PDA

View Full Version : J-Y10887 / FGC1695 among non-Arabs (subclade of FGC11)



AbdoNumen
11-08-2018, 06:41 AM
How likely is it that J-Y10887 was founded somewhere other than Arabia -- say the Levant for instance?

I know someone whose known paternal ancestry lived over 1,000 miles away from Arabia, not identified as Arab or Muslim, and was found to be positive J-Y10887. The Ytree (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y10887/) shows only Arab samples, and FTDNA's Haplotree shows that 56% of samples are from Saudi Arabia, with about 1% from Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and Greece and other European countries. Apparently FGC11 has been found among aDNA in bronze age Sidon but current data doesn't show significant presence in modern Lebanon.

J-FGC11 (TMRCA 3900 ybp) -> FGC12 (Y4349; TMRCA 3100 ybp) -> Y10887 (TMRCA 3000 ybp)

Shamash
11-09-2018, 01:10 PM
FGC11 could be Levantine in origin. There's a whole Ashkenazi Jewish cluster under FGC1695 that shares a SNP with a branch of the Quraysh: FGC8712. You might find this cluster in the FTDNA J1 y-DNA project but also here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/j-1el-147/dna-results. It could be that the whole node originated in the Southern Levant or the Northwestern part of the Saudi Arabian peninsula.

AbdoNumen
11-09-2018, 09:18 PM
FGC11 could be Levantine in origin. There's a whole Ashkenazi Jewish cluster under FGC1695 that shares a SNP with a branch of the Quraysh: FGC8712. You might find this cluster in the FTDNA J1 y-DNA project but also here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/j-1el-147/dna-results. It could be that the whole node originated in the Southern Levant or the Northwestern part of the Saudi Arabian peninsula.

It looks like FGC1695 (Y10887 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y10887/)) and FGC8712 (Y6074 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y6074/)) are separate, albeit parallel, branches under J-Y4349. I can see Ashkenazi Jewish samples under the latter but not the former. The point of separation is estimated around 3100 ybp.

Shamash
11-10-2018, 06:40 PM
I'm not aware of a Jewish cluster under FGC1695 but there were quite a few Jewish Arab tribes before Islam. The TMRCA of FGC1695 coincides roughly with the first mentioning of Arabs in historical records.

Agamemnon
11-11-2018, 01:40 AM
Long version: FGC1695 is one of the branches of FGC1723 associated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabic-speaking communities. That being said, odds are this branch, much like FGC1723, did not arise in the Arabian peninsula. All the evidence so far indicates that the Proto-Arabs came from an area encompassing what is now Southern Syria, Northern Jordan and NWern Saudi Arabia, a region which is roughly congruent with the Harrat ash-Shamah desert. The earliest mention of the Arabs in the epigraphic record is to be found on the second column of Shalmaneser III's inscription in the Kurkh monolith (line 94) in reference to the battle of Qarqar during the mid-9th century BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/XMasO8z.jpg

The above translates roughly as "one thousand camels of Gindibu of the land of Arabia". The name "Gindibu" is probably an early version of the Arabic جندب jundub meaning "grasshopper". The oldest Arabic inscriptions are to be found in the form of the language of the Safaitic and Hismaic inscriptions, here's a map detailing the distribution of these early forms of Arabic:

https://i.imgur.com/VIYrQG7.jpg

As you can see, both Safaitic and Hismaic were spoken in the easternmost parts of the Levant and, at best, the NWern edge of the Arabian peninsula. Keep in mind that most of the other languages on the map (Thamudic B/C/D; Dadanitic; etc) cannot be categorised as Old Arabic and one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as a NW Semitic language underscoring a fairly complex linguistic history in Arabia. A more precise map of the exact geographic distribution of these inscriptions gives us a good idea of the extent of the Proto-Arabic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/rF3PPyH.png

So the spread of the early Arabs followed a north-to-south pattern, and not a south-to-north one from Yemen which is what traditional Arab historiography generally claims. Likewise, the spread of FGC1723 and its immediate branches (FGC8712, FGC1695, etc) also seems to follow a north-to-south pattern. The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

Short version: Yes, while FGC1695 as a whole is strongly correlated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabs, in all likeliness its origin cannot be traced back to Arabia proper but rather to the eastern Levant (and that's because the Proto-Arabs themselves came from that area). While this branch is apparently tied to the ethnogenesis of the Arabs, this does not mean that the correlation is perfect, this lineage could've remained in some small isolated pockets in the Levant.

Helves
11-11-2018, 02:32 AM
Long version: FGC1695 is one of the branches of FGC1723 associated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabic-speaking communities. That being said, odds are this branch, much like FGC1723, did not arise in the Arabian peninsula. All the evidence so far indicates that the Proto-Arabs came from an area encompassing what is now Southern Syria, Northern Jordan and NWern Saudi Arabia, a region which is roughly congruent with the Harrat ash-Shamah desert. The earliest mention of the Arabs in the epigraphic record is to be found on the second column of Shalmaneser III's inscription in the Kurkh monolith (line 94) in reference to the battle of Qarqar during the mid-9th century BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/XMasO8z.jpg

The above translates roughly as "one thousand camels of Gindibu of the land of Arabia". The name "Gindibu" is probably an early version of the Arabic جندب jundub meaning "grasshopper". The oldest Arabic inscriptions are to be found in the form of the language of the Safaitic and Hismaic inscriptions, here's a map detailing the distribution of these early forms of Arabic:

https://i.imgur.com/VIYrQG7.jpg

As you can see, both Safaitic and Hismaic were spoken in the easternmost parts of the Levant and, at best, the NWern edge of the Arabian peninsula. Keep in mind that most of the other languages on the map (Thamudic B/C/D; Dadanitic; etc) cannot be categorised as Old Arabic and one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as a NW Semitic language underscoring a fairly complex linguistic history in Arabia. A more precise map of the exact geographic distribution of these inscriptions gives us a good idea of the extent of the Proto-Arabic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/rF3PPyH.png

So the spread of the early Arabs followed a north-to-south pattern, and not a south-to-north one from Yemen which is what traditional Arab historiography generally claims. Likewise, the spread of FGC1723 and its immediate branches (FGC8712, FGC1695, etc) also seems to follow a north-to-south pattern. The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

Short version: Yes, while FGC1695 as a whole is strongly correlated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabs, in all likeliness its origin cannot be traced back to Arabia proper but rather to the eastern Levant (and that's because the Proto-Arabs themselves came from that area). While this branch is apparently tied to the ethnogenesis of the Arabs, this does not mean that the correlation is perfect, this lineage could've remained in some small isolated pockets in the Levant.

