DISCIPLINARY OVERVIEW

Linguistic Archaeology

Christopher Ehret

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This chapter addresses the essential issues in evaluating works that uselinguistic evidence in reconstructing the past. Linguistics has its own well-developedbody of theory and practice. Its evidence is subject to rigorous validation. Any workclaiming to infer history from linguistics must validate its evidence against a system-atic phonological reconstruction, and it must provide that validating apparatus or elsedirect the reader to where that apparatus is to be found. Scholars do not get to pickand choose among the archaeological data to support their ideas. Neither does one getto pick and choose or to engage in special pleading to make the linguistic evidence fitone’s prior notions. The chapter illustrates the requirements of linguistic reconstruc-tion by laying out the system of the Eastern Cushitic language group and showinghow to apply the system, step by step, to reconstruct the presence of a particularcomponent of the proto-Eastern Cushitic economy.

Résumé Ce chapitre aborde les questions essentielles à l'évaluation des travaux sebasant sur les données linguistiques pour reconstruire le passé. La linguistiquedispose d’un corpus bien développé de théorie et de pratique. Ses données sontsujettes à un mode de validation rigoureux. Un ouvrage qui prétend déduire l'histoireà partir de données linguistiques doit valider ces dernières à la lumière d’unereconstruction phonologique systématique; il se doit de décrire ce système de vali-dation ou d’indiquer au lecteur où l’on peut le trouver. Les chercheurs n'ont pas leloisir de trier sur le volet les données archéologiques qui appuient leurs idées. De lamême manière, il est malvenu de faire du tri sélectif ou de recourir à des plaidoyersspéciaux afin de rendre les preuves linguistiques conformes au parti-pris du cher-cheur. Ce chapitre illustre les exigences de la reconstruction linguistique par la présen-tation du système de phonologie historique du groupe linguistique Est-Couchitique et enmontrant comment appliquer le système, étape par étape, pour reconstruire la présenced'une composante particulière de l’économie proto-Est-Couchitique.

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130DOI 10.1007/s10437-012-9116-x

C. Ehret (*)UCLA Department of History, 6265 Bunche Hall, Box 951473, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1473, USAe-mail: ehret@history.ucla.edu

Keywords Linguistic stratigraphy . Regular sound change . Systematic phonologicalreconstruction . Lexical artifact . Cognate . Loanword . Proto-Eastern Cushitic .

Proto-Indo-European

Applying language evidence in reconstructing the history and culture of humansocieties in earlier times is not new. Scholars in linguistics and anthropology estab-lished the basic rules and techniques of this field and put them to use already in thenineteenth century. The Indo-European language family provided the early testingground, but by the beginning of the twentieth century anthropologists and linguistswere applying this approach in many parts of the world, most notably in the Americas(Sapir 1916). In the later twentieth and early twenty-first century, Africa has beentreated to the most detailed and extensive applications of these techniques (Ehret1971, 1998; Vansina 1978, 1990, 2003; Ali 1985; Schoenbrun 1998; Klieman 2003;Gonzales 2009, among others).

Two issues hold recurrent significance in these endeavors. One is the issue ofvalidation. What kinds of substantiation of the evidence should we require from thepractitioners of linguistic reconstruction? The second issue is interpretive. Once wehave validated the linguistic evidence, what level of confidence does it compel?

Validation

Linguistic evidence is hard evidence. Let us qualify that assertion: linguistic evidence,properly situated in a systematic phonological reconstruction, is hard evidence.

An archaeologist may say, I can’t hold these words in my hand. I cannot subjectthem to the tests of material science. How, then, is linguistic evidence hard evidence?

Linguistic evidence is subject to a different sort of validating operation, akin tomathematical testing. One feature of language history, sound change—changes in thephonology of a language—proceeds according to regular rules. If the speakers of alanguage change the pronunciation, for instance, of a particular consonant in some fashion,that change will not normally be limited to just one word. Rather, it will take holdwherever that consonant appears in a parallel phonological environment in the words ofthe language. A parallel phonological environment is one in which the sound occurs in thesame or similar position in a word, for instance, at the end or the beginning of a word, oradjacent to the same other sound. A consonant might change its pronunciation every-where, or it might, for example, change its pronunciation just when it was followed by thevowel i, but stay unchanged if any other vowel followed it in the same word. Theregularity of sound change applies to all aspects of pronunciation, to consonants andvowels, as well as to tones and stress. Systematically formulating these rules con-structs the apparatus for validating and stratifying the individual linguistic artifacts.

