend Mesopotamia is still taught as the origin of civilization, and in an Akkadian course I took, the professor stated on several occasions that Egyptian writing derives from Sumerian cuneiform.
I do not the following, however:
Prof. Fred Wendorf and Dr. Romuald Schild, of the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University, have evidence of early agriculture in Upper Paleolithic times at Wadi Kubbaniya, on the Kom Ombos plateau, of Egypt, including a mortar and pestle, grinding stones, several harvesting implements and charred wheat and barley grains - which may have been introduced from outside the region. Carbon-14 dates range from 15,000 to 16,300 BC, showing that this early grain harvesting preceded that of the Middle East by about 5,000 years.
Why "may it hav e been introduced from outside the region"? Maybe further south in Africa, but one could derive the assumption that it may have been introduced from the "Middle East." Again, whenever something that confounds European racist mythology is discovered, researchers are quick to mention that this something could have been introduced from outside the region - because Africans apparently cannot come up with things by themselves. But whenever a fossil with African phenotype appears outside Africa, it is "negroid" - but not actually indicative of a "Negro." They play the same nonsense within Africa, e.g. Hamites. And when it comes to dates of artifacts and sites, they seem to give conservative estimates in Africa, whereas they are quick to point to pyramids in Europe.
Anyway, I hope I do not sound too paranoid or ignorant, and thank you all for the information. I would appreciate more though.
Actually it is an educated guess, or as rasol said, dogma. If the earliest grains of wheat and barley are found in the upper Nile Valley 15,000 years ago, then what makes it introduced from elsewhere? The question should be whether there were ancient strains of barley that were indigenous to parts of Africa at a very ancient time. Therefore, if this is an indigenous strain of barley, then no it could not have been introduced. If it is a non indigenous plant, then it must have been introduced, with the implication that this introduction took place as a result of a n earlier process of domestication elsewhere. But that is again problematic if these sites show evidence of such domestication long before anywhere else. Some would actually say that the origin of barley is debatable and was native to parts of Africa into the Levant and the "Fertile Crescent".
But, keep in mind that even with that, you must understand that hunter gatherer societies had been experimenting with many types of plants for food for many thousands if not millions of years. Therefore, by the time of 15,000 years ago, there was a wide variety of different types of plants that were known to be edible, but it seems that cereals and grains became the most common and most often used food source. Another important point to remember is that the grains were a supplement for meat and fish gathered as a result of hunting and fishing, which are equally as ancient as the gathering of wild plants. In ancient Egypt, you see that scenes of hunting, fishing AND agriculture are all portrayed on the walls of the tombs and temples, signifying the history and importance of all three aspects in the lifestyle of people in the Nile, in the rest of Africa and elsewhere.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
THE NATUFIAN IN THE LEVANT Anna Belfer-Cohen Institute of Archaeology HebrewU niversity, Mt. Scopus,J erusalem, 91905I Israel ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION The circumstances of the emergence of the Natufian are pertinent to the emergence of the succeeding Neolithic agricultural societies. If indeed we accept that much of what is considered Natufian on the basis of a common techno-typological lithic tradition actually represents more than one cultural complex, then it is possible to explain (at least regarding the Levant) the appearance of sedentism and farming and that of the complex Neolithic societies. It seems that such explanation would postulate that in the arid zones of the southern Levant, nomadic people were pursuing the traditional way of living, while other groups, living further away in the northern Levant, were practicing other subsistence strategies dictated by different climatic-geographical circumstances. In both these instances, the material cultures lack the unique cultural components found in the assemblages of a third contemporaneouse ntity, the Natufian of the Mediterraneans outhern Levant. The boundaries between these entities are not clearly outlined. Thus it is quite possible that following a budding-off process, which occurred in the core area during the Late Natufian, an originally northern group established itself in the Negev, reconciling its traditional way of life with the different, local circumstances and applying different logistics to the exploitation of the new macro-environment (43). Undoubtedly, the study of the issue of incipient agriculture and the appearance of agricultural societies will profit if we adhere to this tripartite division and reserve the term Natufian to the Mediterranean southern occurrences and their offshoots. Opinions vary about the origin and cultural evolution of the Natufian. The notion, originally advocated by Garrod (39, 40), of an intrusion from North Africa of an entity fully grown with no traceable roots in the past (40, p.212) was subsequently replaced by a general agreement that the Natufian was continuous with the local Levantine tradition (63) and evolved from the local Geometric Kebaran (6, 48). Recently it was suggested (43) that at least of its material