Very informative and interesting posts as always from you. One question though, would you say that the proto-Arabs if they indeed originated in the eastern part of the Levant were autosomally more like the BA Sidon samples rather than to say modern day Saudis? Or possibly that they were more like the earlier BA samples from Jordan who had less Anatolian_N and Iran_N-like input than the Sidon samples?

Agamemnon
11-11-2018, 04:00 PM
Very informative and interesting posts as always from you. One question though, would you say that the proto-Arabs if they indeed originated in the eastern part of the Levant were autosomally more like the BA Sidon samples rather than to say modern day Saudis? Or possibly that they were more like the earlier BA samples from Jordan who had less Anatolian_N and Iran_N-like input than the Sidon samples?

Thanks :)

I would surmise that they were more similar to Jordan_EBA (which is now called "Levant_BA_South"), in fact I would not be surprised if these samples turned out to be virtually identical to the Proto-Semites. Harney et al. seem to be of the same opinion, though they couch it in more cautious terms the idea is essentially the same:

We obtained additional insight by running qpAdm with Levant_BA_South as a target of two-way admixture between Levant_N and Iran_ChL, but now adding Levant_ChL and Anatolia_N to the basic 09NW “Right” set of 11 outgroups. The addition of the Levant_ChL causes the model to fail, indicating that Levant_BA_South and Levant_ChL share ancestry following the separation of both of them from the ancestors of Levant_N and Iran_ChL. Thus, in the past there existed an unsampled population that contributed both to Levant_ChL and to Levant_BA_South, even though Levant_ChL cannot be the direct ancestor of Levant_BA_South because, as described above, it harbors Anatolia_N-related ancestry not present in Levant_BA_South.

[...]

The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region."

Sidon_BA obviously has additional Iran_Chl and Armenia_EBA-like ancestry, while the Saudis are generally a poor proxy source (and that's ignoring the sheer diversity not just within Saudi Arabia but the Arabian peninsula as a whole, some populations such as the Mahra are much more appropriate if we are to use contemporary populations as proxies).

Squad
11-23-2018, 05:25 AM
Long version: FGC1695 is one of the branches of FGC1723 associated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabic-speaking communities. That being said, odds are this branch, much like FGC1723, did not arise in the Arabian peninsula. All the evidence so far indicates that the Proto-Arabs came from an area encompassing what is now Southern Syria, Northern Jordan and NWern Saudi Arabia, a region which is roughly congruent with the Harrat ash-Shamah desert. The earliest mention of the Arabs in the epigraphic record is to be found on the second column of Shalmaneser III's inscription in the Kurkh monolith (line 94) in reference to the battle of Qarqar during the mid-9th century BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/XMasO8z.jpg

The above translates roughly as "one thousand camels of Gindibu of the land of Arabia". The name "Gindibu" is probably an early version of the Arabic جندب jundub meaning "grasshopper". The oldest Arabic inscriptions are to be found in the form of the language of the Safaitic and Hismaic inscriptions, here's a map detailing the distribution of these early forms of Arabic:

https://i.imgur.com/VIYrQG7.jpg

As you can see, both Safaitic and Hismaic were spoken in the easternmost parts of the Levant and, at best, the NWern edge of the Arabian peninsula. Keep in mind that most of the other languages on the map (Thamudic B/C/D; Dadanitic; etc) cannot be categorised as Old Arabic and one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as a NW Semitic language underscoring a fairly complex linguistic history in Arabia. A more precise map of the exact geographic distribution of these inscriptions gives us a good idea of the extent of the Proto-Arabic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/rF3PPyH.png

So the spread of the early Arabs followed a north-to-south pattern, and not a south-to-north one from Yemen which is what traditional Arab historiography generally claims. Likewise, the spread of FGC1723 and its immediate branches (FGC8712, FGC1695, etc) also seems to follow a north-to-south pattern. The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

Short version: Yes, while FGC1695 as a whole is strongly correlated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabs, in all likeliness its origin cannot be traced back to Arabia proper but rather to the eastern Levant (and that's because the Proto-Arabs themselves came from that area). While this branch is apparently tied to the ethnogenesis of the Arabs, this does not mean that the correlation is perfect, this lineage could've remained in some small isolated pockets in the Levant.

Again trying to ignore the available evidence which clearly points to Arabia as the homeland of FGC11. You are claiming that FGC1695 is not arabian in origin despite all of its internal structure being clearly and entirely arabian. Not only that but every "earlier" FGC11 branches are also arabian such as S20171 and Y6370. So what you are basically saying is that this isolated levantine corner which spawned the great FGC11 expansions was only succesful in sending migrations to the southernmost point of Arabia ie Yemen, without any lines spilling over other neighboring regions !!! I'm sorry but this is non-sense in its purest form ! First with P58 as a whole and now with FGC11 and even its 1000 years further downstream son FGC1695 ! At this rate, perhaps Yemen is miraculously some sort of P58 magnet !

I'll tell you guys the real version : the Levant has nothing to do here, it is not the cradle of P58. The fact that none of it was found in pre bronze age remains despite being a 10ky old well expanded clade is more telling than you think. It is because it came from the south. Go analyse the structure of E-Y5427 you will maybe start to see more clearly...

