Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Poulter
    ... From: John Croft To: Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 8:15 PM Subject: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and
    Message 1 of 15 , May 24, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
      To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 8:15 PM
      Subject: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)


      > >
      > > Perhaps Semitic /?rD/ "earth, soil", Arabic /?arD/.
      >
      > I thought "soil" was *'-d-m-h (hence Adamah)?
      >

      Maybe in other Semitic dialiects the root /?dm/ signified soil. In modern
      Arabic it has only persisted in the meaning of "skin" and "Adam, human" of
      course. There is the phrase though "?adiim al-?arD" meaning "surface of the
      earth".

      > > Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt? Ethiopia, the presumed
      > Semitic homeland, is also one of the "centres of origin" of
      > agriculture.
      >
      > Dennis, there was a long discussion about this earlier on the list.
      > I
      > proposed an Ethiopian origin, crossing the Red Sea to Yemen, and was
      > shot down in flames. Despite the fact that Semitic languages in
      > Ethiopia are more numerous and more diverse than elsewhere
      > (evidence of potential origin sites), it was pointed out that the
      > Ethiopian crops for the origin of Agriculture were domesticated only
      > post 3,000 BCE, too late for the appearance of Semites to be
      > associated with a dispersal zone from Ethiopia.
      >

      I don't know much about this period - I'm only feeling my way in response to
      your interesting discussions with Glen. I got this info from what seemed an
      impeccable source :
      http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/gepts/PB143/lec10/pb143l10.htm
      quoting a J.R. Harlan 1971, American Association for the Advancement of
      Science. However no dates were given, but Ethiopia was listed alongside 7
      other centres.
      Either way, it seems more likely that the AfroAsiatic languages point of
      departure was Ethiopia, rather than the middle of the Sahara, as shown in
      your map (which BTW I had no trouble downloading - but I've got MS
      Powerpoint here), with Egyptian moving north, Semitic across the Horn of
      Africa into Arabia, and Chadic west (Berber and Omotic being somewhat
      later).


      > Dennis wrote
      > >Given that the lower Nile valley was probably
      > >impenetrable marshy jungle, isn't it more likely they came via the
      > >grasslands of the Arabian peninsula, bringing their Ethiopian
      > >agricultural techniques (and Ubaid pottery) with them?
      >
      > The "impenetrability" of the lower Nile in pre-historic times was not
      > that impenetrable. It was the route that Aurignacians took on the
      > movement from North Africa to Palestine 40,000 BCE.... and also the
      > route by which Sebilian III mesolithic culture, transmogrified into
      > Kebaran entered Palestine circa 15,000 BCE.... The Semites followed
      > the same routes. There is also no evidence of Ethiopian techniques
      > or crops (eg. tef, finger millet, coffee) in Arabia. The
      > domesticates
      > for Ubaid were all Middle Eastern in origin, and Ubaid shows a clear
      > derivation from the previous cultures of the Middle East (see above).
      >

      Yes, but weren't these movements in drier phases? The period we're talking
      about here was, I believe, a period when the Sahara and Arabia were
      reasonably well watered grasslands. Which would suggest that the Nile valley
      and Fayyum would have been much wetter and therefore more lush.
      Also I'm not suggesting that the Semites brought their crops with them, just
      the knowledge of agriculture.

      <snipped>
      >
      > > > Another example. Proto-IE *kwelkwlo (wheel) has been linked to
      > > > Akkadian Semitic galgal. But this word seems derived from
      > Sumerian
      > > > gigir and even Kartvellian grgar. We can therefore suppose,
      > rather
      > > > than a Semitish-PIE loan occurring in the Balkans, that the
      > > > technology
      > > > of wheels, starting in Southern Mesopotamia, tended to carry the
      > > > words
      > > > for their use as they travelled northwards, across the Caucasas.
      >
      > Thanks for the etymologies for galgal.... Certainly interesting. It
      > would upset contemporary archaeology to have Semites rather than
      > Sumerians inventing the wheel, but hey! upsets in archaeology have
      > happened before.
      >

      The IE word for wheel seems to be well established in IE from /kWel/
      "revolve". So maybe the similarity is just that - or coincidence or
      contamination (in the linguistic sense).


      > On the basis of the origins of farming there is about 300 years so
      > far
      > in separating between the Anatolian, Zagros and Palestinian farmers,
      > with Anatolian and Zagros both occurring slightly prior to Palestine.
      > <snipped>
      Thanks for the info. As I said I'm only starting to feel my way around here.

      > I would suggest you read a little more of Flannery.
      > <snipped again to save space>

      I've never read Flannery at all. Just surfing. Again, thanks for the info.

      > > So, now on to part II - the Egypt of Ramses II under the cultural
      > and economic domination of Mycenae? Hmmm, doesn't seem likely on the
      > face of it.
      >
      > It is interesting that while Minoans and Mycenaeans are portrayed on
      > the walls of Egyptian tombs, there are no Egyptian portayals in
      > Mycenaean or Minoan pallaces.
      >

      Amongst many others. Anyway, I've posted my reply. Make of it what you will.


      Cheers
      Dennis
    • Glen Gordon
      ... This root exists. I think I ve come across the Hebrew version with /s/ for *T (the expected change). I believe the word means to plough in Hebrew. I
      Message 2 of 15 , May 25, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        > > > Perhaps Semitic /?rD/ "earth, soil", Arabic /?arD/.
        > >
        > > I thought "soil" was *'-d-m-h (hence Adamah)?
        > >
        >
        >Maybe in other Semitic dialiects the root /?dm/ signified soil.

        This root exists. I think I've come across the Hebrew version with /s/ for
        *T (the expected change). I believe the word means "to plough" in Hebrew. I
        could swear that there's an Akkadian word /ersitu/ which means "earth". Was
        I dreaming? The triliterate is probably more accurately defined as "to
        plough".

        At any rate, I'm not so sure that this is our source for "red". I can't see
        how Semitic *T (voiceless dental affricate) can become IE *dh. We already
        have a correspondance of Semitic *T- -> IE *(s)t- in the word for "bull".
        I'd expect IE *-s- or *-t-. Also, how do we explain the *-eu- part of the
        word in IE?