components were derived from entities located outside the boundaries of the Natufian core area. Thus, the Hamrana, an entity defined in southern Jordan, was proposed (46) to have been the progenitor of the early Natufian. These claims are at the least problematic as (a) the Early Natufian at the suggested region lacks a considerable number of attributes, mainly nonlithic ones, characteristic of the Natufian in the core area; and (b) continuity is detectable between Early and Late Natufian in Transjordan. Climatic fluctuations were often suggested as the main triggering force for various changes observed in the Natufian (47, 48), yet the whole issue climatic changes and their possible impact on the evolution of the Natufian and on its nature--particularly on its patterns of subsistence and expansion-- is yet to be resolved. Several general trends can be observed regarding the climate at the end of the Pleistocene in the Levant: Temperatures were rising, and with the retreat of the glacial ice sheets, air circulation patterns changed worldwide, storm tracks began shifting northward until they reached their present day patterns, and sea level rose, inundating the coastal plain. While the northern Levant seems to have been less sensitive to changes in temperature and amount of rainfall, in the southern Levant small-scale climatic changes seem to have had significant effects. There is, however, considerable disagreement regarding the exact timing of these changes, their duration, and their possible effect on the distribution of plant communities. The main reason for this disagreement is the poor dating of most of the pollen columns comprising the main source for climatic interpretations in the Levant, which makes correlations between various local sequences difficult (23). A climatic reconstruction based on a pollen diagram from HayonimT errace (50), postulates a humid phase about 14,000 years ago followed by cold and dry conditions; these gave way at the beginning of the Natufian to mild and humid ones, which continued till the onset of drier conditions in the Late Natufian. Another climatic reconstruction (21) maintains that the climatic amelioration that began prior to 14,500 BP reached an optimum at about 10,000 BP .and persisted throughout the Natufian into the period of the early Neolithic cultures. Yet a third opinion (89) conceives of the Geometric Kebaran (at least towards its end) and the Early Natufian as periods of wet conditions replaced in the Late Natufian by dry conditions that persisted until the emergenceo f the Neolithic cultures. This notion is supported by recent pollen data (3), which confirm that about 17,000 years ago the cold period of the Late Glacial maximumw as followed in the southern Levant by a period of more humid conditions whose peak occurred about 11,500 years ago. In the northern Levant the cold period lasted until about 10,000 BP, and the peak of wet conditions occurred about 8,000 years ago (21). In accordance with all these climatic pictures, while most of the Kebaran sites were located in the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant, the succeeding Geometric Kebarans were able, owing to the climatic amelioration (42), to spread out into the neighboring desert areas and adapt to the local conditions. The desert sites are generally smaller and had most probably been occupied by smaller groups exercising a limited range of activities (mainly hunting). They were mobile, because limitations upon resources precluded prolonged exploitation of the sites’ immediate surroundings (43). Sites located north of the Negev are much larger and display evidence of complex activities (including elaborate burials; 54), richer material remains, and some indications of longer occupancya and larger nuclear groups. Though the desert sites are small, the total population of the Geometric Kebaran grew in comparison with its predecessors, as their Mediterranean sites were of the sames size as the previous, Kebaran ones. All in all the existence of the desert sites can indeed be interpreted as reflecting an increase in population size, related to additional or more easily available food resources. The same lithic material is recovered from both the north and the south, and sea-shells from the Mediterranean are recovered from the southernmost of Geometric Kebaran sites in Sinai (10). This can be taken as evidence that the desert groups retained their connections with their contemporaries in the north. An appropriate analogue to the above scenario is a tribe, spread over a large region, with all its clans or bands reconfirming their adherence to the tribal entity through seasonal or annual aggregations. These are held in locations with optimal conditions for ceremonial activities, matchmaking, and exchange of goods and information. The climatic amelioration in the semi-desert and desert regions of the southern Levant drew other nomadic groups--the Mushabians, of north African or eastern affinities--to the Negev and Sinai, and even to regions further north on the southern slopes of the Judean Hills (7, 8). Eventually, both cultural traditions influenced each other (thus the Mushabians were using the microburin technique to produce microliths similar to those of the Geometric Kebarans). According to ~4C dates, the coexistence of these two cultural traditions lasted for 1000-1500y ears. After this period the Geometric Kebarans disappeared from the Negev and Sinai while Mushabian habitation of the semiarid regions went on (43). The Geometric Kebarans may have been pushed back into the Mediterranean zone following intensive competition with Mushabian groups that had arrived in the arid areas of the Negev from regions with similar phytogeographical