The origin of the Afroasiatic languages is almost a settled question, with the most likely location being in the Levant with the Natufians due to the high degree of presence of haplogroup E among almost all Afroasiatic populations except in the Middle East, and high proportions of Natufian-like ancestry in all Afroasiatic people.
With the Semitic languages, it’s less clear and straightforward. We have to reconcile several issues. (Note: I am citing my sources as Papers 1, 2, and 3 because I have under 20 posts so I can’t hyperlink, and because I don’t want to break the flow of the text. The names of the papers can be found at the end of the post.)
I think any hypothesis to be seriously considered must explain the strong correlation between Semitic languages and J (and Iranian ancestry), and remember that Afroasiatic languages did not emerge in Iran, but most likely in the Levant.
I think the two best explanations are the following,
-a modification of the Levant hypothesis: Iran_ChL migrated to the Levant, intermixing with a native population that spoke Proto-Semitic. This admixed population spread into Mesopotamia and later into Arabia.
-the Levantine population that admixed to produce Iran_ChL introduced a pre-proto-Semitic language that evolved into Proto-Semitic within the Iranian population. It then later spread to the Levant and Mesopotamia, and either directly, or indirectly through an admixed Levantine population, into Arabia.
I think both of those explanations are almost equally satisfactory and face similar problems. I think the biggest problem facing the modified Levantine hypothesis is that it is unusual for a population to form a dominant caste over a population (as evidenced by the replacement of the local Y-DNA haplogroups) and not make the nondominant group adopt their language. A “counterexample” to this from history is the Basques, who have one of the highest levels of R1b—associated with the spread of Indo-European languages—of any population at 91%, but who kept their pre-Indo-European language.
With the second “Iranian” (because the Iranian component was more directly involved in the spread of the languages) hypothesis, the biggest problem is that the Levant_N migrating population that supposedly would have spoken pre-proto-Semitic didn’t form a dominant caste over the Iranian population (as evidenced by the lack of replacement of the dominant haplogroups in the population), yet the Iranian population adopted Levant_N’s language. A “counterexample” to this are Indo-European-speaking Mycenaean Greeks, where the samples, albeit small in number, suggest that most Mycenaean Greeks had J2 and not R1, which is associated with Indo-European migrations.
Which explanation do you guys think is more likely? Is there relevant evidence I haven’t touched on? I’d love to hear your thoughts about these hypotheses.
Sources:
Paper 1: Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East
Paper 2:
Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences
Paper 3:
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Edit 2/20: I think the modified Levantine hypothesis is slightly more likely to be true, though I am not highly certain. I think a scenario where Y-DNA is replaced but the language is kept is more likely than an immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA. I mentioned below that my analysis of the Mycenaeans might be false; however, after further reading, it seems to be the immediate pre-IE inhabitants of Greece were closely related to Minoans, and in fact Mycenaeans can be modeled as Minoans+Steppe, which is evidence that the immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA is not as unlikely as it seems. Nonetheless, we have a dearth of ancient DNA from Mycenaean Greece, so the above analysis is by no means conclusive. A perhaps more firm argument in favor of the Levantine hypothesis is that most linguists consider the Levant to have been the origin of the Semitic languages. So even though the Mycenaean example might not be wrong after all, I still there is slightly more reason to believe in the modified Levantine hypothesis.
Edit 2/23: I deleted a portion saying evidence showing a Canaanite signature in Arabians might provide strong evidence for the modified Levantine hypothesis. However, since the Levant region probably experienced more migration from Iran after the Proto-Semitic era, meaning Canaanites probably differed genetically from Proto-Semites, I don’t think that would hold.
If you guys have thoughts about my edit, don’t hesitate to share them below.
With the Semitic languages, it’s less clear and straightforward. We have to reconcile several issues. (Note: I am citing my sources as Papers 1, 2, and 3 because I have under 20 posts so I can’t hyperlink, and because I don’t want to break the flow of the text. The names of the papers can be found at the end of the post.)