        I'm personally looking for a different Semitic word that looks like
        **eru:-Vdu "copper" where **eru: (attested in Akkadian as /eru:/) signifies
        "metal" and **Vdu describes the quality of the metal.

        It's also clear that the accent of this Semitic word fall on the second
        syllable (or, to be more clear on Semitic accentuation: on the long vowel).
        Why? We can reconstruct Mid IE *ereude based on IE where *e equals schwa. If
        the accent was on the first syllable of the Semitic (or Semitish) word, we
        would normally obtain Mid IE **erede and we wouldn't see Sumerian /urudu/
        but rather */erudu/ because the first vowel would be clear enough to be
        perceived properly. Cool, huh?

        Help me out, Dennis. Make me look good. Do you know a root like **Vdu, where
        V is any vowel and that can help to expose the precise meaning of this
        compound?

        Dennis to John:
        >Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt?

        I will put forth a long personal critique of John's admittedly beautiful
        maps soon... Don't fret.

        Dennis to John:
        >Either way, it seems more likely that the AfroAsiatic languages point >of
        >departure was Ethiopia, rather than the middle of the Sahara,

        Yes, but not of Semitic.

        John to Dennis:
        >The domesticates for Ubaid were all Middle Eastern in origin, and >Ubaid
        >shows a clear derivation from the previous cultures of the >Middle East
        >(see above).

        (Because Ubaid was Sumerian-speaking and part of the general Nostratic
        language area that begat Kartvelian as well...)

        - gLeN

        ________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
      • John Croft
        Glen wrote ... Nostratic ... Sorry Glen, Ubaid was not Sumerian speaking, but was in fact multiethnic in origin. It established Iraq as the home of three
        Message 3 of 15 , May 25, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Glen wrote

          > (Because Ubaid was Sumerian-speaking and part of the general
          Nostratic
          > language area that begat Kartvelian as well...)

          Sorry Glen, Ubaid was not Sumerian speaking, but was in fact
          multiethnic in origin. It established Iraq as the home of three
          language groups existing and in fact interprentrating

          - Semitic to the West
          - Sumerian to the South
          - Hurrian to the North

          The culture of Ubaid drew equally upon all of these sources,
          including
          the Hadji Muhammed and Samara cultures ultimately derived from
          Hassuna.

          Regards

          John
        • Dennis Poulter
          ... From: John Croft To: Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 8:15 PM Subject: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and
          Message 4 of 15 , May 25, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
            To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 8:15 PM
            Subject: [TIED] Re: Dennis on Glen (was Hebrew and Arabic)


            > > Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt? Ethiopia, the presumed
            > Semitic homeland, is also one of the "centres of origin" of
            > agriculture.
            >
            > Dennis, there was a long discussion about this earlier on the list.
            > I
            > proposed an Ethiopian origin, crossing the Red Sea to Yemen, and was
            > shot down in flames. Despite the fact that Semitic languages in
            > Ethiopia are more numerous and more diverse than elsewhere
            > (evidence of potential origin sites), it was pointed out that the
            > Ethiopian crops for the origin of Agriculture were domesticated only
            > post 3,000 BCE, too late for the appearance of Semites to be
            > associated with a dispersal zone from Ethiopia.
            >

            John,
            I've gone through the egroups archives and found this. Is this what turned
            you against the Ethiopian origin of Semitic?
            If so, I have the following comments :

            Alexander Stolbov wrote on 28/1/2000
            > Still I can't accept the Ethiopian hypothesis.
            >
            > IMO the key counter-argument is the Nostratic conception. If we
            believe in
            > the genetic relatedness of the Nostratic languages we must
            acknowledge that
            > ones upon a time it was a single group whose descendants in many
            millenia
            > have turned into Yukaghir and Hausa, Gauls and Tamils etc.. It seems
            to me
            > that the most probable place, time and the reason of fantastic
            spreading are > the Near East Region (either Zagros or Levant), 10-12
            millenia BP and the
            > Neolithic revolution (the Near East variant of it, i.e. goats/sheep +
            > wheat/barley).

            1. The Nostratic concept is only a hypothesis. It may not be correct, or at
            least not correct in all its details.
            2. It is not necessarily true that a proto-language will radiate outwards in
            all directions from a central point.
            3. According to Glen's Webpage, the initial split in Nostratic is into
            Eurasiatic - Kartvelian - AfroAsiatic. So could not AfroAsiatic be the
            language of those Nostratics who did not migrate?
            4. AfroAsiatic itself is not universally accepted, and is based primarily on
            mass comparison or words, rather than the meticulous sound laws of IE.
            5. The Neolithic Revolution

            I have been giving quite some thought to the nature of this revolution. It
            strikes me that this was not a technology-based advance, such as microlithic
            industry or metallurgy, but rather a knowledge-based revolution.
            After all, what is the qualitative difference between pre-agricultural
            foraging and cultivation? The foragers would have all the necessary tools to
            be cultivators - tools for harvesting the wild grains, digging up roots,
            pulling down fruits off trees; the tools for threshing and grinding; and the
            containers for storage. What is new, is the knowledge of how plants
            propagate, i.e. that you can take the seeds and plant them where you want
            them to grow, rather than go to where they grow naturally.
            Now, knowledge can be carried by very small numbers of people, even
            individuals or individual families. Also it is not limited to specific
            plants. The same knowledge will apply equally to millet as to barley. So, it
            need not be evidence of ethnic migrations or movements or spreads of
            languages.

            The linguistic evidence, together with the traditions of the peoples
            involved, the archaeology (? - I've not really researched this fully yet)
            and plausibility, argue for Ethiopia as the point of departure for the
            AfroAsiatic languages, and neither the Nostratic Hypothesis nor the
            Neolithic Revolution offer any serious obstacles to this scenario.

            BTW, I have read somewhere that the origin of agriculture in Ethiopia dates
            from ca.5000BCE.