conditions and were therefore better adapted to life in the desert. The southern Geometric Kebaran populations joined their macro-bands in the Mediterranean belt, and this inflated population put heavier pressure on available resources. The need to cope, facing this increased population, generated various transformations that eventually gave rise to a new cultural entity--the Natufian. This may have been a continuous process, involving desert groups moving north during the dry seasons, reentering the Mediterranean zone (just like the Beduins in the last century). Each year additional groups, having come to the north for the yearly aggregation events, may have decided to remain there because conditions in the south were not tempting enough to draw them back. The northern Geometric Kebarans assimilated their Negev counterparts while exploiting new food resources, improving exploitation of familiar ones, and reorganizing their society.They seem to have made use of passive knowledge, which may have been acquired accidentally and effortlessly in the past, through sheer curiosity--a primary motivational force in all primates (8). Application of this knowledge was a necessity rather than a choice, because it certainly required investment of energy and changes of familiar habits. Apparently, some adaptive mechanisms developed by the Mediterranean- zone Geometric Kebarans played an important role in the establishment of the new socioeconomic system. Thus a subsistence behavior based on small territories and on the existence of base camps in specific locations was necessarily adjusted to the spatial concept of this enlarged population. The use of pounding and grinding stones, the exploitation of legumes and cereals, the existence of bone tools testifying to the knowledge of basketry (possibly an improvedm eansf or carrying and storing food), and the employment of broad spectrum subsistence tactics (35, 52, 62) contributed towards adjustment the new social patterns. Most probably population increase within small territories led to a corresponding increase in the size of Natufian base camps and to a decrease in mobility. Evidence for this is diverse. Changes appear in patterns of raw material exploitation (see above); an observed techno-typological variability may be interpreted as reflecting merging of flint knapping traditions (this, for example explains the presence of the microburin technique in certain sites and its absence from others). It is noteworthy that this diversity decreases with time, and the Late Natufian exhibits a higher level of technological uniformity. For the first time in the Levantine record, artistic manifestations appear on a large scale, thus reflecting intensified pressures resulting from the tight interaction within various social groups (13). For example, an abundance personal decorations, displaying great intergroup variability, is similarly significant with respect to these complex social dynamics (79). Ordered graveyards, similar to those encountered later on in the sedentary, farming Neolithic societies, may also testify to sedentism and territoriality. Permanent storage facilities and increasing quantities of food refuse would attract rodents, birds, and scavengers. This may explain the appearance of domesticated wolves (dogs) in base camps, buried together with their masters (31, 88). Continuous broad-spectrum exploitation, which became essential for feeding large and relatively stable groups, exerted pressure on game populations, leading to depletion and extinction of the scarcer species. This intensive exploitation pattern is reflected also through morphological changes in the gazelle, as the depletion of its gene pool caused dwarfism( 28, 30). The consumptiono f cereals and pulses is indicated by attrition and caries found in Natufian teeth from most sites (76). Recent work carried out by Unger- Hamilton (84, 85) supports earlier contentions that the particular sheen sickle blades resulted from cereals harvesting. Although harvesting by beating gives the highest yield per unit of time and demands much less effort, harvesting by sickles apparently maximizes the yield per unit of area (51). This calculation is in accord with Natufian territoriality and its patterns of intensive exploitation. The need to exploit to the utmost their limited-size "fields" drove the Natufians to maximizee nergy returns per unit area, instead of maximizingre turns per unit of time spent in harvesting and travel. Moreover, according to Hillman & Davies (51), harvesting by sickles led domestication of wild-type crops. It is important to note that in the "Natufian" assemblages from the northern Levant sickle blades are rare or nonexistent (23, 66). Apparently, the domestication process could occur rather rapidly-- within no more than two centuries--which implies that the "Agricultural Revolution" may have taken place during the Natufian period and that the Natufians may have been the first farmers in the Levant (A. Belfer-Cohen, in preparation). The Natufian economicin frastructure reflects the need to confront certain stress conditions. However, data derived from Natufian skeletons indicate good health and balanced physical conditions within the population (16, 77). This is additional indirect evidence that it was not famine which drove the Natufians to take the drastic measurese ntailed in vast economicc hange, since a society cannot afford experimentation in times of stress. Rather it was the need to accommodate more people. CONCLUSIONS The success of the Natufian led to its demise. The short duration of the Natufian phenomenonan d its replacement by the Neolithic cultures suggest that the unique characteristics of the Natufian created an uncontrolled momentum. Thus, Natufian