But words are also hard evidence in a more directly physical fashion. We experi-ence the sounds of words physically. The operative sense is not touch or sight, as itwould be with an archaeological artifact, but hearing. Utterances cause atmosphericvibrations, and our ears register those vibrations. A systematic phonological recon-struction, of course, does not allow us to directly access the speech vibrations oflanguage as spoken in past ages, but it acts as a kind of time machine nevertheless: Its

110 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

regular sound change rules give us strong clues, even if not definitive answers, as tohow particular root words were pronounced at different times in the past and howtheir pronunciations changed over the intervening periods.

Here is an example of what we mean by regular sound change. In German,the voiced stop consonants of that language—b, d, and g—have gone through aregular devoicing sound change in one particular phonological environment,namely, at the end of words. By “voicing” is meant the use of the vocal cordsin the utterance of a consonant; “devoicing” means leaving off the use of thevocal cords in uttering the consonant. Devoicing signifies in this case that theoriginal pronunciation of *b at the end of a word shifted to [p] in German; thepronunciation of *d to [t]; and the pronunciation of *g to [k]. The consonantsp, t, and k are articulated with the same kind of airflow and in the same positions inthe mouth as, respectively, b, d, and g. But whereas the vocal cords vibrate inpronouncing b, d, and g, they remain still in the pronunciation of p, t, and k. Hence,a single systematic rule, the non-use of the vocal cords whenever these consonantsoccur at the end of a word, explains the change in all three.

Building an overall systematic phonological reconstruction of a language family orbranch of a family requires applying analyses of this kind to the full panoply ofconsonants and vowels and, where possible, tones or stress across the languagegroup. It is a long, complex, and time-consuming, but essential undertaking, involv-ing the comparing of the pronunciations and meanings of thousands of words in manydifferent languages. Only when one has established, through this long and arduouswork, the histories of sound change in each language does it become possible to testthe individual words against this body of systematic phonological evidence. If eachsound in the word shows its expected regular changes, then the word can be reckonedan old retained root in the language. When the regularity of sound change fails at oneor more points in the word, we check to see if the failed correspondences reflectsound changes that were regular in some other language. If so, then we can identifythe word as a borrowing from the language in which the changes were regular.

Now a word can exist in a language only if the thing, activity, or conception connotedby the word is part of the knowledge of the world or the constructions of knowledge andbelief of the people and society who speak the language. To validate the reconstructionof a word back in time to an earlier era in language history necessarily traces the social,cultural, or human knowledge or belief connoted by the word back to the society of thatearlier period. The reconstruction of single words reveals the past presence of particularitems of culture or knowledge in a past society; the reconstruction of many words allowsthe historian to build complex pictures of knowledge, belief, social relations, andeconomy in past eras.

By the same token, the borrowing of words from one language into another revealshistories of cross-cultural and intersocietal interactions in past eras. Tracing thespread of an individual word from language to language can allow us to track thespread of a new cultural item across the historical landscape. But more important forthe historian is the study of sets of words borrowed at particular eras from onelanguage to another. Differences in the quantities of words borrowed and in the kindsof semantic fields represented in those borrowings tell us a great deal about theparticular histories of cross-cultural interchange that gave rise to that particular bodyof evidence (Ehret 2011a, Chap. 4).

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 111

Applying Linguistic Evidence

Archaeologists and other scholars of the African past have been presented with twoquite different types of works that claim to be based on the evidence of language.

On one side are the works that do validate their lexical, i.e., word evidence, point-for-point against a systematic phonological reconstruction. The books I cite above all buildon that kind of foundation. Moreover, these books all present complex historical picturesof changing human activities, beliefs, and cultural practices over extended periods oftime. They identify not just the histories of single items, but complexes of culturalfeatures to be looked for in the archaeological record; and they enrich what archaeologycan provide by reconstructing the lexicons of ideas, beliefs, and cultural practices that donot leave unambiguous material traces. Through their studies of loan words, they revealas well how societies interacted with and influenced each other in past times.

On the other side areworks that simply present comparative lists of thewords in differentlanguages for particular items of culture and, without adequate recourse to a systematicvalidating apparatus, offer claims about the histories of the items named by these words.

Archaeologists and historians seem often to treat the two different approaches as ifthey were equally valid. They are not.