Squad
11-23-2018, 05:26 AM
Long version: FGC1695 is one of the branches of FGC1723 associated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabic-speaking communities. That being said, odds are this branch, much like FGC1723, did not arise in the Arabian peninsula. All the evidence so far indicates that the Proto-Arabs came from an area encompassing what is now Southern Syria, Northern Jordan and NWern Saudi Arabia, a region which is roughly congruent with the Harrat ash-Shamah desert. The earliest mention of the Arabs in the epigraphic record is to be found on the second column of Shalmaneser III's inscription in the Kurkh monolith (line 94) in reference to the battle of Qarqar during the mid-9th century BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/XMasO8z.jpg

The above translates roughly as "one thousand camels of Gindibu of the land of Arabia". The name "Gindibu" is probably an early version of the Arabic جندب jundub meaning "grasshopper". The oldest Arabic inscriptions are to be found in the form of the language of the Safaitic and Hismaic inscriptions, here's a map detailing the distribution of these early forms of Arabic:

https://i.imgur.com/VIYrQG7.jpg

As you can see, both Safaitic and Hismaic were spoken in the easternmost parts of the Levant and, at best, the NWern edge of the Arabian peninsula. Keep in mind that most of the other languages on the map (Thamudic B/C/D; Dadanitic; etc) cannot be categorised as Old Arabic and one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as a NW Semitic language underscoring a fairly complex linguistic history in Arabia. A more precise map of the exact geographic distribution of these inscriptions gives us a good idea of the extent of the Proto-Arabic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/rF3PPyH.png

So the spread of the early Arabs followed a north-to-south pattern, and not a south-to-north one from Yemen which is what traditional Arab historiography generally claims. Likewise, the spread of FGC1723 and its immediate branches (FGC8712, FGC1695, etc) also seems to follow a north-to-south pattern. The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

Short version: Yes, while FGC1695 as a whole is strongly correlated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabs, in all likeliness its origin cannot be traced back to Arabia proper but rather to the eastern Levant (and that's because the Proto-Arabs themselves came from that area). While this branch is apparently tied to the ethnogenesis of the Arabs, this does not mean that the correlation is perfect, this lineage could've remained in some small isolated pockets in the Levant.

Again trying to ignore the available evidence which clearly points to Arabia as the homeland of FGC11. You are claiming that FGC1695 is not arabian in origin despite all of its internal structure being clearly and entirely arabian. Not only that but every "earlier" FGC11 branches are also arabian such as S20171 and Y6370. So what you are basically saying is that this isolated levantine corner which spawned the great FGC11 expansions was only succesful in sending migrations to the southernmost point of Arabia ie Yemen, without any lines spilling over other neighboring regions !!! I'm sorry but this is non-sense in its purest form ! First with P58 as a whole and now with FGC11 and even its 1000 years further downstream son FGC1695 ! At this rate, perhaps Yemen is miraculously some sort of P58 magnet !

I'll tell you guys the real version : the Levant has nothing to do here, it is not the cradle of P58. The fact that none of it was found in pre bronze age remains despite being a 10ky old well expanded clade is more telling than you think. It is because it came from the south. Go analyse the structure of E-Y5427 you will maybe start to see more clearly...

notasuckah
11-23-2018, 05:29 AM
Some P58 lines, such as the upstream clade of YSC234, expanded from Mesopotamia into the Levant (where YSC234's genesis occurred) then into Arabia. Other P58 lines may have expanded straight from Mesopotamia into Arabia.

Shamash
11-23-2018, 01:12 PM
Again trying to ignore the available evidence which clearly points to Arabia as the homeland of FGC11. You are claiming that FGC1695 is not arabian in origin despite all of its internal structure being clearly and entirely arabian. Not only that but every "earlier" FGC11 branches are also arabian such as S20171 and Y6370. So what you are basically saying is that this isolated levantine corner which spawned the great FGC11 expansions was only succesful in sending migrations to the southernmost point of Arabia ie Yemen, without any lines spilling over other neighboring regions !!! I'm sorry but this is non-sense in its purest form ! First with P58 as a whole and now with FGC11 and even its 1000 years further downstream son FGC1695 ! At this rate, perhaps Yemen is miraculously some sort of P58 magnet !

I'll tell you guys the real version : the Levant has nothing to do here, it is not the cradle of P58. The fact that none of it was found in pre bronze age remains despite being a 10ky old well expanded clade is more telling than you think. It is because it came from the south. Go analyse the structure of E-Y5427 you will maybe start to see more clearly...

Your point ist senseless without aDNA from Mesopotamia. And you ignore the fact that FGC11 made its first appearance in aDNA in Bronze Age Sidon and not in Arabia. Same is true for YSC235 from Ain Ghazal in Jordan. I prefer to hold on on evidence-based facts and modify our thesis based on more data. Yours is mere speculation in line with traditional Arab historiography. And if we had to believe ancient origin myths I would rather go for the Jewish origin myth and search Abraham's origin in Mesopotamian Ur than hang on the late and distorted Arab view. The fact that Arabs trace their origin to Yemen has been the matter of scientific debate since the 19th century and a hundred times dismissed. The most obvious reason is the highly developed culture in Yemen which is in stark contrast with Bedouin culture. Your lack of knowledge of scientific data linked to the linguistic, epigraphical and archaeological history of the Arabian peninsula is striking.

Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses...

Shamash
12-30-2018, 05:41 PM
The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

I highly doubt that scenario in the meantime: according to the latest Yfull time estimates FGC3723 and FGC1723 are only separated by a few hundred years. I saw that already forecoming when Victar Mas was still updating his J1 tree a couple of years ago. With each update and further test results the time estimates were becoming younger and younger. Unfortunately he stopped updating his tree two years ago. With Yfull latest versions FGC3723 is only 3500 years old which is in line with a late Bronze Age migration from the Southern Levant to the Southwest of the Arabian peninsula at the dawn of Early South Arabian civilization. Also the time estimate of FGC11 has moved to a later date. Could somebody have a look at the most recent Yfull tree and could we discuss the implications?! The German scientific community (Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein) has been arguing for a long time that the bearers of South Arabian civilization migrated into the South in the second half of the second millennium BCE. There is no cultural continuity between the Middle and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age in Yemen which speaks in favour of a migration of that Civilization from the North. Could that be a consequence of the Late Bronze Age collapse or was it preceding it?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