populations not only did not starve, but flourished and kept growing. This population growth presumably led (at least in the Mediterranean zone) to a growing sense of proprietorship of land, especially so with the growing dependence on cultivated plants. Sedentism brought about many changes in settlement patterns, including greater investment of energy and resources in habitation structures and storage facilities. Under such conditions of population pressure, when each group defends its territory and strives to differentiate itself from its neighbors, the need for group identity increases and encourages the appearance of unique characteristics in each social group. As more and more people are forced to live in close proximity to one another, the establishment of strong institutional mechanisms becomesin evitable in order to prevent anarchy and to control emotional behavior and information exchange within the group. The strengthening of all these trends culminated in the appearance of a new cultural entity--the Neolithic Complex. I invite the posters in this thread to comment on this extract from an article, I can post the whole article if you want...It seems that the Levant Neolithic revolution is a little bit connected with North East Africans...especially when an Africanist scholar writes the following:
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Unfortunately archeology and linguistic are not as precise as genetics, and a serious scientist can only talk in the realm of possibilities based on the information posted...but if someone has more data, he's welcome.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Though the NRY J and mtDNA M&N first bearers are obviously only geographically one step from continental Africa, many suppose they were other than African phenotypically (an impossibility).
People look at the familiar faces from the region as shown by the media and never see all the faces on the back streets and non-urban areas which more than likely resemble the original indigenees even before E3b bearers introduced Afrisan and the beginnings of neolithic industries.
It was the good life Afrisan speakers initiated and the indigenees nurtured that made the place a magnet for immigrants to cross the Daryal Gorge to infuse themselves in SWANEA.
quote:
What was the phenotype of the earliest inhabitants, or indigenees, of the "Near East"? I think there is a thread on "when did whites enter the Middle East?" - I will have to check up on that. Did the lighter-skinned peoples who through admixture with the indigenees created the modern relatively pale look that people commonly associate with the Middle East enter during Indo-European colonization or invasion? Are there any pictures on the web of peoples excised from mainstream media because they do not conform to the phenotype that Europeans like to associate with the earliest Middle Easterners, i.e., pale-skinned peoples?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Wrong thread you better check the thread you mentioned...by the way Arab from the peninsula don't look like your regular leucoderm, they don't even look like North Africans from the Maghreb(who are more leucoderm and can often look like your typical Southern European especially in the North), they look like a mix of Indians, (Broad Faced Africans) Bantu African, and Central Asian...real mulatto...I have some friends from the Maghreb who describe Saudi as son of Indians because of their look, however they say that the Yemeni are the purest Arabs, but I think it's just the phenotype that make them uncomfortable with Saudi. But I'm not sure about the fact that Yemeni and Saudi are that different. Typical Arab from the Gulf: Although the King of Jordan is from the Levant he wouldn't look out of place in Ryadh with his broad faced bantu looking face.
I think people here simplify things...in Africa people look more at the features than the skin...so your so called "White Arab" can just be viewed like a mulatto from an African perspective because of his mixed features...the color of the skin is secondary...that's one of the reasons I always say that Europeans and Asians look mixed for me...the skin color is secondary and science can back me up on that: skeletal an cranial shape is more indicative of someone's origin than the skin color or the shape of the hair.... As an example there are quite a few Somali who are as dark as Southern Sudanese but with the typical long faced and nosed Somali, he would be viewed as a Somali, however a broad faced, broad nosed Somali with very light skin can be confounded with a Kikuyu or a Congolese by Somali and other Africans...if his hair are curly like an Arab and he has a very light skin, he can even be confounded with a Yemeni...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: I think people here simplify things...in Africa people look more at the features than the skin...so your so called "White Arab" can just be viewed like a mulatto from an African perspective because of his mixed features...the color of the skin is secondary...that's one of the reasons I always say that Europeans and Asians look mixed for me...the skin color is secondary and science can back me up on that: skeletal an cranial shape is more indicative of someone's origin than the skin color or the shape of the hair.... As an example there are quite a few Somali who are as dark as Southern Sudanese but with the typical long faced and nosed Somali, he would be viewed as a Somali, however a broad faced, broad nosed Somali with very light skin can be confounded with a Kikuyu or a Congolese by Somali and other Africans...if his hair are curly like an Arab and he has a very light skin, he can even be confounded with a Yemeni...
