New Afro-Asiatic Branch in Southeast Europe

[Step a side]

Yes, thats what i thought in language family group wise,
View attachment 303643

View attachment 303644

This is different. Berber and Semitic are related. While Egyptian and Chadic are related. Cushitic is related to Berber-Semitic. Berber - Semitic close relations could stem from E-M81-E-M123 (E-Z287)

Also Old south Arabian is grouped with Arabic in a central Semitic group. FGC11 could be the main driving force here.

 

[The alchemist]

@The alchemist I don’t think AA reached the Balkans. The Anatolian farmers that went on to colonise Europe spread from the Balkan’s. They would have diffused the AA into all of Europe (before the steppe people came in). Many languages like Basque and Etruscan including Indo European once would have hinted AA substrates. Besides Anatolia was densely populated for E-M78 migrants to have left any impact.

Linguistically it is attested. How and who is a different question. This was never a genetic argument and if you read through my response to Garaad Diinle, I am stating a clear reluctance to the notion that ANF DNA and ENF DNA were default Afro-Asiatic. As you pointed out, what is further evident is that ENF people spoke diverse pre-indo European languages, only one is attested clearly in Balkan to be Afro-Asiatic in the proto-Indo European age, and the rest were likely not. I don't subscribe to the idea that these farmers were culturally, socially, or linguistically homogeneous as the evidence points quite differently to that. These people who are genetically similar were never homogenous.

You have to understand that the Neolithic and Paleolithic were diverse in terms of cultural and linguistic blocks compared to the Iron Age times. People have been homogenizing themselves on a cultural and linguistic plane considerably.

But linguistically the influence the proto-Indo European had is quite cut and dry:

 

[Emir of Zayla]

No, saxib. It's native to northeast Africa. "Asiatic" was always a misnomer. No need to add more mistakes, lol.

Erytharatic language family has a nice ring to it

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Erytharatic language family has a nice ring to it

Eritrean Nationalists would definitely get behind that name to replace Afro-Asiatic

 

[giire12]

Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber are different branches. But one prominent theory says before they bifurcated, in the pre-proto of each one of them, coalesced to a linguistic dialect parent stage that they would respectively innovatively diverge from. Based on the linguistic relationship, those three pre-definite branchings had descended from a common dialectical continuum.

Interesting, I think not all studies are in agreement but would you say based on linguistic relationship we are more diverse than Indo-European?

 

[giire12]

This is different. Berber and Semitic are related. While Egyptian and Chadic are related. Cushitic is related to Berber-Semitic. Berber - Semitic close relations could stem from E-M81-E-M123 (E-Z287)

Also Old south Arabian is grouped with Arabic in a central Semitic group. FGC11 could be the main driving force here.

Thats linking genetics with linguistic, but Berber-Semitic E-M81, E-M123 (E-Z287) are very wide spread from Morocco to Middle East, also found in some Somalis. I think genetics and linguistic go hand in hand except for some groups like Hausa who speak Chadic language but i believe their genetics is bantu if i am not mistaken.

 

[Step a side]

Linguistically it is attested. How and who is a different question. This was never a genetic argument and if you read through my response to Garaad Diinle, I am stating a clear reluctance to the notion that ANF DNA and ENF DNA were default Afro-Asiatic. As you pointed out, what is further evident is that ENF people spoke diverse pre-indo European languages, only one is attested clearly in Balkan to be Afro-Asiatic in the proto-Indo European age, and the rest were likely not. I don't subscribe to the idea that these farmers were culturally, socially, or linguistically homogeneous as the evidence points quite differently to that. These people who are genetically similar were never homogenous.

You have to understand that the Neolithic and Paleolithic were diverse in terms of cultural and linguistic blocks compared to the Iron Age times. People have been homogenizing themselves on a cultural and linguistic plane considerably.

But linguistically the influence the proto-Indo European had is quite cut and dry:
View attachment 303647
View attachment 303646

Where would this old Balkan AA language fit in geographically speaking? The only way Afro Asiatic could have reached there is if there was a rapid expansion of an Afro Asiatic speaking tribe from the Levant straight into the Balkans. They would be overwhelmed though by the huge population of Anatolian farmers present in the Balkans during the 6 millennium BC. It’s still possible but I don’t see how.

 

[The alchemist]

I know but can' but can't a man dream kkk. While there might not be concrete proof of cultural continuity in the field of building megalithic structure it sure is peculiar how in a number of places in southern europe where we know that neolithic farmers were present we also find megalithic structure everywhere. Sardinia for example an island inhabited by a population that are almost genetically identical to the neolithic farmers and their island is field with megalithic structures. That being said it's but a theory yet to be proven.