            Cheers
            Dennis
          • John Croft
            Dennis, you wrote ... response to ... seemed an ... Advancement of ... alongside 7 ... point of ... shown in ... Horn of ... somewhat ... The Ethiopian origin
            Message 5 of 15 , May 26, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Dennis, you wrote

              > I don't know much about this period - I'm only feeling my way in
              response to
              > your interesting discussions with Glen. I got this info from what
              seemed an
              > impeccable source :
              > http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/gepts/PB143/lec10/pb143l10.htm
              > quoting a J.R. Harlan 1971, American Association for the
              Advancement
              of
              > Science. However no dates were given, but Ethiopia was listed
              alongside 7
              > other centres.
              > Either way, it seems more likely that the AfroAsiatic languages
              point of
              > departure was Ethiopia, rather than the middle of the Sahara, as
              shown in
              > your map (which BTW I had no trouble downloading - but I've got MS
              > Powerpoint here), with Egyptian moving north, Semitic across the
              Horn of
              > Africa into Arabia, and Chadic west (Berber and Omotic being
              somewhat
              > later).

              The Ethiopian origin for Afro-Asiatic also runs counter to what is
              known archaeologically. With the exception of the Middle East,
              mountain areas tend to be refugaria for languages not centres for
              dispersal. The sequence for cultures suggests that it was the Sahara
              that was both a centre for dispersal and also for cultural innovation
              until almost pre-Dynastic times in Egypt.

              This was for a number of reasons.

              1. Aterian culture (circa 30,000 BCE) from Algeria was the first
              culture to use the bow and arrow and also the first to use
              microliths.
              They spread widely across the Sahara during the Pluvial (wet). In
              the
              dry period that followed people using microlithic and bow
              technologies retreated into the Nile Valley, Nubia and thence into
              East Africa. By influencing cultures in Egypt, eventually when the
              Kebaran microlithic culture crossed into Palestine they carried the
              bow and arrow and microlithic broad spectrum hunting and gathering
              technologies with them. Based upon the dates, Glen and I seem to
              have
              agreed this was probably the introduction of Nostratic peoples into
              the Middle East.

              2. The Sahara seems to have been fully abandoned circa 18,000 BCE,
              during the height of the last glacial and the maximum extend to the
              desert (even more than today). Human habitation was confined to the
              margins. In North Africa the Capsian microlithic culture developed
              which in the following return to wet and damp conditions( circa
              12,000-10,000 BCE), spread across the Sahara, into Nubia and
              eventually as far as Omo in East Africa. This seems to have been the
              spread of the first Afro-Asiatics (Chadic, Cushitic, Omotic).
              Developing out of Capsian culture (From Capsa in North Africa) the
              Ibero Maurasian culture carried mesolithic broad spectrum hunter
              gathering across the Straits of Gebralta into Spain from 10,000 -
              8,000 BCE. These were the mesolithic farmers who met the Cardial
              neolithic fisher-farmer culture arriving from the Aegean. It appears
              that they formed a "fusion culture" known as the First Western, that
              introduced farming technologies north of the Pyrennies and into
              France
              and Britain. If there is an Afro-Asiatic substratum to Celtic, this
              is probably it.

              3. From the Capsian came two major breakthroughs. The first was the
              development of pottery. Pottery techniques spread new cultures
              across
              the Sahara into Nubia by 7,000 BCE. The cultural change must not be
              minimised. It made possible food storage and the beginnings of
              craft specialisation. At the same time, these hunter gatherers
              depended upon hunting long horned bos primogenatus (?I may have the
              species spelled wrong?) cattle, which they herded into valleys and
              fenced. By 6,000 BCE there is some evidence that the cattle were
              becoming semi-domesticated, and by 5,500 BCE it seems that a stage
              comparable to full domestication was achieved. In any case, genetic
              studies demonstrate that Africa was one of three sites for the
              domestication of cattle (the others being India (Zebu cattle), and
              Anatolia. The African genetic studies shows cattle were domesticated
              at approximately this period.

              The innovation of pottery travelled in advance of the cow. Cattle
              were not introduced into Egypt until the coming of the neolithic out
              of Palestine (about 4,800 BCE). The reason for this is that the
              Northern Nile Valley always supported a rich fauna of plants, animals
              and fishing, that could exist almost independently of the Saharan wet
              and dry phases. Pottery, however was a different matter, and clear
              evidence that the early pottery of Egypt was Saharan in origin is
              available. The Potters seem to have been the second wave of
              Afro-Asiatics (Berbers, Egyptians and Semites). By 5,700 the drying
              out of the Sahara was leading to another retreat across the Margins.
              Saharan elements are found at Fayyum and across the Nile Delta into
              the North Eastern part of the Eastern Desert and Sinai. They
              specialised in surviving in mobile tribes in arid and semi arid
              conditions. The Southern Eastern Desert seem to have been inhabited
              by Capoid peoples, who in historic times emerged as the Beja.

              4. The increasing aridity, circa 5,600 BCE led to the abandonment of
              Pre Pottery Neolothic B (Yarmukian) sites in southern Palestine,
              allowing Afro-Asiatic people to cross the Sinai. Adopting a nomadic
              pastoral lifestyle based upon exploitation of ovicaprids (sheep and
              goats). This was the first pottery using culture in the Levant,
              drawing upon the styles and traditions of northern Egypt and the
              delta. This culture saw a massive introduction of Near Eastern
              agricultural terminology into the Afro-Asiatic language of the new
              arrivals. It was this fusion which eventually led to the creation of
              the Semitic family of Afro-Asiatic. The Ghassulian recovery which
              followed, saw the spread of Afro-Asiatic cultures spread elsewhere in
              the Middle East. This culture was roughly contemporaneous with the
              chalcolithic Halafian culture (linked to the historic spread of
              Hurrian peoples), and the spread of agriculture towards southern
              Iraq.
              During the Ghassulian recovery, sheep and goat herding nomadic
              pastoralists began to spread down the Arabian shoreline of the Red
              Sea and to occupy interior Arabia (which had been abandoned 5,600
              BCE). In the Ubaid period, a thoroughly successful settlement of
              Southern Iraq led to a huge population expansion, and the
              establishment of long distance trade down the Persian Gulf as far as
              Oman, and upwards throughout Mesopotamia as far as northern Lebanon.
              It seems that the Ubaid culture pioneered the spread of boule, clay
              tokens indicating numbers of sheep, goats, cattle and amounts of
              trade, throughout the Near Eastern Region. These tokens were later
              copied for accounting purposes onto clay tablets during the Jemdet
              Nasr and Uruk periods by Sumerian scribes, beginning the historic
              Sumerian civilisation, about 3,300 BCE.