Actually that makes no sense. Features and nationality are two different things. Features are found all over the planet and there isn't any one "unique" feature to any one part of the globe craniofacially. Even the ancient Egyptian portraits of Asiatics often featured people with broad noses, big lips and very light skin. That obviously has nothing to do with central Africa. Some people go to nonsense lengths to equate features with nationality to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. Somalis have various features. Sudanese have various features. Sudan and Somalia are nations and features vary within any population and is not based on looks. Now, there is of course the question of ethnic origin and affiliations, but that is a totally different question from nationality. All nations have people of various ethnicities and it isn't simply a question of each ethnicity having a certain look. However, it is also true that some nations have a predominant phenotype that can be said to be indicative of people from that nation. But still nationality does not equal phenotype.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Now, there is of course the question of ethnic origin and affiliations, but that is a totally different question from nationality.
That's the only part of you post that makes sense, Somali is an ethnic group found in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia defined in anthropology as elongated, that's why they share some features with Tutsi, Fulani and other Africans...Southern Sudanese are composed of Dinkas, Shilluk and other tribe that with respect to the body are viewed as elongated as well...there is no nationality in my post...African features are more clearly defined than other humans (whether Europeans or Asians)for reasons you probably know...check Hiernaux for that...you don't have to travel thousands of kilometers to see some diversity unlike on other continents.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Somali is not an ethnic group it is a nationality. Just like American is a NATIONAL identity not an ethnic identifier. Americans can be of many different ethnic identities even as they are still American NATIONALLY. There are different ethnic groups in Somalia as there are different ethnic groups in Sudan as in all other countries of Africa. Calling Somali an ethnic group is nonsense.
And anyone who would say that this is a Bantu looking face has no concept of ethnicity or nationality as Bantu is a language grouping with many ethnic groups within it:
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Somali is not an ethnic group it is a nationality.
Not surprising from an African from the diaspora. I mean part African from the diaspora. I'm not sure about the rest of your background.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:And anyone who would say that this is a Bantu looking face has no concept of ethnicity or nationality as Bantu is a language grouping with many ethnic groups within it:
Let's say he looks like a bleached broad faced African(Kikuyu for example) or like an African American.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Somali is not an ethnic group it is a nationality.
Not surprising from an African from the diaspora. I mean part African from the diaspora. I'm not sure about the rest of your background.
How about explaining Somali as being anything other than a nationality? Then how about trying to explain how nationality equals ethnicity, when in most cases a nationality can be made up of MANY ethnicities?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:And anyone who would say that this is a Bantu looking face has no concept of ethnicity or nationality as Bantu is a language grouping with many ethnic groups within it:
Let's say he looks like a bleached broad faced African(Kikuyu for example) or like an African American.
I say he looks like a Jordanian and his features are Jordanian and Jordanian features are diverse and derive from local evolutionary pressures along with the interaction of various groups, the LEAST of which would be African Americans and Kikuyu.
Or, even better, show the evidence for Kikuyu migrating into Jordan in ancient times and introducing these features into the Jordanian population?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
From Britannica: Somali people of Africa occupying all of Somalia, a strip of Djibouti, the southern Ethiopian region of Ogaden, and part of northwestern Kenya. Except for the arid coastal area in the north, the Somalis occupy true nomad regions of plains, coarse grass, and streams. They speak a language of the Cushitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic (formerly Hamito-Semitic) family. By the way, there is a heavy amount of admixture in the Near East, anything is possible, but the King of Jordan have broad faced features found in many broad faced Africans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
But the point is that YOU yourself know better than this and that Somali is a term referring to the COUNTRY of Somalia and therefore is a NATIONALISTIC identity as opposed to an ethnic one. There are various ethnicities and languages spoken in and around Somalia, which makes Somali a generic and meaningless term.