A list of the words in different languages for a particular item, even if the wordsseem on the surface to show marked phonological resemblances, is not yet evidence.Such a list can be the basis for proposing hypotheses to be tested and criticallyevaluated with a systematic validating apparatus, but unless and until the criticaltesting has taken place, we have no basis for drawing any conclusions from the list.Without systematic phonological validation, we cannot judge whether the similaritiesamong the words of a list are due to their having a common origin in an earlierprotolanguage, or to the borrowing of words from one language to another, or to merechance resemblances among words of entirely separate origins.

If any work claims to make inferences from linguistic evidence, it must meet thefollowing requirement: The author must either

1. make available a systematic phonological reconstruction that provides a validat-ing framework for its claims about word history and for locating those histories inthe stratigraphy of the language family, or else

2. make use of an existing systematic phonological reconstruction to accomplish thispurpose

If that requirement is not met, then the claims of the work must be considered, atbest, unproven and, at worst, baseless.

An author may reject an existing reconstruction as inadequate or wrong, but if so,she or he must first correct or revise the existing reconstruction or produce analternative systematic phonological reconstruction before going on to make historicalclaims. Any submitted article or book that does not provide this backup or direct thereader to such a backup should not be acceptable for scholarly publication.

There is a second prerequisite as well. We require a linguistic stratigraphy—that is,a tree of linguistic descent—of the language family or the branch of the family fromwhich the linguistic evidence is drawn. Applying the first requirement, the testing ofeach word against a systematic phonological reconstruction, reveals whether or not aword in a particular language is an inherited root from an earlier stratum in the history of

112 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

the language group. But it is the distribution of the validated reflexes of the root word inlanguages of the family that tells us which stratum it goes back to. By reflex, we meanthe descendant form of an old root word as it occurs in a modern-day language. To betraced back to the original protolanguage of a language family as a whole, the reflexes ofan old root must occur in languages belonging to at least two of the primary lines oflinguistic descent that diverged out of the protolanguage. If, on the other hand, theregularly corresponding reflexes of an old root word turn up in languages of just onebranch of a family, that distribution allows us to trace the root back to the intermediateprotolanguage of that branch, but not to the protolanguage of the family as a whole.

To put the problem in archaeologists’ terms, to claim to interpret linguisticevidence without reference to a systematic phonological reconstruction, and withouta linguistic stratigraphy,

is like doing archaeology by collecting, from a site here and a site there,superficially resemblant objects lying on the surface of the ground. [It] is likeclaiming to do archaeology without stratigraphy, context, or application of thetools of systematic scientific analysis. Lacking the validating apparatus,attempts at inferring history from language evidence devolve into guessworkand trait chasing (Ehret 2011b).

For those readers who are interested, the appendix to this chapter, entitled “WhatCan Go Wrong?” breaks down an actually published wordlist, showing in detail whathappens when one neglects to apply the essential validating tools and procedures.

Language Evidence is Hard Evidence

An old root word, once it has been validated by systematic phonological reconstruc-tion and situated in the linguistic stratigraphy, becomes hard evidence. Stratificationcertifies to its presence at a particular stratum in the history of a language family—itestablishes the word as a historical artifact—as strongly as if it were a demonstra-tively non-intrusive material artifact in a particular archaeological stratum. Becausewords exist for concrete, specific cultural and historical reasons, the presence of thatword in a particular historical linguistic stratum implies at the very least that thespeakers of the language were familiar with the object or the action it denoted and thatthe object or action was a recognized category or expression of experience or culture.

The existence of a lexical artifact, in addition, reveals long-term history. Thereconstruction of an old root word to an earlier node in the family tree is possibleonly because reflexes of the root remained in use through the subsequent eras, turningup with regular sound correspondences in latter-day languages. Unlike the stratifiedoccurrence of a material object, the reconstruction of the lexical artifact—the old rootword—back to a particular stratum in language history shows not only its existence atthat particular period, but its continuing use in at least some descendant languagesdown through all the periods after that time, and therefore the continuing existenceacross time of the thing or action it denotes.

Moreover, any particular word may go through shifts or modifications in meaningat or between different nodes in the linguistic stratigraphy. Commonly, the drivers of

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 113

semantic change are changes in the nature, the practical applications, or the culturalconceptualizations of the thing or activity named by the word. Identifying suchsemantic shifts thus allows one to uncover processes of cultural change and to impartflow and movement to the history that the linguistic evidence unveils.