              Ubaid pottery finds are clustered around Bahrein. It appears that
              the
              mesolithic peoples who had managed to survive here, remnants of a
              group which had hitherto spread over much of Arabia, abandoned their
              settlements en mass, to move to Southern Iraq during the Jemdet Nasr
              and Uruk periods associated with a renewed widespread dessication of
              the Middle East. Whether this was due to an inability to cope with
              increasing aridity, a taste for a gentler, more refined way of life
              offered in southern Mesopotamia, or was due to pressure from
              expanding
              tribes of nomadic pastoralists better capable of adapting to semi
              arid
              conditions, is not known. Nevertheless, the new ethnic group that
              arrived from Bahrein into Southern Mesopotamia, settling first at the
              port city of Eridu, were the historic Sumerians. Semitic pastoralist
              settlement only penetrated as far south as the City of Kish, where
              from early Dynastic times, rulers with Semitic names have been found.
              Employed first as shepherds and mercenaries, they quickly rose to
              prominence, eventually dominating the Ubaidian peoples (probably
              Hurrian, or speaking a related language). Nevertheless much of the
              substrait language survived within both Semitic and Sumerian
              languages, particularly for place names, agricultural terms, and a
              number of crafts.

              5. From about 4,800 BCE, the mesolithic peoples of Egypt were coming
              under the influence of the spread of Neolithic cultures from the
              Middle East, and from cattle herding cultures spreading from the
              Sahara and the Sudan. At first agriculture seems to have been
              incorporated into a lifestyle still largely dominated by fishing,
              fowling and hunting larger game (hippopotamus and crocadile). By the
              onset of the Badarian culture, a fusion of farming and cattle raising
              was complete, and status differences were beginning to increase.
              Long
              distance trade into Nubia, Palestine and across the Sahara as far as
              the Chad Highlands is attested. An influx of Asiatic elements
              (introducing Middle Eastern terminology into the developing Egyptian
              language) occurred with the arrival of the Amratian and Gerzian
              chalcolithic cultures and the spread of copper smelting. This
              cultminated in the arrival of the "Dynastic peoples" who established
              themselves in confederacies of chiefdoms in the middle Nile, and as a
              warrior elite, succeeded in pushing Egypt across the hurdle into a
              unified monarchy under Narmer and Aha.

              > > Dennis wrote
              > > >Given that the lower Nile valley was probably
              > > >impenetrable marshy jungle, isn't it more likely they came via
              the
              > > >grasslands of the Arabian peninsula, bringing their Ethiopian
              > > >agricultural techniques (and Ubaid pottery) with them?
              > >
              > > The "impenetrability" of the lower Nile in pre-historic times was
              not
              > > that impenetrable. It was the route that Aurignacians took on the
              > > movement from North Africa to Palestine 40,000 BCE.... and also
              the
              > > route by which Sebilian III mesolithic culture, transmogrified
              into
              > > Kebaran entered Palestine circa 15,000 BCE.... The Semites
              followed
              > > the same routes. There is also no evidence of Ethiopian
              techniques
              > > or crops (eg. tef, finger millet, coffee) in Arabia. The
              > > domesticates
              > > for Ubaid were all Middle Eastern in origin, and Ubaid shows a
              clear
              > > derivation from the previous cultures of the Middle East (see
              above).
              > >
              >
              > Yes, but weren't these movements in drier phases? The period we're
              talking
              > about here was, I believe, a period when the Sahara and Arabia were
              > reasonably well watered grasslands. Which would suggest that the
              Nile valley
              > and Fayyum would have been much wetter and therefore more lush.
              > Also I'm not suggesting that the Semites brought their crops with
              them, just
              > the knowledge of agriculture.

              Dennis, knowledge of agriculture and cropping tend to spread
              together.
              It is unlikely that a culture will move into an area where crops are
              ecologically suitable (eg as Ethiopian ensete, finger millet and
              sorghum are in the Egyptian environment) and drop these crops, whilst
              awaiting the arrival of a suite of crops and domestic animals
              arriving
              from another direction (wheat, barley, goats and sheep from
              Palestine). Knowledge of agriculture in this part of the world began
              about 8,500 BCE in the rain fed foothills in Anatolia, Zagros and
              Lebanon. The knowledge disseminated from this core, westwards into
              the Aegean and Balkans, southwards into Palestine and Egypt and
              eastwards into Iran and Pakistan. Knowledge of agriculture may
              expand
              in advance of a movement of peoples, but it is likely that the
              language of the earlier agriculturalists will spread with that
              knowledge. Eventually demographic pressures from the cultures with
              the more intensive technology (the farmers) will see a movement of
              peoples as well.

              Dennis wrote
              > The IE word for wheel seems to be well established in IE from /kWel/
              > "revolve". So maybe the similarity is just that - or coincidence or
              > contamination (in the linguistic sense).

              There were certainly a large number of "wander words" that created a
              common cultural base in the Middle East that is hard to unravel. It
              would appear that with the spread of farming a type of "Balkanisation
              occurred" as words from one language would freely enter those of
              their
              neighbours and borrowing would return the favour. Thus farming began
              with the hill folk, who probably spoke a North Eastern Caucasian
              language - possibly even before a clear split between Khattic and
              Hurrian (?). These people also had monopoly control over the
              obsidian
              trade, from Anatolia and Armenia. But Sumerian words, and later
              Akkadian and Western Semitic entered into the cultural melange. A
              high proportion of the population in each of the cultures I have
              mentioned were probably bilingual and possibly trilingual in some
              cases. Languages seem to have emerged with different functional
              specialisations - Hurrian for agriculture and the crafts, Semitic for
              nomadic pastoralism and military affairs, Sumerian for governance.
              These functional specialisations spread the influence of languages
              far
              beyond their "borders". The way in which Roumanian, Greek, South
              Slavic and Albanian have come to adopt elements of shared vocabulary
              and even phonetic and grammatic features in the Balkans is a good
              example of what appears to have happened. Indo-European languages
              and
              Tyrrhenian both seem to have drawn from this melting pot.