Agamemnon
12-30-2018, 06:25 PM
I highly doubt that scenario in the meantime: according to the latest Yfull time estimates FGC3723 and FGC1723 are only separated by a few hundred years. I saw that already forecoming when Victar Mas was still updating his J1 tree a couple of years ago. With each update and further test results the time estimates were becoming younger and younger. Unfortunately he stopped updating his tree two years ago. With Yfull latest versions FGC3723 is only 3500 years old which is in line with a late Bronze Age migration from the Southern Levant to the Southwest of the Arabian peninsula at the dawn of Early South Arabian civilization. Also the time estimate of FGC11 has moved to a later date. Could somebody have a look at the most recent Yfull tree and could we discuss the implications?! The German scientific community (Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein) has been arguing for a long time that the bearers of South Arabian civilization migrated into the South in the second half of the second millennium BCE. There is no cultural continuity between the Middle and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age in Yemen which speaks in favour of a migration of that Civilazation from the North. Could that be a consequence of the Late Bronze Age collapse or was it preceding it?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

If these MRCA estimates do not change - and there's little reason to suppose they will - we're basically looking at a series of founder effects under FGC3723 and not an early entry followed by a long stagnation (which is what the data previously suggested). All the branches of FGC3723 have the exact same TMRCA estimates (between 4000 and 3000 yBP), that's very telling. This definitely makes a migration during the second half of the second millennium BCE much more plausible.

As for FGC11, this estimate is bound to be revised, the inclusion of the Bronze Age Sidonian would suffice to obtain that kind of result. That does not mean that the younger TMRCA estimates for FGC3723 and FGC1723 do not have important implications, they certainly have, and while I'd argue that Proto-OSA and Proto-Arabic were spoken at opposite ends of the Central Semitic dialect continuum, the identical TMRCA estimates put the phylogenetic relationship between both branches in a new light which might have some linguistic implications. For example, it could explain some of the areal features common to both Old Arabic and some of the OSA languages, such as the negative particles lm in North Sabaic and lhm in Minaic analogous to the Arabic lam, it would not be unusual for mobile societies to be part of a sprachbund.

Either way, it makes a migration of FGC3723 deep into Arabia a thousand years prior to the arrival of FGC1723 much more unlikely, it also makes an origin of FGC3723 in the Levant more likely though. And while OSA (and thus FGC3723) is still bound to have preceded the earliest Arabic-speaking communities in Arabia, it also allows us to make a case for prolonged contact between the two at an early stage. The LBA collapse is more likely to have had something to do with the spread of the Proto-Arabs, FGC1723's TMRCA estimates strengthen such a scenario.

Shamash
12-30-2018, 07:01 PM
As for FGC11, this estimate is bound to be revised, the inclusion of the Bronze Age Sidonian would suffice to obtain that kind of result.

I agree with you and wonder why the Sidonian FGC11 sample has not been included into the Yfull tree? Maybe we should stress that!? Unfortunately I have no contact of the guys. Isn't Vadim Veredim one of the Yfull guys?

IronHorse
12-30-2018, 08:02 PM
I highly doubt that scenario in the meantime: according to the latest Yfull time estimates FGC3723 and FGC1723 are only separated by a few hundred years. I saw that already forecoming when Victar Mas was still updating his J1 tree a couple of years ago. With each update and further test results the time estimates were becoming younger and younger. Unfortunately he stopped updating his tree two years ago. With Yfull latest versions FGC3723 is only 3500 years old which is in line with a late Bronze Age migration from the Southern Levant to the Southwest of the Arabian peninsula at the dawn of Early South Arabian civilization. Also the time estimate of FGC11 has moved to a later date. Could somebody have a look at the most recent Yfull tree and could we discuss the implications?! The German scientific community (Norbert Nebes and Peter Stein) has been arguing for a long time that the bearers of South Arabian civilization migrated into the South in the second half of the second millennium BCE. There is no cultural continuity between the Middle and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age in Yemen which speaks in favour of a migration of that Civilazation from the North. Could that be a consequence of the Late Bronze Age collapse or was it preceding it?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

an origin of south arabian civilization from the north finds some support in the form of additional Levantine ancestry in people with tribal surnames historially descended from Azd tribes, who cliam Sabaean heritage.

this extra Levantine affinity is not seen in other Arabian clusters, see this post https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15971-Who-are-the-Palestinian-Arabs-and-how-quot-indigenous-quot-are-they-to-Israel-Palestine&p=523241&viewfull=1#post523241

Shamash
01-05-2019, 09:30 AM
If these MRCA estimates do not change - and there's little reason to suppose they will - we're basically looking at a series of founder effects under FGC3723 and not an early entry followed by a long stagnation (which is what the data previously suggested). All the branches of FGC3723 have the exact same TMRCA estimates (between 4000 and 3000 yBP), that's very telling. This definitely makes a migration during the second half of the second millennium BCE much more plausible.

As for FGC11, this estimate is bound to be revised, the inclusion of the Bronze Age Sidonian would suffice to obtain that kind of result. That does not mean that the younger TMRCA estimates for FGC3723 and FGC1723 do not have important implications, they certainly have, and while I'd argue that Proto-OSA and Proto-Arabic were spoken at opposite ends of the Central Semitic dialect continuum, the identical TMRCA estimates put the phylogenetic relationship between both branches in a new light which might have some linguistic implications. For example, it could explain some of the areal features common to both Old Arabic and some of the OSA languages, such as the negative particles lm in North Sabaic and lhm in Minaic analogous to the Arabic lam, it would not be unusual for mobile societies to be part of a sprachbund.

Either way, it makes a migration of FGC3723 deep into Arabia a thousand years prior to the arrival of FGC1723 much more unlikely, it also makes an origin of FGC3723 in the Levant more likely though. And while OSA (and thus FGC3723) is still bound to have preceded the earliest Arabic-speaking communities in Arabia, it also allows us to make a case for prolonged contact between the two at an early stage. The LBA collapse is more likely to have had something to do with the spread of the Proto-Arabs, FGC1723's TMRCA estimates strengthen such a scenario.

I revisited Alessandro De Maigret's interesting book Arabia Felix. An exploration of the archaeological history of Yemen and found a passage that might be relevant to our conversation. He refers to a nomadic burial tape called Turret Tombs which can be found throughout the Arabian Peninsula (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen):

"Nomad's Tombs

Once complete, the study of the distribution of these burial sites will be of the utmost importance for a topographical and historical reconstruction of pre-Islamic Arabia. This new documentation will also touch on some aspects of the birth of the South Arabian states, which we should like to briefly mention here.