Putting Language Evidence to Work: Step 1

Let us proceed through an illustrative exercise in reconstructing the history of an oldroot word. This exercise is narrowly focused, in the sense that it will explicate thehistory and historical implications of just one artifact, a single old root term */oxol-“donkey” in the ancestral language, proto-Eastern Cushitic, of the Eastern sub-branchof the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family. But it well illustrates thepainstaking detail and care that is required:

1. to reconstruct the earlier pronunciations of the words and2. to compare the pronunciations of potentially related words in other languages of

the same language family or branch of a family, in order to answer the question,Are these words the valid reflexes of a reconstructed protolanguage root?

The sign /, by the way, denotes a glottal stop, a consonant uttered by abruptlystopping the air flow, such as happens to tt in the Cockney pronunciation of the wordbottle. The sign x expresses the sound of ch as in Scottish loch.

In the case of the Eastern Cushitic languages, the necessary foundations—a detailedphonological reconstruction together with a detailed subclassification, and thus a stra-tigraphy—already exist for pursuing the linguistic archaeology of Eastern Cushitic-speaking peoples and for tracing back the histories of individual roots such as */oxol-.Numerous scholars contributed to this foundation over the past four decades (notably,Black 1974; Sasse 1975a, b, 1976, 1979, 1982; Wedekind 1976; Hayward 1978a, b,1979, 1984, 1989; Heine 1978 [superseded by Ali 1985]; Ehret and Ali 1985, Ehret1991, 2008a, b; Hudson 1989; Ehret and Ali 1985; Arvanites 1991).

Aword of warning and apology may be in order as we move into the first phase ofthe demonstration. Tables 1 and 2 present the validating apparatus of systematicregular sound correspondence for the Eastern Cushitic languages. Once we turn to thespecific case study—the reconstruction of an ancient root word for “donkey”—thefunction of the tables as a reference tool for validating the lexical artifacts will beginto make sense. But the immediate prospect may seem opaque and daunting. A vastarray of regular sound correspondences characterize the Eastern Cushitic groupof languages; and the tables contain, along with familiar consonants andvowels, many unfamiliar phonetic signs and notations. Understandably, at somepoint the reader may begin to feel her or his eyes glazing over. For manyreaders, it may be preferable to move directly to the illustrative discussion ofthe */oxol- root below and only then come back to these tables to see how they relate tothe example.

In the tables—and here we plunge headlong into technical description—the recon-structed proto-Eastern Cushitic (PEC) consonants and vowels occupy the left-handcolumns. Each succeeding column gives the regular outcomes of those sounds in adifferent Eastern Cushitic language.

114 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Tab

le1

Eastern

Cushitic

regularconsonantcorrespondences

PEC

Sidam

oGedeo

Hadiya

Kam

bata

Burji

Harso

Gollango

Dobase

Tsamay

Yaaku

Maxay

Maay

Garree

Tunni

Rendille

Jiiddu

Bayso

Daasenach

Arbore

Oromo

Konso

Afar

*bb

bb

bb

pp

pb

pb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

b

*b/V_

βb

bb

bp

pp

bp

bb

bb

bw

bb

bb

bb

*dd

dd

dd

tt

td

td

dt

dd

dd

dd

dt

d

*d/V_

dd

dd

dt

tt

dt

dd

dd

dd

dd

dd

td

*gg

gg

gg

kk

kg

kg

gk

gg

gg

gg

gk

g

*g/V_

gg

gg

gk

kk

gk

gg

gg

gg

gg

gg

kg

*g/#_i/e

gg

gg

gk

kk

gk

jj

ʃj

jj

gg

gj

kg

*ɓb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

b

*ɓ/V

_b

bb

bb

bp

bɓ

ɓb

bb

bb

bb

bb

bb

b

*ɗɗ

ɗ/

/ɗ

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɗɖ

ɗɗ

ɗɖ

ɗØ,/

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɗ

*ɗ/V

_‘r

ɗ/

/ɗ

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɗɖ

rr

rɖ

ɗØ,/

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɖ

*ƒʃ

ʃʃ

ʃɗ

ʃʃ

ʃj

ƒɖ

ɗɗ

ɗɖ

ɗØ,/

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɖ

*ƒ/V_

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ɗʃ

ʃʃ

jƒ

ɖr

rr

ɖɗ

Ø,/

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɖ

*ɠg

gg

gg

gg

gg

ɠg

gg

gg

gg

gg

gg

g

*ɠ/#

_i/e

gg

gg

gg

gg

gɠ

jj

ʃj

jg

gg

gj

gg

*tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

t

*t/V_

tt

tt

tt

tt

tt

dd

dd

td

tt

tt

tt

*cʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃc

sʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ss

ʃʃ

s

*kk

kk

kk

hx

hk

kk

kk

kk

kk

kk

kk

k

*k/V_

hk

kk

kh

xh

kk

gg

gg

kg

kk

kk

kk

*k/#_i/e

kk

kk

kh

xh

kk

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

cʃ

kk

ks∼ʃ

kk

*t’

t’t’

t’t’