              Hope this helps

              John
            • John Croft
              Glen wrote ... beautiful ... Awaiting with bated breath! Glen wrote ... Nostratic ... Sorry Glen, Ubaid at first was far from Sumerian speaking. In
              Message 6 of 15 , May 26, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Glen wrote

                > Dennis to John:
                > >Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt?
                >
                > I will put forth a long personal critique of John's admittedly
                beautiful
                > maps soon... Don't fret.

                Awaiting with bated breath!

                <snip>
                Glen wrote

                > (Because Ubaid was Sumerian-speaking and part of the general
                Nostratic
                > language area that begat Kartvelian as well...)

                Sorry Glen, Ubaid at first was far from Sumerian speaking. In fact
                Sumerians only entered into the Urspracht realm when Ubaidians began
                to trade down the Persian Gulf to Oman for Copper. At the end of the
                Ubaidian period, the Sumerians decamped from Bahrein en masse for
                Southern Iraq.

                The split of Nostratic into its daughter languages I thought you had
                agreed was definitively a mesolithic and not a chalcolithic-late
                neolithic phenomenon. Kartvellian had long since split from
                Nostratic.

                I would be interested in how you see Nostratic moving from Africa and
                onto the Steppe, through what regions and via the agency of what
                cultures.

                Regards

                John
              • John Croft
                Hi Dennis In reply to your point ... presumed ... I wrote ... list. ... was ... only ... To which you have replied ... turned ... seems ... 10-12 ...
                Message 7 of 15 , May 26, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Dennis

                  In reply to your point
                  > > > Why did the Semites have to come from Egypt? Ethiopia, the
                  presumed
                  > > Semitic homeland, is also one of the "centres of origin" of
                  > > agriculture.

                  I wrote
                  > > Dennis, there was a long discussion about this earlier on the
                  list.
                  > > I
                  > > proposed an Ethiopian origin, crossing the Red Sea to Yemen, and
                  was
                  > > shot down in flames. Despite the fact that Semitic languages in
                  > > Ethiopia are more numerous and more diverse than elsewhere
                  > > (evidence of potential origin sites), it was pointed out that the
                  > > Ethiopian crops for the origin of Agriculture were domesticated
                  only
                  > > post 3,000 BCE, too late for the appearance of Semites to be
                  > > associated with a dispersal zone from Ethiopia.
                  > >

                  To which you have replied
                  > I've gone through the egroups archives and found this. Is this what
                  turned
                  > you against the Ethiopian origin of Semitic?
                  > If so, I have the following comments :
                  >
                  > Alexander Stolbov wrote on 28/1/2000
                  > > Still I can't accept the Ethiopian hypothesis.
                  > >
                  > > IMO the key counter-argument is the Nostratic conception. If we
                  > believe in
                  > > the genetic relatedness of the Nostratic languages we must
                  > acknowledge that
                  > > ones upon a time it was a single group whose descendants in many
                  > millenia
                  > > have turned into Yukaghir and Hausa, Gauls and Tamils etc.. It
                  seems
                  > to me
                  > > that the most probable place, time and the reason of fantastic
                  > spreading are > the Near East Region (either Zagros or Levant),
                  10-12
                  > millenia BP and the
                  > > Neolithic revolution (the Near East variant of it, i.e.
                  goats/sheep +
                  > > wheat/barley).

                  It was this discussion that got me thinking about the whole matter,
                  but it was not the final turning point. I followed up with a great
                  deal of work into the archaeology of Africa, and from my reading it
                  appeared that the Sahara was a far better staging ground for many of
                  the innovations I was seeking. Certainly, between Chadic, Berber,
                  Egyptian, Cushitic and Omotic it is a fairly central region.
                  Secondly, more recent work has suggested that it was a cultural
                  powerhouse until almost historic times. The first microliths, the
                  first bow and arrow, the first pottery, amongst the first cattle, and
                  in the Sahel region, a range of crops cultivated fairly early (though
                  definitely post neolithic). Furthermore the oscillating wet and dry
                  periods provides a clear "bellows-like" mechanism, drawing people
                  into
                  the Sahara, to meet and mingle, developing new technologies as they
                  do
                  so, and then to puff them out - north, south, east and north east,
                  into other areas. By comparison to this Ethiopia was a cultural
                  backwater. Since the spread of languages tends to go with
                  technological innovations (eg. Nostratic with microliths, our phantom
                  substratum (Semitish, Macro-Pelasgian, NE Caucasian, Hatto-Hurrian
                  etc) Austronesian with the double outrigger, Austro-Asiatic with dry
                  rice, Indo-European with the horse and the wheel,Chinese with ....),
                  the Sahara as the Urheimat for Afro-Asiatic makes a lot of sense.

                  Dennis
                  > 1. The Nostratic concept is only a hypothesis. It may not be
                  correct, or at
                  > least not correct in all its details.
                  > 2. It is not necessarily true that a proto-language will radiate
                  outwards in
                  > all directions from a central point.
                  > 3. According to Glen's Webpage, the initial split in Nostratic is
                  into
                  > Eurasiatic - Kartvelian - AfroAsiatic. So could not AfroAsiatic be
                  the
                  > language of those Nostratics who did not migrate?

                  Agreed.... But if Nostratic is linked to the Mesolithic
                  broad-spectrum hunting-gathering "Revolution", as everyone seems to
                  think, this began with the Aterian culture on the Sahara.

                  > 4. AfroAsiatic itself is not universally accepted, and is based
                  primarily on
                  > mass comparison or words, rather than the meticulous sound laws of
                  IE.

                  Hmm... Interesting. Then on this count Semitic may be a
                  non-Afro-Asiatic language that has become Afro-Asiaticised. The
                  Afro-Asiaticisation is clearly occurring in the hiatus between
                  Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and Ghassulian, when pottery was adopted.
                  Perhaps Natufian-PPNB people tended to adopt Afro-Asiatic features
                  from Sinaitic hunter-gatherers to develop Nomadic Pastoralism using
                  sheep and goats. In which case Semitic did not develop in North East
                  Africa at all, but on the border of the Negev.... fascinating.