Posted by Macawiis (Member # 11724) on :
Doug M Somalia is not Sudan or Ethiopia with 300 different ethnic groups. there is a language that unifies all these ''so-called'' ethnicies(probably just clans you mistook for distinct groups) which is called af Somali these same clans also trace their Paternal and Maternal lineages to a indiginous fatherfigure by the same name ''Samaale'', the Boni people, the Bajuni people,the Borana people etc etc living in Somalia speak af Somali(and it's dialects) but they still identify themselves by the names of their ancestors and are bi-lingual in most cases, the correct term for them and others is ''Somalian'' which means a citizen of Somalia
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
And again I say, 'AFRICA I' you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with facial features. I am beginning to think that Yonis and Yom are right-- that you are a crazy Bantu who has been affected in some way by so-called "Horner" supremacy! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I'm sure you will find the fossil descriptions to be interesting.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Djehuti, Mystery was right you are harassing posters in every thread for no reasons, on top of that you are using insults....moderator...please intervene...that's a blatant breach of the policy....no insults...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ How am I harassing you? I am merely pointing out an annoying fact about you. Nearly every other post you make is about facial features if not some blatent generalization about Somalis or Ethiopians. What is it with you and all that?
It is beginning to get annoying.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Djehuti, you are not a moderator....either address the content of my posts as Doug M did and Macawii or ignore them...that's an attitude that is expected from a grown person...your constant harassment have been noticed by other posters...moderator please warn Djehuti.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Macawiis: Doug M Somalia is not Sudan or Ethiopia with 300 different ethnic groups. there is a language that unifies all these ''so-called'' ethnicies(probably just clans you mistook for distinct groups) which is called af Somali these same clans also trace their Paternal and Maternal lineages to a indiginous fatherfigure by the same name ''Samaale'', the Boni people, the Bajuni people,the Borana people etc etc living in Somalia speak af Somali(and it's dialects) but they still identify themselves by the names of their ancestors and are bi-lingual in most cases, the correct term for them and others is ''Somalian'' which means a citizen of Somalia
It does not matter how many ethnic groups there are in Somalia. Somalia is a nation, made up of various ethnic groups and languages. It is not a single distinct ethnic entity, which even you pointed out.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Somali live in Somalia, some Oromo live in Somalia, other non Somali ethnic groups live in Somalia, it would be ignoring their origin to call them Somali. But I understand your confusion since instead of using Somalian which is more correct, a false generalization has been instituted, here is an example of the mix up from the CIA factbook site: Nationality: Definition Field Listing noun: Somali(s) adjective: Somali Ethnic groups: Definition Field Listing Somali 85%, Bantu and other non-Somali 15% (including Arabs 30,000).
The confusion is that within Somalia Somali are only %85 of the population whereas there are other non-Somali ethnic groups. But it was generalized to describe incorrectly the nationality...Macawii is Somali that's why he prefers to use Somalian to describe the nationality of someone who is a citizen of Somalia...there is a bunch of citizens of Somalia who might be uncomfortable to be called Somali.
Posted by Macawiis (Member # 11724) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Macawiis: Doug M Somalia is not Sudan or Ethiopia with 300 different ethnic groups. there is a language that unifies all these ''so-called'' ethnicies(probably just clans you mistook for distinct groups) which is called af Somali these same clans also trace their Paternal and Maternal lineages to a indiginous fatherfigure by the same name ''Samaale'', the Boni people, the Bajuni people,the Borana people etc etc living in Somalia speak af Somali(and it's dialects) but they still identify themselves by the names of their ancestors and are bi-lingual in most cases, the correct term for them and others is ''Somalian'' which means a citizen of Somalia
It does not matter how many ethnic groups there are in Somalia. Somalia is a nation, made up of various ethnic groups and languages. It is not a single distinct ethnic entity, which even you pointed out.
No what i pointed out was my Bantu,Borana,Bajuni etc etc compatriots trace their lineages back to different father/mother figures(their ancestors), are bi-lingual and speak their own language(their ancestors language) and practice their own distinct culture(indigenous culture)
my female classmate and i, live in different parts of the Horn(she Djibouti, i Somalia)(our indigenous ancestral region) speak the same language Af ''Somali''(our ancestors language) trace our lineages back to a common father figure ''Samaale'',(indigenous ancestor) practice the same culture(indigenous culture)
the Denmark data showed Somali males(who without a doubt came from multiple parts of Somalia/Horn, since it was done in the diaspora) carry their own distinct e3b1 marker(xE3b1b)[indigenous] again more evidence of a distinct Somali development that eventually clusters back with their intermediate Cushitic/Semetic neighbours
if this doesn't qualify as belonging to a common ''ethnic group'' then one could say the same about all the so-called Homogeneous countries around the world (what's your definition of ethnicity? btw)
ps any new replies from me might take a while since i'm in the middle of something important(so i'm not ignoring you)
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
Shifting to the topic raised in the header post, I believe the Sumerians deified their kings the way Africans do. Wasn't Gilgamesh considered to be descended from a god?