ɗt’

t’t’

t’t’

ɖɗ

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

Ø,/

ɗɗ

ɗɗ

ɖ

*c’

c’c’

c’c’

c’c’

k’c’

c’c’

jj

jj

į,/

c’c’

c’ɖ

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 115

Tab

le1

(con

tinued)

PEC

Sidam

oGedeo

Hadiya

Kam

bata

Burji

Harso

Gollango

Dobase

Tsamay

Yaaku

Maxay

Maay

Garree

Tunni

Rendille

Jiiddu

Bayso

Daasenach

Arbore

Oromo

Konso

Afar

*k’

k’k’

k’k’

k’ʠ

ʠʠ

ʠʠ

qq

qq

xq

Ø,/

k’k’

k’k’

Ø

*k’

k’k’

k’k’

k’ʠ

ʠʠ

ʠʠ

qq

qq

xq

Ø,/

ff

ff

Ø

*ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

f

*zd

dd

zd

ss

sz

sd

dd

sy

yd

dz

dt

z

*z/V_

dd

dz

ds

ss

zs

dd

dy

yy

dd

zd

tz

*z/V_C

dd

dz

ds

ss

zs

dd

dy

yy

dd

zr

tz

*ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

fs

s

*s/i_

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

yy

yy

ss

ss

ss

ʃs

*ʃs

ss

sʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

çs

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

s

*ʃ/_o

ʃʃ

sʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃç

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ʃs

*ʃ/_o

ʃʃ

sʃ

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃç

ss

ss

ss

ss

ss

ʃs

*ʃ/i_

ss

ss

ʃʃ

ʃʃ

ʃç

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

ys

*xh

hh

hh

xh

h∼x

xx

kk

kk

kk

kk

kk

kk

*x/V_-#

hh

hh

hx

hh∼

xx

xh

hh

hħ

Øh

hh

hh

k

*x/V_V

ØØ

ØØ

Øx

Øh∼

xx

xh

hh

Øħ

Øh

hh

hh

k

*hh

hh

hh

hh

hh

hħ

hh

hh

hh

hh

hh

h

*h/V_V

ØØ

ØØ

Øh

Øh

hh

ħh

hØ

hØ

hh

hh

hh

*ħh

hh

hh

ħħ

ħħ

hʕ

//

/ħ

h/

//

//

h

*ħ/V_V

ØØ

ØØ

Øh

ħh

hh

ħØ

ØØ

ħh

ØØ

Ø/

/h

*ʕ/

//

//

ʕʕ

ʕʕ

/ʕ

//

/ħ

//

//

//

ʕ

*ʕ/V

_VC

//

//

/ʕ

ʕʕ

ʕ/

ØØ

ØØ

ħ/

ØØ

ØØ

/ʕ

*//

//

//

//

//

//

//

/Ø

//

//

//

Ø

*//V_V

C/

//

//

//

//

/Ø

ØØ

ØØ

/Ø

ØØ

ØØ

Ø

116 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Tab

le1

(con

tinued)