Their particular distributive pattern seems to suggest that there was a link between these structures and ancient trade routes. On the other hand, we can see thet the turret tombs belong to a different culture than that which produced the other types of tombs in pre-Islamic Yemen, a culture that is not classically South Arabian and that has most in common with the settlers in the Yemeni mountains in the third to second millennia BC. This is a culture that was diffused throughout the Arabian Peninsula from at least 3000 BC, as we know from the turret tombs of Oman and Saudi Arabia and which, given its unusual funerary habits, can be considered particular to the subcontinent. The few, important excavations at Al-Makhdarah prove, therefore, that this culture survived until about the time of Christ and that it lived alongside that of South Arabia, while preserving its own character.

The excavations also told us that: 1) the bodies buried showed clear signs of mummification, and 2) they were not buried with any pottery vessels. The first point tallies with the idea that the dead were carried to necropolises far away from centres of habitation, but seen together with the second point it seems to indicate that the tomb builders were travellers. Could this perhaps mean that in the Sabaean period there was a part of society with a particular ethnic identity which continued the ancient tradition of transporting merchandise from one place to another? Could these people be the only documented survivors of an aboriginal, ancient population of Arabia (perhaps the rb - Arabs or "nomads" - whom we know from the South Arabian texts)? And could the Sabaeans not be seen as later newcomers with a flair for organising and hence exploiting the commercial links already established throughout the peninsula by this older section of society? This is an exciting idea, not just because its implications, as we have seen, that reach beyond the borders of Yemen, but also because it is the first time that archaeology has provided concrete evidence of the dimorphism of South Arabia. We believe that, considering the scarcity of information available on this ancient people, this is an extremely important discovery."

Chaim Rabin in his work on Ancient West-Arabian presumed that the speakers of Himyaritic (a language disputed to be different from the other Sayhadic languages) were belonging to an early wave of nomads that infiltrated into the southwestern Yemeni highlands and tentatively identified them with the rb "Arabs" in ancient Sabaic tects.

Shamash
01-05-2019, 05:44 PM
As per 2014 the German school (Ingo Kottsieber and Peter Stein) hypothesizes a common origin (from Central Semitic) for Sabaic and Aramaic during the second millennium BCE somewhere on the northwestern fringes of the peninsula. I don't know whether this could account for FGC11 as well but as far as the subclade FGC3723 is concerned there are Aramaic speaking Kurdish Jews:

"What do we learn from this picture? Sabaic appears to be linguistically much closer to Aramaic than to any of its neighbouring languages from the so-called Ancient South Arabian group. If we took only the grammatical evidence without knowing the historic-geographical background of the languages, we would certainly be inclined to connect Sabaic with Aramaic, and not with Minaic or Hadramitic. As a result, this means that the origin of the Sabaic language is in all probability to be looked for not in South Arabia, in the area of South Semitic, but further northwards, in the environment that also gave birth to Aramaic.

This proto-Aramaic was, as we have seen, probably not located in Syria (which became the heartland of that language only in the early first millennium) but rather each base stem (thus somewhere further to the south. Here, on the north-western fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, we may imagine some folk settling there during the second millennium and speaking some kind of proto-Aramaeo-Sabaic dialects. At some time towards the end of the millennium, perhaps evoked by dramatic climatic changes causing severe drought in Syria-Palestine (cf. e.g. Litt et al. 2012; Kaniewski et al. 2013), a group of these folk could have set out for a new home — along the international trade route — finally to settle at the end of that route in South Arabia.

This travelling group encountered a Semitic-speaking people there — the ancestors of what shortly later appeared as Minaeans, Qatabanians, and Hadramites. During a process of mutual integration and assimilation, the newcomers quickly took over political leadership — in parallel with the progress of Aramaean elites in Syria shortly after.
A remembrance of the migrating roots of this people could even be seen in their name, Saba. The root behind this name (sb) simply means ‘to travel’ in Sabaic, and broad use is made of it in the Sabaean inscriptions! The seeming paradox of a continuity of South Arabian civilization during the second millennium along with a clearly Central (or North-west) Semitic setting of some parts of this culture could well be solved by assuming migration, not of entire civilizations but of a rather small group, the Sabaeans. Together with their language, this group introduced the use of script in their new homeland and thus laid the basis for a common writing culture of peoples speaking completely different languages, as the Aramaeans did a couple of generations later in the north."

This theory seemingly wants to reconcile the immigration and autochthonous theory of Ancient South Arabian civilization. Agamemnon do you see it the way the Germans do or are the similarities of Sabaic and Aramaic due to the common Central Semitic origin?

https://www.academia.edu/8447433/_with_Ingo_Kottsieper_Sabaic_and_Aramaic_-_a_common_origin_In_O._Elmaz_J._Watson_edd._Langua ges_of_Southern_Arabia_Supplement_to_the_Proceedin gs_of_the_Seminar_for_Arabian_Studies_44_Oxford_20 14_pp._81-87?email_work_card=view-paper

Agamemnon
01-05-2019, 07:17 PM
I have many issues with this article, which I read some time ago. The similarities between Aramaic and Sabaic cited here are superficial, that is to say they are not common innovations, they are either retentions or parallel developments. A lot of the phonological arguments are not exactly sound either, the authors themselves acknowledge this which is why they state that "other dialects in Syria-Palestine may also have used more phonemes than expressed by the Phoenician script adapted throughout this area", which is a huge understatement of course, we know that early Canaanite dialects had consonantal inventories which the Phoenician script did not adequately transcribe (this is what enables us to state that the script is Phoenician by the way, and not Hebrew or Moabite, because despite all these scripts being identical they are clearly designed to suit Phoenician phonology). A good example of the latter is their comparison of rhotacism (PS */n/ > /r/) in Aramaic and MSA, which is a very weak argument. Regarding the stems, I think a fairly good case could be made in favour of an archaic West Semitic substrate in Minaic, as it resembles what we see in Ethiosemitic (there essentially is no such thing as "South Semitic", Ethiosemitic and MSA do not form a separate branch and are best described as archaic West Semitic languages). The isoglosses they bring up certainly do not warrant a complete re-evaluation of the Semitic language tree.

That doesn't leave us with much to elaborate upon. Frankly-speaking, there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a Canaanite branch of Northwest Semitic distinct from Ugaritic and Aramaic already in the 14th century BCE. That Ugaritic and Aramaic constitute separate branches of Northwest Semitic is accepted by a vast majority of scholars. So when the authors say something along the lines of "the assumption of Aramaic as a member of an alleged North-west Semitic language group should also be questioned on the basis of these isoglosses" you'll have to forgive my incredulity especially when the arguments in favour of the inclusion of Aramaic within NW Semitic are based on common innovations. Likewise, the inclusion of OSA within Central Semitic is also based on common innovations, most importantly in the languages' verbal morphology (something that is unlikely to be borrowed). When the authors say "some specialists in the ASA languages draw a more complex picture, laying more importance on the South Semitic connections and warning against any hasty conclusion" there is a parallel with the various experts who insist on labeling Ugaritic a Canaanite language (which it is not, despite the numerous similarities).

So that's what they got wrong. On the other hand, the theory they put forth is not totally unlikely. They are absolutely right when it comes to the uncertainty surrounding the origins of the Arameans, numerous papers have been written on this and I personally have no solid convictions on the matter. I have said many times that OSA is bound to have developed within a Central Semitic dialect continuum. One thing that is often overlooked are the shared isoglosses between of some of the Ancient North Arabian languages and NW Semitic, like I said in my initial post at least one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as NW Semitic. It isn't exactly impossible for Proto-Aramaic to have arisen in the vicinity of such dialects, so a case could also be made in favour of prolonged contact between Proto-Sabaic and Proto-Aramaic, but yet again this is an argument from silence despite it providing a much more solid explanation for the isoglosses between Aramaic and Sabaic.

Shamash
01-08-2019, 10:59 AM
And what do you personally think of Himyaritic? Is it a southern variety of Sabaic (Nebes and Stein think so), a non-classified (Central-) Semitic language or something else?

Shamash
01-17-2019, 09:23 PM
I contacted Yfull and asked if they could include the Sidonian FGC11 ancient DNA sample into their J1 tree. Their response was that there are no Bam files available. Could someone convert the Cram files into Bam? I can't do it. The raw Cram-files are here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERS1790733

AbdoNumen
01-23-2019, 02:08 PM
I contacted Yfull and asked if they could include the Sidonian FGC11 ancient DNA sample into their J1 tree. Their response was that there are no Bam files available. Could someone convert the Cram files into Bam? I can't do it. The raw Cram-files are here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/ERS1790733

The BAMs from the study can be found here:

ftp://ngs.sanger.ac.uk/scratch/project/team19/Sidon_BA/

Agamemnon
01-23-2019, 03:35 PM
And what do you personally think of Himyaritic? Is it a southern variety of Sabaic (Nebes and Stein think so), a non-classified (Central-) Semitic language or something else?

Honestly, a fair case can be made in favour of its classification as a late dialect of Sabaic and indeed I'd argue this is likely to be true. Otherwise, it could be another OSA language separate from Sabaic (which is more tenuous) or even an archaic West Semitic language related either to Ethiosemitic or MSA. It's hard to tell, the dearth of Himyaritic texts precludes a straightforward answer.

Shamash
01-24-2019, 08:09 AM
The BAMs from the study can be found here:

ftp://ngs.sanger.ac.uk/scratch/project/team19/Sidon_BA/

Thanks for the link! Let's wait and see what Yfull can do with it.

AbdoNumen
02-11-2019, 06:36 PM
Thanks for the link! Let's wait and see what Yfull can do with it.

Did Yfull indicate they would add it?

Shamash
02-11-2019, 06:41 PM
Did Yfull indicate they would add it?

No unfortunately they won't. They say the quality of the sample is too bad.

Agamemnon
02-11-2019, 06:51 PM
Well, that's underwhelming... The waiting game continues.

AbdoNumen
02-11-2019, 07:01 PM
Well, that's underwhelming... The waiting game continues.

Indeed. I wonder what Yfull's criteria are for adding aDNA samples.

On a brighter note, I do believe Arabian aDNA is in the pipeline. Not sure if it was mentioned on the forum or not, but I recall David Reich say on a podcast a few months ago that he's excited about 'building an atlas of humanity from skeletons from around the world like Arabia'. We'll then be able to see if and which J1 clades were present in ancient Arabia.

AbdoNumen
05-31-2019, 04:23 PM
Indeed. I wonder what Yfull's criteria are for adding aDNA samples.

On a brighter note, I do believe Arabian aDNA is in the pipeline. Not sure if it was mentioned on the forum or not, but I recall David Reich say on a podcast a few months ago that he's excited about 'building an atlas of humanity from skeletons from around the world like Arabia'. We'll then be able to see if and which J1 clades were present in ancient Arabia.

Noticed the latest paper on aDNA extraction methods mentions an attempt to extract DNA from two 11-10 century BCE samples from Yemen. Unfortunately, extraction using the ossicles failed, but that means there are attempts to analyze Bronze/Iron Age Arabian samples!

30692

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/05/31/654749.full.pdf

Shamash
06-16-2019, 09:22 AM
Noticed the latest paper on aDNA extraction methods mentions an attempt to extract DNA from two 11-10 century BCE samples from Yemen. Unfortunately, extraction using the ossicles failed, but that means there are attempts to analyze Bronze/Iron Age Arabian samples!

30692

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/05/31/654749.full.pdf

What a pity! :\

AbdoNumen
10-29-2020, 02:12 AM
ERS1790733 has finally been uploaded to Yfull!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11

40745

Shamash
10-29-2020, 11:22 PM
ERS1790733 has finally been uploaded to Yfull!

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11

40745

Strange, Yfull told me the quality was too poor??? Sounds now as an excuse...

Agamemnon
10-30-2020, 02:32 PM
Strange, Yfull told me the quality was too poor??? Sounds now as an excuse...

That's exactly what I thought, this is strange to say the least.

Pribislav
10-30-2020, 03:28 PM
Strange, Yfull told me the quality was too poor??? Sounds now as an excuse...

That was probably true at the time, but in the meantime YFull has lowered the criteria for adding ancient samples to their tree, so now they accept even some 1240K samples with DoC <1.

AbdoNumen
10-30-2020, 03:29 PM
Strange, Yfull told me the quality was too poor??? Sounds now as an excuse...