                  > 5. The Neolithic Revolution
                  >
                  > I have been giving quite some thought to the nature of this
                  revolution. It
                  > strikes me that this was not a technology-based advance, such as
                  microlithic
                  > industry or metallurgy, but rather a knowledge-based revolution.
                  > After all, what is the qualitative difference between
                  pre-agricultural
                  > foraging and cultivation? The foragers would have all the necessary
                  tools to
                  > be cultivators - tools for harvesting the wild grains, digging up
                  roots,
                  > pulling down fruits off trees; the tools for threshing and
                  grinding;
                  and the
                  > containers for storage. What is new, is the knowledge of how plants
                  > propagate, i.e. that you can take the seeds and plant them where
                  you
                  want
                  > them to grow, rather than go to where they grow naturally.
                  > Now, knowledge can be carried by very small numbers of people, even
                  > individuals or individual families. Also it is not limited to
                  specific
                  > plants. The same knowledge will apply equally to millet as to
                  barley. So, it
                  > need not be evidence of ethnic migrations or movements or spreads of
                  > languages.

                  Interesting speculations Dennis. Your hypothesis stands up pretty
                  well for the first "gatherer-farmers" - who pioneered bananas, sago,
                  taro, yams, sugar cane and coconuts in Papua New Guinea about 30,000
                  years ago. These people seem to have followed the path you set. But
                  there is two things you have left out of your accounts.

                  1. The population needs to be sedentary first before thewy can become
                  farmers. This is necessary to be in a situation of being around for
                  a
                  full 12 months to observe the full cycle of the growing season - from
                  seed to eventual crop. This certainly is the case with every
                  examined
                  case of the shift from hunting and gathering to farming for two
                  reasons.

                  a. A sedentary population (eg coastal fisherfolk in New Guinea) if
                  harvesting one very available food source, would tend to deplete the
                  local availbility of others, resulting in malnutrition. Cultivation
                  of others then becomes almost essential.

                  b. The development of a full-fledged farming (as destinct from a
                  farming suppliment to hunter gathering as happened in the New Guinean
                  case) only occurs if the population balance seriously gets out of
                  kilter with the carrying capacity of the hunter-gathering environment.

                  Farming is more arduous, results in falling quality of life,
                  is much more disease prone, involves a lot more back-breaking labour
                  than hunting and gathering. No sane hunter gatherer who could avoid
                  it would adopt such a lifestyle.

                  2. The second prerequisites are the presence of potential cultivars.
                  Not all plants or animals have the necessary biological
                  pre-adaptations that render them suitable for domestication. It
                  appears that on the border between cultivation and hunter gathering
                  cultures are a lot more adventurous about experimenting with crops
                  and
                  domesticated animals than are their later descendents, who reduce the
                  range and specialise in two or three. In the Middle East for
                  instance, in addition to sheep and goats, early farmers seem to have
                  experimented with domesticating gazelle too. This was later
                  abandonned. Egyptians at an early stage domesticated baboons and
                  cheetah!

                  Thus we find the limitations of Vavilhov Zones (thanks for the
                  excellent webpage on this... one point, most leave out the Sahul
                  Vavilhov zone - sugar cane comes from Australia and New Guinea,
                  pandanus and macadamia nuts from Australia!)

                  Sedentarism in Ethiopia is fairly late by comparison to that of the
                  Middle East. Natufian was sedentary from nearly 8,500 BCE, dependent
                  upon harvesting wild grains, same in Anatolia and the Armenian
                  Zagros.
                  They all found ways of harvesting grains and storing them whilst
                  still
                  a hunter-gathering culture. Just harvesting grains begins the
                  genetic
                  adaptations that make them domestic prone - the seeds collected are
                  those less likely to fall from the ear, and mature at the same time
                  as
                  the others. These seeds sprouting on the edge of the grain store
                  would quickly familiarise sedentary gatherers about the nature of
                  seed-plant-harvest-seed. But only when local supplies of wild grain
                  close by the place of habitation were exhausted, and the thought of
                  having to pack-up and shift is either too risky or too burdensome,
                  would gatherers begin to experiment with saving some of the harvest
                  for sowing when the wet season arrives again - and then true farming
                  begins.

                  The final "push" into full-fledged farming in the Near East seems to
                  have been aridity. Harvesting the naturally occurring fields of wild
                  grain is fine when it is wet, but when you move to a semi arid
                  condition - you either revert to nomadism (as happened with southern
                  Natufians), or begin farming (as happened with Anatolia and Zagros),
                  or you perish!

                  None of these factors applied in Ethiopia until about 3-4,000 BCE.

                  Dennis again
                  > The linguistic evidence, together with the traditions of the peoples
                  > involved, the archaeology (? - I've not really researched this
                  fully
                  yet)
                  > and plausibility, argue for Ethiopia as the point of departure for
                  the
                  > AfroAsiatic languages, and neither the Nostratic Hypothesis nor the
                  > Neolithic Revolution offer any serious obstacles to this scenario.

                  No, but the archaeology does not quite stack up. The neolithic
                  transition first in SW Asia is fairly well understood, and long
                  predates that of Northern or Eastern Africa. The argument occurs
                  whether neolithic in China or in South East Asia predated that of the
                  Middle East. I am of the opinion that it did. Certainly Cinese wet
                  rice grown 7,000 BCE or earlier on the Yangtse River mouth was being
                  cultivated outside the zone in which the wild ancestors of rice are
                  found. Spirit Cave in Thailand (circa 10,000 BCE) seems to show
                  evidence of a hunter-gatherer-neolithic transition. And then there
                  is
                  the 12,000 year old evidence of Kuk in Papua New Guinea and the
                  25,000
                  year old evidence of the Solomon Islands! The knowledge base for
                  cropping seems to have been around for long before agriculture
                  develops. Australian Aborginal people clearly understood the
                  principles for agriculture, but they were not about to reduce the
                  quality of their lives as hunter-gatherers!

                  Dennis
                  > BTW, I have read somewhere that the origin of agriculture in
                  Ethiopia dates
                  > from ca.5000BCE.

                  Pity you don't know the source.... I'd be very interested.

                  Regards

                  John
                • Glen Gordon
                  ... Yes. I thought we agreed that Kartvelian and Eurasiatic were migrants into the Middle East and Fertile Crescent from Africa whereas AA remained in Ethopia
                  Message 8 of 15 , May 26, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John:
                    >The split of Nostratic into its daughter languages I thought you had
                    >agreed was definitively a mesolithic and not a chalcolithic-late
                    >neolithic phenomenon. Kartvellian had long since split from
                    >Nostratic.

                    Yes. I thought we agreed that Kartvelian and Eurasiatic were migrants into
                    the Middle East and Fertile Crescent from Africa whereas AA remained in
                    Ethopia (Bernal).

                    Also, p.109 of Bomhard's "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis" with
                    added emphasis on key words...

                    "The earliest recorded language was Sumerian - the Sumerians were located in
                    CENTRAL and southern Mesopotamia. Semitic people were located in the
                    immediate NORTH and west. The earliest recorded Semitic language was
                    Akkadian. Further north, in modern-day TURKEY, Caucasian languages were
                    spoken."

                    Just redraw the map, John.

                    - gLeN

                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                  • Glen Gordon
                    Come to think of it... In re of the above title, could Dennis please get off me. If you want a piggy back ride, Dennis, you re going to find someone else to
                    Message 9 of 15 , May 26, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Come to think of it... In re of the above title, could Dennis please get off
                      me. If you want a piggy back ride, Dennis, you're going to find someone else
                      to get your jollies :P

                      - gLeN
                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                    • John Croft
                      Glen wrote ... located in ... the ... was ... were ... Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia. In fact the city of Nippur well below Bagdad was
                      Message 10 of 15 , May 27, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Glen wrote

                        > "The earliest recorded language was Sumerian - the Sumerians were
                        located in
                        > CENTRAL and southern Mesopotamia. Semitic people were located in
                        the
                        > immediate NORTH and west. The earliest recorded Semitic language
                        was
                        > Akkadian. Further north, in modern-day TURKEY, Caucasian languages
                        were
                        > spoken."
                        >
                        > Just redraw the map, John.

                        Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia. In fact the
                        city
                        of Nippur well below Bagdad was the linguistic frontier between
                        Semitic Akkadian and Sumerian from early Dynastic times and probably
                        before. The Sumerians themselves claimed to come from Dilmun and
                        acknowledged Eridu as their first settlement. Dilmun in Sumerian has
                        been continuously associated with Bahrein, and was the site of a well
                        developed Ubaid colony. Eridu was on the head of the Persian Gulf as
                        it was 5,000 years ago (3,000 BCE).

                        Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish all
                        have Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken
                        therefore in Southern Mesopotamia, but not as far south as Sumerian.
                        In Assyria, the chief language spoken was Subartu - a language
                        probably related to Hurrian. Akkadian was only ever a court
                        language, and Sumerian was a language of the scribes, never a
                        vernacular. It only became completely Semitised with the Amorite
                        Invasion and the rise of the dynasty of Shamshi Adad. The
                        Amorites spoke a West Semitic language but as a superstratum it
                        was fully absorbed into Akkadian until Babylonian times. Hurrian is,
                        even you agree, a NE Caucasian language. Assyria is in central
                        Mesopotamia. It has never been in Turkey to my knowledge.

                        Regards

                        John
                      • Glen Gordon
                        ... I m sure you mean that _Hurrian_ wasn t spoken in Central Mesopotamia (until later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct statement. Since you
                        Message 11 of 15 , May 27, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia.

                          I'm sure you mean that _Hurrian_ wasn't spoken in Central Mesopotamia (until
                          later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct statement. Since
                          you confuse NWC with NEC, have suggested a ludicrously late date for
                          Proto-Semitic and have made other blunt errors on your map in terms of
                          placement and time, your arguement is falling on deaf ears.

                          >Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish all
                          >have Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken
                          >therefore in Southern Mesopotamia,

                          Of course. Akkadian, coming from the north and west, held its grip and
                          became popular. EncBritt mentions that Sumerian was either endangered or
                          practically moribund by 2000 BCE.

                          >Hurrian is, even you agree, a NE Caucasian language.

                          What books do you read at all. One can state that Hurrian is _related_ to
                          NEC, while _not_ part of the NEC family, and get away with it. Your claim is
                          far more contraversial and not generally accepted.

                          - gLeN

                          ________________________________________________________________________
                          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                        • John Croft
                          Glen you wrote to my point ... Mesopotamia (until ... statement. It is generally accepted that Hurrian was the language of the Halaf culture in Mesopotamia.
                          Message 12 of 15 , May 27, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Glen you wrote to my point

                            > >Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia.
                            >
                            > I'm sure you mean that _Hurrian_ wasn't spoken in Central
                            Mesopotamia (until
                            > later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct
                            statement.

                            It is generally accepted that Hurrian was the language of the Halaf
                            culture in Mesopotamia. Do an internet search on Halaf and you may
                            find the references. It seems that the Halafians began as obsidian
                            traders from the region of Lake Van, and spread their destinctive
                            high
                            quality pottery throughout Syria, Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq in
                            the period shown by the maps. Read Georges Roux on Ancient Iraq for
                            evidence of the presence of Hurrians in Central and even south
                            Mesopotamia in early dynastic times. On the Zagros tribes and their
                            linguistic affiliations - (the Subartu, Lullabi, Kassites and others)
                            read the Cambridge Ancient History, I think it is Vol II(a) from
                            memory.

                            > Since
                            > you confuse NWC with NEC, have suggested a ludicrously late date
                            for
                            > Proto-Semitic and have made other blunt errors on your map in terms
                            of
                            > placement and time, your arguement is falling on deaf ears.
                            >
                            > >Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish all
                            > >have Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken
                            > >therefore in Southern Mesopotamia,
                            >
                            > Of course. Akkadian, coming from the north and west, held its grip
                            and
                            > became popular. EncBritt mentions that Sumerian was either
                            endangered or
                            > practically moribund by 2000 BCE.

                            True, but Sumerian never was the major language further north than
                            Kish. It was the major language of all segments of the population
                            only south of this region. Everywhere else it was a superstratum
                            language only imposed since the Uruk phase with the cultural
                            dominance
                            of Sumerian civilisation. It was never the language of the common
                            folk.