PEC

Sidam

oGedeo

Hadiya

Kam

bata

Burji

Harso

Gollango

Dobase

Tsamay

Yaaku

Maxay

Maay

Garree

Tunni

Rendille

Jiiddu

Bayso

Daasenach

Arbore

Oromo

Konso

Afar

*mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

m

*nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

nn

n

*ɲn

nn

nn

ɲɲ

ɲɲ

ɲg

gk

gg

ɲɲ

n

*ɲ/V

_nk

nknk

ngɲ

nɲ

ɲ

*ŋg

gg

gg

ɲɲ

ɲɲ

ŋg

gk

gg

ŋɲ

g

*ŋ/V_V

nknk

nkŋ,

ŋgg

gk

gg

ŋɲ

ng

*ŋ/V_-#

nn

nn

nn

mn

*r/#_

rr

lr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

*r/V_

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

rr

*rr

rrrr

llrr

rrrr

rrrr

rrr

rrrr

rrrr

rrr

rrr

rrrr

rrrr

*ll

lr

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

l

*l/V_

ll

rl

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

ll

*ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

ww

w

*yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

y

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 117

Tab

le2

Eastern

Cushitic

regularvowelcorrespondences

PEC

Sidam

oGedeo

Hadiya

Kam

bata

Burji

Harso

Gollango

Dobase

Tsam

ayYaaku

Maxay

Maay

Garree

Tunni

Rendille

Jiiddu

Bayso

Daasenach

Arbore

Oromo

Konso

Afar

*aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

aa

a

*a/_ʕ/ħ

aa

aa

aa

aa

aε

ạạ

ạe

ạe

aa

ea

aa

*aa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaa

*aa/_ʕ/ħ

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaaa

aaεε

ạạạạ

ạạεε

ạạεε

aaaa

eeaa

aaaa

*e/

ee

ee

ee

ee

eε

aε

εε

εI

ee

ea

εa

*e/_CeC

ee

ee

ee

ee

eε

εε

εε

εε

ee

ee

ee

*e/#/_C

ee

ee

ee

ee

eε

εε

εε

εε

ee

ee

ee

*e/_CC

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

aε

εε

εe

ee

ee

ea

*e/_ʕ/ħ

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ee

ea

ea

*ee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeεε

εεεε

εεεε

εεII

eeee

eeee

eeee

*ee/_CC

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

εεεε

εεεε

εεII

eeee

eeee

eeee

*ee/_ʕ/ħ

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

eeee

*ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

eI

II

II

εi

ii

ii

i

*i/_CC

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

II

II

iε

ii

ii

ii

*i/_ʕ/ħ

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ịị

ịị

ii

ii

ii

ii

*ii

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiee

IIII

IIII

IIεε

iiii

iiii

iiii

*ii/_CC

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiii

IIII

IIII

IIεε

iiii

iiii

iiii

*ii/_

ʕ/ħ

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiii

iiii

ịịịị

ịịịị

ịịịị

iiii

iiii

iiii

*oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ɔa

ɔɔ

ɔɔ

ʊo

oo

oo

a

*o/_CoC

oo

oo

oo

oo

oɔ

ɔɔ

ɔɔ

ɔɔ

oo

oo

oo

*o/_CC

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ɔɔ

ɔɔ

ɔɔ

oo

oo

oa

*o/_ʕ/ħ

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

aɔ

ɔɔ

ɔʊ

oo

oo

oa

*o/#/_C

oo

oo

oo

oo

oɔ

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

118 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Tab

le2

(con

tinued)

PEC

Sidam

oGedeo

Hadiya

Kam

bata

Burji

Harso

Gollango

Dobase

Tsam

ayYaaku

Maxay

Maay

Garree

Tunni

Rendille

Jiiddu

Bayso

Daasenach

Arbore

Oromo

Konso

Afar

*oo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

ooɔɔ

ɔɔɔɔ

ɔɔɔɔ

ɔɔʊʊ

oooo

oooo

oooo

*oo/_CC

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

ɔɔɔɔ

ɔɔɔɔ

ɔɔʊʊ

oooo

oooo

oooo

*oo/_ʕ/ħ

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

*uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

oʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ɔu

uu

uu

u

*u/_CC

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊɔ

uu

uu

uu

*u/_ʕ/ħ

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

uu

*uu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuoo

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ɔɔuu

uuuu

uuuu

uu

*uu/_CC

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ʊʊ

ɔɔuu

uuuu

uuuu

uu

*uu/_ʕ/ħ

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 119

The specific reflexes of a consonant or vowel in a language often have differentregular outcomes, depending on the phonological environment in which they occur.For clarity, these different outcomes require separate rows in the chart.

In the PEC column in Table 1, we apply a kind of linguistic shorthand in depictingthe phonological environments that governed the various outcomes of the PECconsonants in latter-day languages:

(a) The notation /#_ connotes a word-initial environment; that is to say, it signalsthat the reflexes of a consonant cited in that row are the regular outcomes whenit is located at the beginning of a word.

(b) The notation /V_, in which V is the sign for any vowel, signifies all environ-ments in which the consonant follows a vowel in a word.

(c) The variant notation /V_V more narrowly specifies an environment requiring afollowing as well as preceding vowel.