They may have realized their criteria for ancient samples were too strict. Either way, glad they added this and other samples.

I also think it's telling that J-Z1884 - the parent clade of FGC11 - was found in BA Alalakh (ALA026).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z1884/

Do these markers mirror what was shown autosomally in the recent Almarri et al. preprint with the Iran-related ancestry? A North to South cline, penetrating the southern Levant and then Arabia?

I still find it mind-blowing that this one group came to have such a dominant part in Arabia.

TheIncredibleHulk
10-31-2020, 08:14 AM
Long version: FGC1695 is one of the branches of FGC1723 associated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabic-speaking communities. That being said, odds are this branch, much like FGC1723, did not arise in the Arabian peninsula. All the evidence so far indicates that the Proto-Arabs came from an area encompassing what is now Southern Syria, Northern Jordan and NWern Saudi Arabia, a region which is roughly congruent with the Harrat ash-Shamah desert. The earliest mention of the Arabs in the epigraphic record is to be found on the second column of Shalmaneser III's inscription in the Kurkh monolith (line 94) in reference to the battle of Qarqar during the mid-9th century BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/XMasO8z.jpg

The above translates roughly as "one thousand camels of Gindibu of the land of Arabia". The name "Gindibu" is probably an early version of the Arabic جندب jundub meaning "grasshopper". The oldest Arabic inscriptions are to be found in the form of the language of the Safaitic and Hismaic inscriptions, here's a map detailing the distribution of these early forms of Arabic:

https://i.imgur.com/VIYrQG7.jpg

As you can see, both Safaitic and Hismaic were spoken in the easternmost parts of the Levant and, at best, the NWern edge of the Arabian peninsula. Keep in mind that most of the other languages on the map (Thamudic B/C/D; Dadanitic; etc) cannot be categorised as Old Arabic and one of those (Taymanitic) could be tentatively classified as a NW Semitic language underscoring a fairly complex linguistic history in Arabia. A more precise map of the exact geographic distribution of these inscriptions gives us a good idea of the extent of the Proto-Arabic homeland:

https://i.imgur.com/rF3PPyH.png

So the spread of the early Arabs followed a north-to-south pattern, and not a south-to-north one from Yemen which is what traditional Arab historiography generally claims. Likewise, the spread of FGC1723 and its immediate branches (FGC8712, FGC1695, etc) also seems to follow a north-to-south pattern. The presence of FGC11 in one of the Bronze Age Sidonians further strengthens the current consensus placing the Proto-Semitic homeland in the Levant, in fact even FGC3723 is bound to have originated in the Levant even though this branch of FGC11 undoubtedly migrated deep into Arabia (all the way to Yemen) at least a thousand years before FGC1723.

Short version: Yes, while FGC1695 as a whole is strongly correlated with the emergence and dispersal of the earliest Arabs, in all likeliness its origin cannot be traced back to Arabia proper but rather to the eastern Levant (and that's because the Proto-Arabs themselves came from that area). While this branch is apparently tied to the ethnogenesis of the Arabs, this does not mean that the correlation is perfect, this lineage could've remained in some small isolated pockets in the Levant.

As usual, you're right. Gindibu is indeed basically derived from the Arabic word, جندب, which means locust by the way. The word for grasshopper is Jarrad. Locust is a species of grasshopers. The first attested Arabic noun was founded in the 8th century BC in Assyrian inscription, An-naqqa, which is singular for female camel. The -u siffx is Arabic as well(Qaynu, Geshmu, Gindibu, Te’elkhunu) among other features. Israel Epha'al is an expert on these things as well, so I recommend reading this book as well.
https://books.google.ae/books?id=0IJ1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&dq=To+the+Madbar+and+Back+Again:+Studies+in+the+la nguages,+archaeology,+and+cultures+of+Arabia+dedic ated+to+Michael+C.A.+Macdonald&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdorm4rt7sAhVl4uAKHcbkBtYQ6AEwAHoECAAQA g#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://twitter.com/safaitic/status/1207150250739277824

Yes, um, Safaitic and Hismaic are just names for the scripts used to write the many diverse Arabic dialects that were natives to the region that you had described.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOUWYPYfuoA&t=24s

All in all, yes, Arabs did NOT came from Yemen nor from the heartland of Arabia itself but rather from the Black desert region of Syria, Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia or the REAL Arabia if you will. As you said, the oldest known Arabic inscriptions in the world were located in Jordan, esp the old Arabic inscription written in the old North Arabian script invoking the gods of the three Canaanite kingdoms of Western Jordan that was found in Bayer, Jordan in 2015. Skip to 32:05:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHRbuu8c8nw

So really, I would say that using genetics here to know the spread of languages is pretty useful, and the fact that these clades that we associated with Arabians are also found in early Canaanites would strengthen the argument that the Semitic languages we know them today originated in the Levant,

Shanck
10-31-2020, 09:16 AM
All in all, yes, Arabs did NOT came from Yemen nor from the heartland of Arabia itself but rather from the Black desert region of Syria, Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia or the REAL Arabia if you will. As you said, the oldest known Arabic inscriptions in the world were located in Jordan, esp the old Arabic inscription written in the old North Arabian script invoking the gods of the three Canaanite kingdoms of Western Jordan that was found in Bayer, Jordan in 2015.
This text exhibits Canaanite influence in religion and language it seems. It's funny to see that oldest article attested for Arabic is in fact ha- not al- , which is used only by Canaanite languages from what's attested (Most famously Phoenician and Hebrew).

TheIncredibleHulk
10-31-2020, 10:49 PM
This text exhibits Canaanite influence in religion and language it seems. It's funny to see that oldest article attested for Arabic is in fact ha- not al- , which is used only by Canaanite languages from what's attested (Most famously Phoenician and Hebrew).

The idea that Arabic can only exhibit this definite article is really such an outdated idea. The Arabic language can have many definite articles which you can see in many today's Arabic dialects which is true for the old Arabic dialects of the Levant.