                            > >Hurrian is, even you agree, a NE Caucasian language.
                            >
                            > What books do you read at all. One can state that Hurrian is
                            _related_ to
                            > NEC, while _not_ part of the NEC family, and get away with it. Your
                            claim is
                            > far more contraversial and not generally accepted.

                            For this reason I have given it a different colour

                            John
                          • Marc Verhaegen
                            ... (until later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct statement. Since you confuse NWC with NEC, have suggested a ludicrously late date for
                            Message 13 of 15 , May 29, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >>Glen Sumerian was not spoken in Central Mesopotamia.

                              >I'm sure you mean that _Hurrian_ wasn't spoken in Central Mesopotamia
                              (until later historical times perhaps), which would be a correct statement.
                              Since you confuse NWC with NEC, have suggested a ludicrously late date for
                              Proto-Semitic and have made other blunt errors on your map in terms of
                              placement and time, your arguement is falling on deaf ears.

                              I'm reading T.Krispijn etc.1999 "De talen van het oude Nabije Oosten" Ex
                              Oriente Lux, Leiden. They say the central area of Sumerian (3200-2000 BC as
                              spoken language) was South Mesopotamia (South Sumerian: Uruk, Urn Umma...,
                              North Sumerian: Nippur, Isin...), but Sumerian texts are found in
                              Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestina, Egypt, Anatolia, Elam... Hurrian
                              (2350-1000 BC) is found in North Mesopatamia (Urkesh...), later also Nineve,
                              Alalach=NW-Syria, Mari=Mid-Euphrate.


                              >>Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish all have
                              Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken therefore in
                              Southern Mesopotamia,

                              >Of course. Akkadian, coming from the north and west, held its grip and
                              became popular. EncBritt mentions that Sumerian was either endangered or
                              practically moribund by 2000 BCE.

                              Krispijn etc. say first Akkadian names in Sumerian texts were found in South
                              Mesopotamia after 2400 BC Akkadian texts are known from Ebla=Syria & whole
                              Mesopotamia.

                              Marc Verhaegen
                              http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
                              http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes74.html


                              >>Hurrian is, even you agree, a NE Caucasian language.

                              >What books do you read at all. One can state that Hurrian is _related_ to
                              NEC, while _not_ part of the NEC family, and get away with it. Your claim is
                              far more contraversial and not generally accepted. - gLeN
                            • John Croft
                              ... Oosten Ex ... (3200-2000 BC as ... Umma..., ... Yes, I think that the recognition of Sumerian as a literary language and as a spoken language needs to be
                              Message 14 of 15 , May 29, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Marc Verhaegen wrote:

                                > I'm reading T.Krispijn etc.1999 "De talen van het oude Nabije
                                Oosten" Ex
                                > Oriente Lux, Leiden. They say the central area of Sumerian
                                (3200-2000 BC as
                                > spoken language) was South Mesopotamia (South Sumerian: Uruk, Urn
                                Umma...,
                                > North Sumerian: Nippur, Isin...), but Sumerian texts are found in
                                > Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestina, Egypt, Anatolia, Elam...

                                Yes, I think that the recognition of Sumerian as a literary language
                                and as a spoken language needs to be recognised. It is analogous to
                                Latin. Swedish scholars were writing in Latin in the 17th Century,
                                spoken Latin disappeared as a first language with the collapse of the
                                Western Roman Empire.

                                Hurrian
                                > (2350-1000 BC) is found in North Mesopatamia (Urkesh...), later
                                also
                                Nineve,
                                > Alalach=NW-Syria, Mari=Mid-Euphrate.

                                Roux reports the presence of Hurrian personal names in the lowest
                                strata in the Lagash records.

                                >
                                >
                                > >>Akkadian was spoken in Kish, so that the first Dynasty of Kish
                                all
                                have
                                > Akkadian (not sumerian) names, Akkadian was also spoken therefore
                                in
                                > Southern Mesopotamia,
                                >
                                > >Of course. Akkadian, coming from the north and west, held its grip
                                and
                                > became popular. EncBritt mentions that Sumerian was either
                                endangered or
                                > practically moribund by 2000 BCE.

                                It was the collapse of the Third Dynasty at Ur, under Ishbi Erra and
                                Shulgi that saw a reaction against Sumerian. The Amorite invasions
                                had created a new West Semetic influx during the Isin/Larsa period,
                                and Elamite invasions established Rim Sin with an Elamite
                                superstructure quickly absorbed into Akkadian Semitic.

                                > Krispijn etc. say first Akkadian names in Sumerian texts were found
                                in South
                                > Mesopotamia after 2400 BC Akkadian texts are known from Ebla=Syria
                                &
                                whole
                                > Mesopotamia.

                                Ebla in fact had Akkadian as a literary language. They used
                                Cuneiform
                                for the earliest extant West Semitic texts. The first Akkadian names
                                are significantly before 2400 BCE. Sargon came to power then to
                                establish the Akkadian Empire about that time, and Akkadian
                                then achieved comeasurable status with Sumerian. Sumerian continued
                                in importance, indeed his daughter, Enheduanna, is the first named
                                author of any text and wrote in Sumerian, establishing almost
                                singlehandedly the genre of Sumerian literary texts.

                                Hope this helps

                                John
                              • Marc Verhaegen
                                ... South Mesopotamia after 2400 BC Akkadian texts are known from Ebla=Syria & whole Mesopotamia. ... the earliest extant West Semitic texts. The first
                                Message 15 of 15 , May 31, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >> Krispijn etc. say first Akkadian names in Sumerian texts were found in
                                  South Mesopotamia after 2400 BC Akkadian texts are known from Ebla=Syria &
                                  whole Mesopotamia.

                                  >Ebla in fact had Akkadian as a literary language. They used Cuneiform for
                                  the earliest extant West Semitic texts. The first Akkadian names are
                                  significantly before 2400 BCE.

                                  You're correct. Sorry. I meant: Krispijn etc. say first Akkadian names in
                                  Sumerian texts were found in South Mesopotamia; after 2400 BC Akkadian texts
                                  are known from Ebla=Syria & whole Mesopotamia.

                                  Marc Verhaegen
                                  http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
                                  http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes74.html
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.