While the video used semitic as an example he also generalized these similarities to both egyptian and berber languages so north afro-asiatic but you've already pointed out the boreafrasian branch of afro-asiatic language containing all the mentioned languages.

I wonder if this Old balkanic can explain the peculiar similarities between near eastern languages such as semitic and the greek language. For example taurus meaning bull but also levantine arabic taour or classical arabic thowr. Also logic which is derived from greek logos meaning speech and in arabic lugha meaning language and in somali luuq meaning good sound. Finally burgz indo-european meaning summit and in arabic burj meaning a mountain. Of course there might've been some influence from phoenicians who also spread the alphabet to the greek and vice versa hellanic influence on the near east.

Not to digress too much, but to your last paragraph, there is the 'taurus' I took note of. I came across writing months back studying cattle cult. One theory was that the cattle centered (often called "cults") pastoralists influenced the Mediterranean in their mythologies about cattle. What's interesting about this is that you find these cattle cult pastoralists in Arabia in the Neolithic, you had strong cattle orientation in the paleolithic Nile Valley (rock art of Kom Ombo, for example) and Neolithic Nabta Playa, also similar cattle fixation in the Sahara during the Neolithic, and of course, we have a strong cattle-distinguished presence among Cushites too that stretches all the way back to C-Group shown in rock art and material culture (although I don't think this has anything to do with the paleolithic hunter-gatherer rock art we see - not directly, anyway).

Abstract of one of the papers for Arabia:

"At the cusp of food production, Near Eastern societies adopted new territorial practices, including archaeologically visible sedentism and nonsedentary social defenses more challenging to identify archaeologically. New archaeological and paleoenvironmental evidence for Arabia’s earliest-known sacrifices points to territorial maintenance in arid highland southern Yemen. Here sedentism was not an option prior to agriculture. Seasonally mobile pastoralists developed alternate practices to reify cohesive identities, maintain alliances, and defend territories. Archaeological and paleoenvironmental evidence implies cattle sacrifices were commemorated with a ring of more than 42 cattle skulls and a stone platform buried by 6,400-year-old floodplain sediments. Associated with numerous hearths, these cattle rites suggest feasting by a large gathering, with important sociopolitical ramifications for territories. A GIS analysis of the early Holocene landscape indicates constrained pasturage supporting small resident human populations. Cattle sacrifice in southern Arabia suggests a model of mid-Holocene Neolithic territorial pastoralism under environmental and cultural conditions that made sedentism unsustainable." - DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01396.x

 

[Step a side]

Thats linking genetics with linguistic, but Berber-Semitic E-M81, E-M123 (E-Z287) are very wide spread from Morocco to Middle East, also found in some Somalis. I think genetics and linguistic go hand in hand except for some groups like Hausa who speak Chadic language but i believe their genetics is bantu if i am not mistaken.

E-Z287 in the horn came via the Red Sea in my opinion. There is a reason why we never see E-M293, E-V6 in old Nile valley remains. It crossed directly from Arabia is what I believe. There was an old study of trombetta stating E-V1515 has highest diversity in Eritrea indicating it came from the direction of Arabia. We only see E-V6 among Berbers of Siwa oasis indicating that it came with E-M81 from the Levant shortly after the Berber-Semitic split. E-M78 seems to be the only indigenous one in North Africa.

 

[Garaad Awal]

Nigga threw the most abnormal examples at me kkkk. Most people across these groups have a common look that's undeniable

Abnormal? One are Berbers and the other Arabians?

You think a Sa’idi and a Berber from the Atlas mountain looks-alike? All these groups (Berbers,Semites & Copts) looks distinct.Just like a Somali looks distinct from a Wolayta

 

[The alchemist]

View attachment 303650

Where would this old Balkan AA language fit in geographically speaking? The only way Afro Asiatic could have reached there is if there was a rapid expansion of an Afro Asiatic speaking tribe from the Levant straight into the Balkans. They would be overwhelmed though by the huge population of Anatolian farmers present in the Balkans during the 6 millennium BC. It’s still possible but I don’t see how.

The burden of proof is not on this side where linguistic evidence has been substantiated. This is not a matter of "if" it is possible, and the picture you're showing is not a negation of the linguistic reality put forth, nor is the map you're showing comprehensive (there is a lot we don't know.), nor does it support your stance even -- because that Neolithic expansion was multi-faceted, complex and multi-spread by diverse groups, not a single homogenized group. You're talking about genetics when this is a linguistic matter.

Clearly, those people were not some linguistically uniform groups, similar to how we don't assert they were cultural, social, or organizational either -- other than the subsistence. Anatolia was a very expressively mixed place despite the genetic similarity.

We already know ideas and things were brought from the Levant through demic and social diffusions already. That's why the Neolithic Levantines were heavily Anatolian... Many times you have non-genetic diffusion of traits, or elite diffusion that make no autosomal difference. Agaws and Amaharas are genetically indistinguishable, but they are different speech groups. The Americas had diverse linguistic groupings despite all being of the same broad stock. Australian aboriginals despite being of the same regional grouping also had very diverse linguistics. You can make individual stances based on respective research but you cannot conflate disciplines.

You also are making extremely reductive. Even your map shows several expansion points of different groups into Europe. Reality would be more complex than the image you showed as the source even states.

Here is an expert on the matter:

Questioning when, how and even why the Neolithic way of life appeared in Europe has been one of the most debated problems of European prehistory, leading to the formulation of various explanatory models, each providing evidence to support its point of view, but without convincing others. Conventional standpoints, one-tract thinking and considering the emergence of the Neolithic way of life as a short-term event have hampered consensus, bringing discussions almost to a dead- lock. Recent evidence has made it clear that the Neolithisation process in Europe was a multifarious event that went on for more than a millennium; thus, all previous hypotheses were correct with re- gard to their specific cases. Analytic or synthetic explicative models such as migration, colonisation, segregated infiltration, the transfer of commodities and of know-how, acculturation, assimilation, and maritime expansion that are seemingly mutually contradictory actually took place simultaneously as distinct modalities.

This was a complex matter with a diversified front, not a single push with a single group. And how they applied their technological diffusion was not one package:

"With the increase in our knowledge of the Neolithic Period defining what is implied by the term, the Neolithic became far more difficult than before; now, the definition varies according to the types of question being asked. However, any hypothesis based on conventional ‘primary’ elements would fail to answer even the simplest questions. Although the term ‘Neolithic package’ has emerged to mark the multifarious outlines of Neolithic cultures, considering it as a single, homogenous package is as misleading as the earlier assumptions. The Neolithic package has to be defined and specified both in time and space as distinct packages."

There has always been a bi-directional influence between the Levant and Anatolia since the very earliest moment of farming technology developed in the region. This is a statement from Max Planck:

"These results suggest gene flow from the Levant to Anatolia during the early Neolithic. In turn, Levantine early farmers (Levant_Neol) that are temporally intermediate between AAF and ACF could be modeled as a two-way mixture of Natufians and AHG or AAF (18.2 ± 6.4% AHG or 21.3 ± 6.3% AAF ancestry; Supplementary Tables 4 and 8 and Supplementary Data 4), confirming previous reports of an Anatolian-like ancestry contributing to the Levantine Neolithic gene pool6. These two distinct detected gene flows support a reciprocal genetic exchange between the Levant and Anatolia during the early stages of the transition to farming"

Even I can substantiate how the Anatolian Neolithic and the early European Neolithic Farmers were Levantine influenced from the get-go, consistent with the literature research:

These people since the Neolithic had even Levantine genetic influence, no matter how much or negligible, the idea that there was never a precedent is an ignorant statement. Hungarians speak a fucking Asiatic today but they have almost non-existent real Magyar DNA. Even if the Hungarians had zero Magyar DNA, as many do, it would make no difference. Geneflow lowering the original introduction of the language does not make it impossible situation implausible for genetic Central Europeans to speak Hungarians. Do you see the silly logic in this argumentation? Linguistics and genetics are not the same thing although many times it comes with it depending on conditions.

As I was correct from the beginning to not devolve into this, just because these people had Levantine ancestry, doesn't suddenly mean they all spoke Afro-Asiatic languages either. It's just merely one diversity among many. It would be the same as arguing that Basque was representative of pre-Indo-European Europe. That would be a stupid statement. Because Basque could for all we know come from other ENF diversity or could have been given by Western Hunter Gatherer types. It's not an engagement of the conversation other than you not wanting to accept the linguistic facts. How those facts come about is a mystery to everyone involved. We can theoretically explain here and there. For example, E-M78, but then again, I refrain from doing haplogroup essentialism because it can quickly delve into another form of stupidity, although it is a possibility given the geographic and distributive frequency. We simply don't have the facts on the ground, but what is logical is to start to explain the pathways for this to be the case since the linguistic aspect is set, instead of burying your head in the sand because, whether you like it or not, it is a fact.