- The Afroasiatic languages most likely originated in the Levant. The people who spread the Afroasiatic languages most likely carried haplogroup E and a Natufian-like genotype.
- Almost all speakers of Semitic languages carry high frequencies of haplogroup J and have moderate levels of Iran_N ancestry.
- According to Paper 1, which has been cited 186 times as of this writing, proto-Semitic was spoken between 5800 and 5500 years ago.
- According to Paper 2, which has been cited 89 times as of this writing, the admixture between the local Levantine population and Iran_ChL “occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago.”
- According to Paper 3 by Lazaridis et al., which has been cited over 600 times as of this writing, Levant_N contributed roughly 20% of the genetic makeup of Iran_ChL.
I think any hypothesis to be seriously considered must explain the strong correlation between Semitic languages and J (and Iranian ancestry), and remember that Afroasiatic languages did not emerge in Iran, but most likely in the Levant.
I think the two best explanations are the following,
-a modification of the Levant hypothesis: Iran_ChL migrated to the Levant, intermixing with a native population that spoke Proto-Semitic. This admixed population spread into Mesopotamia and later into Arabia.
-the Levantine population that admixed to produce Iran_ChL introduced a pre-proto-Semitic language that evolved into Proto-Semitic within the Iranian population. It then later spread to the Levant and Mesopotamia, and either directly, or indirectly through an admixed Levantine population, into Arabia.
I think both of those explanations are almost equally satisfactory and face similar problems. I think the biggest problem facing the modified Levantine hypothesis is that it is unusual for a population to form a dominant caste over a population (as evidenced by the replacement of the local Y-DNA haplogroups) and not make the nondominant group adopt their language. A “counterexample” to this from history is the Basques, who have one of the highest levels of R1b—associated with the spread of Indo-European languages—of any population at 91%, but who kept their pre-Indo-European language.
With the second “Iranian” (because the Iranian component was more directly involved in the spread of the languages) hypothesis, the biggest problem is that the Levant_N migrating population that supposedly would have spoken pre-proto-Semitic didn’t form a dominant caste over the Iranian population (as evidenced by the lack of replacement of the dominant haplogroups in the population), yet the Iranian population adopted Levant_N’s language. A “counterexample” to this are Indo-European-speaking Mycenaean Greeks, where the samples, albeit small in number, suggest that most Mycenaean Greeks had J2 and not R1, which is associated with Indo-European migrations.
Which explanation do you guys think is more likely? Is there relevant evidence I haven’t touched on? I’d love to hear your thoughts about these hypotheses.
Sources:
Paper 1: Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East
Paper 2:
Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences
Paper 3:
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Edit 2/20: I think the modified Levantine hypothesis is slightly more likely to be true, though I am not highly certain. I think a scenario where Y-DNA is replaced but the language is kept is more likely than an immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA. I mentioned below that my analysis of the Mycenaeans might be false; however, after further reading, it seems to be the immediate pre-IE inhabitants of Greece were closely related to Minoans, and in fact Mycenaeans can be modeled as Minoans+Steppe, which is evidence that the immigrant population replacing the language but not the Y-DNA is not as unlikely as it seems. Nonetheless, we have a dearth of ancient DNA from Mycenaean Greece, so the above analysis is by no means conclusive. A perhaps more firm argument in favor of the Levantine hypothesis is that most linguists consider the Levant to have been the origin of the Semitic languages. So even though the Mycenaean example might not be wrong after all, I still there is slightly more reason to believe in the modified Levantine hypothesis.
Edit 2/23: I deleted a portion saying evidence showing a Canaanite signature in Arabians might provide strong evidence for the modified Levantine hypothesis. However, since the Levant region probably experienced more migration from Iran after the Proto-Semitic era, meaning Canaanites probably differed genetically from Proto-Semites, I don’t think that would hold.
If you guys have thoughts about my edit, don’t hesitate to share them below.
Last edited: