|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Feb 1, 2011 4:55:21 GMT -5
Greetings Phamily
I am currently reading a text called In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology edited by John D. Bengtson (2008). There is an article written by Christy G. Turner II titled "A dental anthropological hypothesis relating to the ethnogenesis, origin, and antiquity of the Afro-Asiatic language family: People of the Eurafrican-South Asian triangle IV."
I want to get those who are familiar with linguistics to give their opinion on this topic. Here is the abstract from the article:
Do you think it is possible that one can base linguistic and "ethnic" origins on dental morphologies? And how should we take up this thing on Afro-Asiatic origins when in the same publication S.O.Y. Keita states that based on the genetic data, Afro-Asiatic has its roots in East Africa?
I don't know how many have been keeping up with Nostratic theory, but basically they are arguing for a big mega-family language called Nostratic. This Nostrotic encompasses Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic. The Urheimat (origins) is believed to be somewhere in the Mediterranean/Causcus area, which means that if Afro-Asiatic originates in Asia, all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers ultimately derived from Asia. In other words, they are still trying to argue an external origin for Afro-Asiatic, which they could in turn argue for an external origin of the Ancient Egyptians.
I don't know how a publication with could publish two conflicting articles. Keita, quoting Ehret, states that the early Afro-Asiatic speakers were not farmers. So how does Turner come up with the notion that these migrants were immigrant farmers. Didn't Diop already crush this notion a long time ago? Why don't we see any vocabulary, in Egypt, that mirrors any farming terms, practices or actual food from these benevolent migrants?
I could go on, but just wanted to introduce this to those who may not be familiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthcentric on Feb 1, 2011 21:57:07 GMT -5
Which North Africans were sampled in the study being discussed?
|
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Feb 2, 2011 2:59:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Feb 3, 2011 19:28:49 GMT -5
Neither genetics, dental morphology or skeletal remains can tell you what language was spoken in an area millenia ago.
TOPONYMS and substratum languages can provide some info on past linguistic events. The earliest recorded language in Mesopotamia was Sumerian. The only AA language spoken in the area in ancient times was Akkadian, which has a substratum Sumerian effect. The Sumerian literature point to a southern entrance into the region by the Akkadians. The historical and linguistic data does not support a Middle East origin for AA.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by near on Feb 24, 2011 23:04:10 GMT -5
Greetings Phamily I am currently reading a text called In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology edited by John D. Bengtson (2008). There is an article written by Christy G. Turner II titled "A dental anthropological hypothesis relating to the ethnogenesis, origin, and antiquity of the Afro-Asiatic language family: People of the Eurafrican-South Asian triangle IV." I want to get those who are familiar with linguistics to give their opinion on this topic. Here is the abstract from the article: Do you think it is possible that one can base linguistic and "ethnic" origins on dental morphologies? And how should we take up this thing on Afro-Asiatic origins when in the same publication S.O.Y. Keita states that based on the genetic data, Afro-Asiatic has its roots in East Africa? I don't know how many have been keeping up with Nostratic theory, but basically they are arguing for a big mega-family language called Nostratic. This Nostrotic encompasses Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic. The Urheimat (origins) is believed to be somewhere in the Mediterranean/Causcus area, which means that if Afro-Asiatic originates in Asia, all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers ultimately derived from Asia. In other words, they are still trying to argue an external origin for Afro-Asiatic, which they could in turn argue for an external origin of the Ancient Egyptians. I don't know how a publication with could publish two conflicting articles. Keita, quoting Ehret, states that the early Afro-Asiatic speakers were not farmers. So how does Turner come up with the notion that these migrants were immigrant farmers. Didn't Diop already crush this notion a long time ago? Why don't we see any vocabulary, in Egypt, that mirrors any farming terms, practices or actual food from these benevolent migrants? I could go on, but just wanted to introduce this to those who may not be familiar. LOL! It is a ridiculous claim, since, according to a 2009 study, dental changes are the result of diet, and not migrations: Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective. Rose JC, Roblee RD. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300. The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding. "David Greene studied the teeth of skeletons excavated in the Sudan just south of Egypt along the Nile and documented a long-term trend in dental-size reduction for the 10,000-year period. He suggested this reduction in tooth size was from changes in diet and methods of food processing as agriculture was adopted and refined. Analysis of more samples by numerous researchers has established this general trend in tooth-size reduction that is associated with changes in diet. As the diet has become more refined, the consequent increase in dental decay selected for smaller and less complex teeth has moved distally in relation to the skull, such that the body of the mandible now protrudes forward underneath the alveolar bone producing a chin. Because teeth have become smaller without producing excess room in the jaws, other evolutionary mechanisms must have been at work on the alveolar bone and supporting structures of the maxilla and mandible." "While it was common to use cranial measurements to document migrations, ancient Egyptian skulls also were employed to demonstrate that the development of Egyptian civilization was produced by the arrival of a "dynastic race" that had a different skull shape. To contradict this racial approach, Carlson and Van Gerven proposed the masticatory function hypothesis, which maintains that changes in the face and skull between the mesolithic and Christian periods (10,000-year span) in the southern Nile Valley were caused by dietary changes initiated by the adoption of agriculture and changing food processing technology." "Carlson and Van Gerven argued most of the facial changes were not the result of genetic changes but caused by reduced chewing stress during development....they contend that the switch to modern diets had so reduced chewing stress that the jaws did not develop to a sufficient size to hold all the teeth and thus malocclusion became common." "Into this fray stepped Robert Corruccini .....who marshaled 20 years of research on cross- cultural differences in occlusal anomalies to support the masticatory functional explanation of malocclusion." "Corruccini and his colleagues favored the explanation that reduced chewing stress in childhood produced jaws that were too small for the teeth despite the ubiqutious trend in dental size reduction." "Corruccini also documented a clear association of alveolar bone growth with the functional stimulation of chewing forces that includes measurements of bite-force variation between generations of Eskimos and experimental studies showing changes in mandibular growth of rats and primates between groups consuming hard and soft diets. For example, Lieberman et al raised hyraxes on either cooked or raw foods and showed an approximate 10% difference in facial growth. They not only supported the idea that diet-asscoiated reduction in chewing stress resulted in decreased growth of the mandibular and maxillary arches, but also that animal studies, in general, show both facial reduction and increased malocclusion in the low-force groups." |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 8, 2011 17:42:41 GMT -5
OT:Can someone please tell me what "phamily" means? Urban slang of saying family. |
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 5, 2011 14:34:57 GMT -5
It's a good thing actually that a book would include different view points. Have you read Egypt in Africa? Same deal. Only thing is that Keita's argument is obviously stronger and based on multidisciplinary research. Turner's demic diffusion theories were already debunked by Carlson and van Gerven. Also, I do not see how studying the dental morphology in the Nile valley has anything to do with the spread of Afro-asiatic as she examined no other Afro-asiatic-speakers. This is horrible scholarship and I'm not surprised that they included a different view point for a forced perception of "balance", but given the poor quality of the opposing view I have a lot to criticize them about for including her bogus essay specifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Apr 5, 2011 17:48:13 GMT -5
^^ Yeah, in her essay she sounds really whiny, blaming "political correctness" for others not accepting her demic viewpoint. But in fact, it is hard data that calls her view into question not any "political correctness." Keita did mention the multi-disciplinary approach, the importance of other data cross checking other sources and consistency between them. Dental studies can be helpful where consistent with other data. And dental studies can be manipulated in an unbalanced way just as easily as DNA or cranial studies.  |
|