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:
Doug M wrote: I say he looks like a Jordanian and his features are Jordanian
This guy is only half jordanian, his mother is british.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Shifting to the topic raised in the header post, I believe the Sumerians deified their kings the way Africans do. Wasn't Gilgamesh considered to be descended from a god?
Actually, Sumerian kings were not viewed as deities but were high priests who served the deities. Of course there were legends about certain royal families who have ancestry from the gods, but this is no different from the royal families or founders of city-states in Greek legends.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:
Doug M wrote: I say he looks like a Jordanian and his features are Jordanian
This guy is only half jordanian, his mother is british.
LOL It's as I said, this guy (AFRICA I) seems to have an unhealthy obsession with facial features. And when I point that out, he then accuses me of "harassing" him! Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
I understand you are obsessed with me, Djehuti, unfortunately you didn't realize that he was quoting another poster...you were obsessed with Mystery, now you are obsessed with me...if you are trying to chase men, that's not the right place...
Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Shifting to the topic raised in the header post, I believe the Sumerians deified their kings the way Africans do. Wasn't Gilgamesh considered to be descended from a god?
Actually, Sumerian kings were not viewed as deities but were high priests who served the deities. Of course there were legends about certain royal families who have ancestry from the gods, but this is no different from the royal families or founders of city-states in Greek legends.
^ Perhaps you are correct. Nonetheless, the Asian idea of priest-king and the African concept of god-king bear more than a passing resemblance because of their shared theocratic natures.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, but apparently you forgot that practically all societies in ancient times were theocratic and there was no such thing as secularism.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: I understand you are obsessed with me, Djehuti, unfortunately you didn't realize that he was quoting another poster...you were obsessed with Mystery, now you are obsessed with me...if you are trying to chase men, that's not the right place...
ROTFL
AFRICA, are you trying to jone me, or do you not know the meaning of "obsessed"?? LOL
"Obsessed" means being mentally preoccupied with something or someone, and in YOUR case you are obsessed with facial features and other East Africans like Somalis!! Give it up, and get help. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Obsessed" means being mentally preoccupied with something or someone
Take out the "something"...don't cheat...there are many other sites where you can find some help.
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Sorry I have been away for a while with school work. Aside from the degeneration into posts about facial features, the replies have been very informative. I would, however, like to know whether there are cultural features common to both Northeast Africa and the "Middle East" that originated in the former and are independent of invaders, etc. Thanks.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, Afrasian languages and circumcision for two significant features.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Aside from my doubts about Djehuti's sexuality, that's correct circumcision is culturally African and probably was introduced in the Levant and the Arab Peninsula among Hebrews and Arabs from Africa...
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
There's no such thing as "Afrasian" or "Afroasian" or "Afroasiatic" languages.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Aside from my doubts about Djehuti's sexuality, that's correct circumcision is culturally African and probably was introduced in the Levant and the Arab Peninsula among Hebrews and Arabs from Africa...
Really, AFRICA. The very fact that you post something about my sexuality only leads me to believe you must be psychologically projecting your own sexual inclinations.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There's no such thing as "Afrasian" or "Afroasian" or "Afroasiatic" languages.
Of course there is as noted by virtually all valid linguists. So you can cut the Winters/Asante nonsense. Afrasian is as linguistically valid as Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In a certain sense this is absolutely correct in that Asia has not a thing to do with the language super-family that includes * Omotic * Cushitic * Egyptic * Chadic * Semitic * taMazight
This is the reason why one linguist coined Afrasan and I took the next step futher spelling it Afrisan further removing Asian credit from totally African languages.
And anybody who's studied Obenga, whose linquistics set the stage at that famous UNESCO conference on AE decades ago, knows there's nothing nonsensical about him or what he presents even if one doesn't agree with all of it.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There's no such thing as "Afrasian" or "Afroasian" or "Afroasiatic" languages.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: In a certain sense this is absolutely correct in that Asia has not a thing to do with the language super-family that includes * Omotic * Cushitic * Egyptic * Chadic * Semitic * taMazight
This is the reason why one linguist coined Afrasan[/i] and I took the next step futher spelling it Afrisan further removing Asian credit from totally African languages.
Then perhaps the term Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian can be viewed in geographical terms in that the languages are spoken from Africa to Asia. Perhaps similar to Indo-European in that the languages of that phylum encompass an area from India to Europe. Although in the case of Afrasian, the languages originated in Africa. But of course what Kemson prefers is one huge 'Negro-African' language phylum which we know is just as absurd as 'Hamito-Semitic'.
quote:And anybody who's studied Obenga, whose linquistics set the stage at that famous UNESCO conference on AE decades ago, knows there's nothing nonsensical about him or what he presents even if one doesn't agree with all of it.
My bad! I meant to say Molefi Asante!! Sorry. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't know. While of course not naming it negro-African I do believe some linguists in fact posit a proto language forebearer for all the super-families excluding Khoi-Khoi and San. And I mean modern linguists not relying on the old school theories of Homburger, Delafosse, etc.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I also concur with such a theory. But that still does not validate a "negro" anything to any classification, let alone linguistic.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
It's not so much the label as it is the item itself.
By whatever name, the theory's substance remains the same. And people you love to call black African were and are the languages' originators and still are their speakers.
The black pioneering linquist Theophile Obenga blazed the super-families' common origin trail for white linquists like Dalby and the others who now believe in the related rootedness of nearly all African languages save Khoi-Khoi & San.
In my view, though he has strong linguistical demonstrations in his favor, Obenga politically and by colour removes Semitic and taMazight from under the umbrella, whereas the Khoi-Khoi & San languages purely linguistically have no hand on its handle.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I didn't know Molefi Asante did linguistics. What are his linquistic conclusions that you find to be so 'nonsensical' as you put it.
Itemized specifics, preferably detailed, if you please.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And anybody who's studied Obenga, whose linquistics set the stage at that famous UNESCO conference on AE decades ago, knows there's nothing nonsensical about him or what he presents even if one doesn't agree with all of it.
My bad! I meant to say Molefi Asante!! Sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... you can cut the Winters/Asante nonsense. Afrasian is as linguistically valid as Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's the thing. Asante is far from being a linguistic expert but only cites past studies by Diop, for support of the so-called 'Negro-African' language phylum and denying the existence of Afrasian/Afrisian whatever you may call it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
See the underlined below for what I actually ask of you and expect your on target reply. Please back up your indictment of Asante or retract the negative statement, thanks.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I didn't know Molefi Asante did linguistics. What are his linquistic conclusions that you find to be so 'nonsensical' as you put it.
Itemized specifics, preferably detailed, if you please.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And anybody who's studied Obenga, whose linquistics set the stage at that famous UNESCO conference on AE decades ago, knows there's nothing nonsensical about him or what he presents even if one doesn't agree with all of it.
My bad! I meant to say Molefi Asante!! Sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... you can cut the Winters/Asante nonsense. Afrasian is as linguistically valid as Indo-European or Sino-Tibetan.
I went to the Nile Valley website and looked through the prehistoric section, where this article was posted ("PREDYNASTIC AND PROTODYNASTIC EGYPT" at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Origins_of_Egyptian_State.htm). The article mentions that agriculture was probably introduced from the Near East, as well as some pottery in the Fayum. I am guessing this is outdated, biased, or both. Is there any link to an article providing detailed, non-biased information on the prehistoric Nile Valley placed within its African context?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It must be because according to Christopher Ehret and others, pottery was invented in Africa first before the 'Near East' (Southwest Asia).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Bumped up for review. Please start on page 1.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Thread was supposed to be about the Near East but turned into one about Afrasian.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: In a certain sense this is absolutely correct in that Asia has not a thing to do with the language super-family that includes * Omotic * Cushitic * Egyptic * Chadic * Semitic * taMazight
This is the reason why one linguist coined Afrasan and I took the next step futher spelling it Afrisan further removing Asian credit from totally African languages.
And anybody who's studied Obenga, whose linquistics set the stage at that famous UNESCO conference on AE decades ago, knows there's nothing nonsensical about him or what he presents even if one doesn't agree with all of it.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There's no such thing as "Afrasian" or "Afroasian" or "Afroasiatic" languages.
The one language family of the above listed with more disuputable origin as per continent is Semitic.
Some believe it originated in Northern Africa
But two years or so after this ES thread Christopher Ehret and collegues published article using Bayesean analysis entitled:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
ROTFL ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)