(d) A still more specific environment of sound change, /V_VC, requires both afollowing consonant and a following vowel.

(e) The notation /V_-# designates a context in which a consonant follows a voweland, at the same time, is the final sound in the stem (or root portion) of a word.

(f) The lack of a notation after the consonant in a particular row in the PEC columnmeans that the reflexes in that row are the outcomes of the consonant in allenvironments other than those specified.

Three still more specific environments occur in Table 1 as well:

(g) The notation /_i/e denotes a consonant preceding what we call a front vowel,that is to say, i or e.

(h) The notation /o, in contrast, locates the consonant adjacent to the vowel o, eitherbefore or after it.

(i) Finally, /i_ situates the consonant in question immediately following the vowel i.

The sign ∼ indicates that two alternative regular outcomes of a consonant are usedamong different speakers of the language, according to individual preferences or thepreferences of the locality in which they live.

In Table 1 itself, the sign Ø indicates the entire loss of the sound in the indicatedword environment in the language. For two rare PEC consonants, an empty boxindicates that the regular reflex of the consonant in that particular language andenvironment has not yet been certainly identified.

Table 2 sets out the regular vowel sound correspondences across the EasternCushitic branch. Most commonly, either the consonants following a vowel orthe subsequent vowels in the same word govern the occurrences of alternativeregular reflexes. Again, a linguistic shorthand identifies the environments of thedifferent regular vowel outcomes.

(a) The notation _/ʕħ identifies instances in which a PEC pharyngeal consonant, *ʕor *ħ, which are sounds made in the pharynx of the throat, followed the vowel inquestion.

(b) A second notation, /_CC, connotes a following environment of either two differentconsonants or a long, or geminate, consonant, such as *bb or *dd or the like.

120 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Two languages, Afar and Maxay (Northern Soomaali), merged PEC short *e andshort *o with *a, with certain exceptions: In particular, the vowel remained e or o atthe beginning of words where the preceding word-initial PEC consonant had been aglottal stop. It also remained e or o when the PEC vowel of the following syllable inthe stem of the word was also *e or *o.

(c) The notations //_C and /_CeC and /_CoC identify these respective environmentsin the PEC column.

(d) As for the consonants in Table 1, similarly for the vowels in Table 2 the lack of aspecified environment in the PEC column means that the reflexes in that row arethe outcomes in all environments other than those specified.

As complex as the tables of Eastern Cushitic consonants and vowels might seem tobe, they still do not include every regular sound change known from these languages.Sometimes, the reason may be that the complexity of the sound change operationdoes not lend itself to easy inclusion in the tables. For example, a root of thereconstructed PEC shape *CVʕVb or *CV/Vb, where C is any consonant and V isany vowel, regularly yields CVp’p’ in Oromo, an operation in which two soundchanges worked together as one. The pharyngeal consonant *ʕ and the glottalconsonant */—which are sounds made back in the throat and so are unfamiliar tomost English speakers—merged with the familiar labial consonant *b, producingwhat we call a geminate ejective labial p’p’—that is to say a doubled (“geminate”)consonant pronounced with the lips (“labial”) and with a marked ejection of air(“ejective”). At the same time the two vowels of the original root reduced to a singlevowel. PEC *laʕab- “chest” as a result became Oromo lap’p’e. In contrast, the sameroot yielded Maxay (Northern Soomaali) laab through a simple pharyngeal deletionrule, depicted in Table 2 (see the row beginning with *ʕ/V_VC; also Ehret 1991).

Another case in point is the Yaaku merger of the two consonants, PEC *ʕ and */,into a single consonant, the glottal stop /, everywhere except in two highly restrictedand rare contexts: When the surrounding vowel environments were /u_ ε and /o_ε, *ʕbecame respectively y and w. The vowel ɛ in these instances is the regular Yaakureflex of original PEC *a when it was located next to a pharyngeal consonant, such as*ʕ (for this rule, see Table 2). This rule must have operated before the Yaaku rulemerging *ʕ with */ because it did not effect the reflexes of PEC */ (Ehret 2008b).

In addition, a variety of sound changes not included here governed the outcomesof the long, or geminate, consonants of proto-Eastern Cushitic in particular languages(Ehret 1991 lays out many of these rules).

Proto-Eastern Cushitic “Donkey”

With the tables of regular sound correspondence in place, we are ready to move to thesecond and more engaging phase of the work, the validating and stratifying of theindividual lexical artifacts.