Alan_01987
11-02-2020, 10:39 AM
All in all, yes, Arabs did NOT came from Yemen nor from the heartland of Arabia itself but rather from the Black desert region of Syria, Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia or the REAL Arabia if you will. As you said, the oldest known Arabic inscriptions in the world were located in Jordan, esp the old Arabic inscription written in the old North Arabian script invoking the gods of the three Canaanite kingdoms of Western Jordan that was found in Bayer, Jordan in 2015. Skip to 32:05:
The inscription was composed in two languages, a variant of Northern Arabian and intangible Canaanite in 3rd line, it is not old Arabic inscription. We cannot classify this inscription chronologically in both writing style and content since it differ from the other well-known early ANA inscriptions.

Shamash
11-03-2020, 09:52 PM
They may have realized their criteria for ancient samples were too strict. Either way, glad they added this and other samples.

I also think it's telling that J-Z1884 - the parent clade of FGC11 - was found in BA Alalakh (ALA026).

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z1884/

Do these markers mirror what was shown autosomally in the recent Almarri et al. preprint with the Iran-related ancestry? A North to South cline, penetrating the southern Levant and then Arabia?

I still find it mind-blowing that this one group came to have such a dominant part in Arabia.

That sounds reasonable to me as a good working hypothesis but we would need aDNA data from Mesopotamia in order to verify that. The two BA samples from Alalakh and Sidon could be the result of peripheral dispersals from an epicenter somewhere in Mesopotamia.

TheIncredibleHulk
11-08-2020, 04:07 AM
The inscription was composed in two languages, a variant of Northern Arabian and intangible Canaanite in 3rd line, it is not old Arabic inscription. We cannot classify this inscription chronologically in both writing style and content since it differ from the other well-known early ANA inscriptions.

You're mistaking script with language, and no, the whole "north Arabian" language group doesn't exist either. The many ancient Semitic languages of North Arabia don't constitute a linguistic grouping. It is Arabic written in an undifferentiaed North Arabian script which is very close to the scripts used to write other Semitic languages of North Arabia like Dadanitic, Taymanitic, Thamudic B, C and D and etc. Dadanitic language is a unique Central Semitic language while Taymanitic could either belong in the North-West Semitic group like Hebrew and Aramaic, or it's a unique Central Semitic language. We don't know much about the "Thamudic" B, C, D and F since there's not a lot of these inscriptions that are long and etc to exactly construct their languages to understand where they would fit in the Semitic language family. Safaitic and Hismaic are NOT languages but rather are names for these two ancient scripts that were used to write the old Arabic dialects of the Levant and Arabia. Your views are extremely outdated.
https://www.academia.edu/33917069/Al_Jallad_2018_What_is_Ancient_North_Arabian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOUWYPYfuoA

No, we can't, but the fact that the three gods of the three Canaanite kingdoms of Jordan can gives us the idea on which time period this inscription was written. These three ancient kingdom had existed from the 1st part of the 1st millennium BCE(around 1000 to 500 BCE) before these kingdom collapsed in the early centuries of the 2nd part of the 1st millennium BCE(around 500 to 200 BCE). North Arabian language group doesn't exist since Central Semitic languages of North Arabia like Dadanitic, Taymanitic, "Thamudic" B, C, D, and F, Hisaitic of East Arabia no longer constitute a linguistic grouping together thanks to recent linguistic analyses and findings. Only the South Arabian languages actually constitute a true language grouping like Sabaic, Minaic and etc. Language =/= script.

The English language for example is written in the Latin script. Does that make the English language Latin? Of course not. The Arabic language was written in many ancient scripts in the past. Stop conflating the two together.

Shamash
12-25-2020, 09:24 PM
Honestly, a fair case can be made in favour of its classification as a late dialect of Sabaic and indeed I'd argue this is likely to be true. Otherwise, it could be another OSA language separate from Sabaic (which is more tenuous) or even an archaic West Semitic language related either to Ethiosemitic or MSA. It's hard to tell, the dearth of Himyaritic texts precludes a straightforward answer.

Interesting contribution to the discussion on the nature of the Himyaritic language by Ahmad Al-Jallad from the University of Leiden from 2013:

Arabia and Areal Hybridity

https://brill.com/view/journals/jlc/6/2/article-p220_2.xml?language=en#container-39132-item-39131

He sees Himyaritic as a language hybrid between ASA and Ancient North Arabian/Old Arabic (?)/Modern South Arabian (?)

42041

"The paucity of evidence makes it difficult to determine if the following centuries saw an increase of non-ASA influence on the Sabaic from this region. Following the demise of South Arabian civilization and the beginning of Islamic suzerainty, Sabaic gave way to Arabic as the language of prestige. Medieval Ḥimyaritic and, indeed, the present-day varieties such as Rāziḥī and Riǧāl Almaʿ, could represent the outcome of these new parameters of contact, resulting in a stronger ANA and Arabic admixture. So while ʾAmīritic might not pose any trouble for classification, as a clear ASA morphological isogloss, the postpositive article, is attested, and the North Arabianisms are restricted to lexical and phonological domains, medieval Ḥimyaritic is quite different. It shows no trace of an important ASA isogloss, the postpositive article, and no trace of an important Arabic isogloss, the ʾalla- based relative pronoun. Thus, it is impossible to say if it began as a dialect of ASA, which lost the postpositive article through contact with Arabic or North Arabian, or vice versa; the same is true of Rāziḥī and Riǧāl Almaʿ. All three can be considered areal hybrids. My understanding of the situation differs slightly from Stein (2008), who considered medieval Ḥimyaritic a linear continuation of Late Sabaic."

His arguments make sense to me though I am not a linguist myself.

Shamash
12-26-2020, 01:54 PM
Although more recently in 2018 Ahmad al-Jallad made a tweet which seems to favour Stein's argumentation. It is about an enigmatic Himyaritic text document the so-called Hymn of Qanya:

https://twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1040221780265324544

It seems to be a very rare Himyaritic example of rhymed poetry.

Also in 2018 (https://www.academia.edu/33917069/Al_Jallad_2018_What_is_Ancient_North_Arabian) he points out how excellent Stein's discussion from 2008 (https://www.academia.edu/7131364/The_Himyaritic_Language_in_pre_Islamic_Yemen_A_Cri tical_Re_evaluation_In_Semitica_et_Classica_1_2008 _pp_203_212)is. So maybe he changed his opinion over the last years.

Bytheway this is Stein's assumption from 2008:

42079