Finding evidence of people living in an area doesn't mean they demographically conquered the whole region with no room for variation, nor that they lived there forever nor that they spoke a single language forever either... That expansion you refer to was done by different cultures that set up different power profiles, some more related than others, some very distinct. This notion that these people were homogenous is not based on the literature at all, so I don't know why language should suddenly apply -- especially when the linguistic evidence clearly shows proto-Indo-European was influenced by this ancestral Afro-Asiatic branch that shaped the language family instrumentally for farming and pastoralists and others.

As I told @Garaad diinle, Anatolian genetic people were diversified groups across time and space. So the conversation is a non-issue. You're mistaken if you believe ANF DNA equals the same exact people. It's the wrong conversation and it frankly derails the topic into quite different things.

 

[Step a side]

Finding evidence of people living in an area doesn't mean they demographically conquered the whole region with no room for variation, nor that they lived there forever nor that they spoke a single language forever either... That expansion you refer to was done by different cultures that set up different power profiles, some more related than others, some very distinct. This notion that these people were homogenous is not based on the literature at all, so I don't know why language should suddenly apply -- especially when the linguistic evidence clearly shows proto-Indo-European was influenced by this ancestral Afro-Asiatic branch that shaped the language family instrumentally for farming and pastoralists and others.

This paragraph of yours is what I was referring to where an AA speaking tribe moved into an already crowded non AA speaking area in the Balkans. This scenario is possible but why call it Old Balkan. It’s not like the entire region was AA speaking during the 6th millennium BC

 

[The alchemist]

This paragraph of yours is what I was referring to where an AA speaking tribe moved into an already crowded non AA speaking area in the Balkans. This scenario is possible but why call it Old Balkan. It’s not like the entire region was AA speaking during the 6th millennium BC

Frankly, you don't know what language those places spoke at all, so asserting anything is pointless. The point was that is was that one of the crowds (although the notion of that framing is totally faulty since the Neolithic was way more sparse population-wise, still, that is not important since I just want to bring home the important point across the pond) was AA speakers -- substantiated by linguistic evidence, first of its kind of that region, other than Indo-European, besides other extinct paleo-European unclassified languages. That was the point with diversity... Maybe you skipped reading what I referenced since I quoted expert takes that substantiated what I said when I debunked this false assumption of a dilemma; nothing is contradictory. Linguistically, it has been set firm, and that is the main point. The other stuff is rather pedantic, especially the issue with naming since it is speculated over a broad hypothetical area, expecting geographic exactness is disingenuous. You know how these things work.

It's practically a Boreafrasian offshoot, which is my take, although the paper claims it had to be something of that age and characteristics while I reference what I learned from reading Ehret's work that corresponds neatly.

You need to update your knowledge or the way you approach information. I know people think and do things differently but it's not productive.

 

[Aurelian]

this is very interesting

 

[mohammdov]

@The alchemist bro,Since you are an expert in this, do you think that Haplogroup T arrived via the Arabian Peninsula or via the route from Sudan? This confused me

 

[The alchemist]

@The alchemist bro,Since you are an expert in this, do you think that Haplogroup T arrived via the Arabian Peninsula or via the route from Sudan? This confused me

What is discussed within this thread is not on my discipline parameter (from a formal education sense), so I am technically not an expert.

I think the attention should be deeper into Arabia. That red center is where I think the source could derive from; the southern Arabian coasts (or the Red Sea) serve as departure points:

That's my speculation.

 

[IMBKMDFKRS]

What is discussed within this thread is not on my discipline parameter (from a formal education sense), so I am technically not an expert.

I think the attention should be deeper into Arabia. That red center is where I think the source could derive from; the southern Arabian coasts (or the Red Sea) serve as departure points:
View attachment 303782

That's my speculation.

My hypothesis is that T-Y16897 might be related to the bronze -age collapse. So it might be ancient Levantine or Mediterranean Sea Peoples ancestry e.g. Philistines, Pre-IE Greek, or Minoans etc. Then it found its way into Arabia, mutated into T-Y45591 and continued to Somaliland/Djibouti for some reason, not leaving much of a footprint in the Arabian peninsula.

 

[Revolutionarry]

This is super interesting!

 

[Himmler]

Very interesting thread! There’s actually some remains from the Neolithic Aegean region that are pretty North African shifted in there craniofacial form. They could be remnants of these folk.

 

[Garaad Awal]

My hypothesis is that T-Y16897 might be related to the bronze -age collapse. So it might be ancient Levantine or Mediterranean Sea Peoples ancestry e.g. Philistines, Pre-IE Greek, or Minoans etc. Then it found its way into Arabia, mutated into T-Y45591 and continued to Somaliland/Djibouti for some reason, not leaving much of a footprint in the Arabian peninsula.

T-Y16897 looks like a Neolithic Levantine lineage tbh