When we reconstruct old root words, the first point to keep in mind is that what wecompare are the stems of the words. The initial step in the analysis is therefore tobreak down the proposed reflexes of the old root word, in each of its occurrences inindividual languages, into its constituent morphological and phonological segments.

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 121

We first explicitly identify and analytically separate off any added element—anysuffix or prefix—that has been attached to that stem. We then test the stems,consonant by consonant and vowel by vowel, against the apparatus of regular soundcorrespondence.

Here is how the analytical steps proceed in the case of the proposed old root wordfor “donkey” in Eastern Cushitic.

Reflex 1 Afar okalo “donkey”

Because Afar morphology is well understood, we know that the word final vowelo in Afar okalo is a noun singular suffix. Removing this affixed element reveals thestem to be okal-.

With the stem identified, we can then proceed to the second task, breaking that stemdown, phonological segment by phonological segment. Here is what the tables ofregular sound correspondences among the Eastern Cushitic languages reveal:

(a) Afar o at beginning of words regularly derives only from proto-Eastern Cushitic(PEC) */o (Table 1, row */ and Table 2, row *o //_C).

(b) Afar k between two vowels can derive from either of two different PECconsonants: *k or *x (Table 1, rows *k /V_ and *x /V_).

(c) Afar short a between two consonants can come from either of three PEC vowels:PEC short *a, *o, or *e (Table 2, rows unspecified for environment).

(d) Afar l always preserves proto-Eastern Cushitic *l (Table 1, row *l /V_).

From this analysis, we know that the modern-day Afar pronunciation allows fourpossible PEC reconstructions of the underlying root word (see again notes a-d above):*/okol-, */okal-, */oxol-, or */oxal-.

Can we narrow these choices down? The evidence from other Eastern Cushiticlanguage gives us the information for doing so:

Reflex 2 Arbore /ohol “donkey”

The Arbore singular consists of simply the stem, with no added singular suffix.

(a) Arbore / regularly derives in word-initial position from either PEC */ or *ʕ(Table 1, rows */, general environment, and *ʕ, general environment).

(b) Arbore short o regularly derives from PEC *o in all phonological environments.(c) Arbore h following a vowel can derive from any of three different proto-Eastern

Cushitic consonants: *h, *ħ, or *x (Table 1, lines *h /V_, *ħ /V_, and *x /V_).(d) Arbore short o regularly derives from PEC *o in all phonological environments.(e) Arbore l always preserves proto-Eastern Cushitic *l (Table 1, row *l /V_).

Six possible PEC root shapes could therefore account for the Arbore out-come: */ohol-, /oħol-, /oxol-, *ʕohol-, ʕoħol-, or ʕoxol-. Of all these possibleoutcomes the only one that both Afar and Arbore share is PEC */oxol-.

Do the attestations of this root in other Eastern Cushitic languages sustain thisconclusion that PEC */oxol- was the original root shape?

122 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Reflex 3 Gollango /oollo “donkey”

Final -o is the singular masculine suffix of Gollango. With the addition of thissuffix a regular morphophonemic lengthening of final stem consonant, *l>ll, takesplace. “Morphophonemic” refers to a sound change brought because of the additionof a suffix or prefix to the stem of the word. The stem in this case is thus ool-. If weexamine the Gollango consonant and vowel outcomes in the tables of sound corre-spondences, we discover:

(a) Gollango /o at the beginning of a word regularly derives only from PEC */o(Table 1, row */, environment unspecified, and Table 2, *o //_C).

(b) PEC *x is regularly deleted, i.e., becomes Ø (zero), after a vowel in Gollango(Table 1, row *x /V_).

(c) Gollango regularly keeps PEC *o as o between consonants (Table 2, row *o /C_C).

(d) Gollango always preserves PEC *l (Table 1, line *l /V_).

Hence, the Gollango stem /ool- is the expected fully regular outcome of a PECroot */oxol-.

Reflex 4 Tunni /ɔhɔl “female donkey”

The reflex in Tunni, a language of the Soomaali subgroup of Eastern Cushitic, asin Arbore, maintains the bare stem in the singular, without adding a singular suffix.

(a) Tunni /ɔ at beginning of words regularly derives only from PEC */o (Table 1,row */, environment unspecified, and Table 2, row *o /#/_C).

(b) Tunni h between two vowels can derive from either of three different PECconsonants: *h, *ħ, or *x (Table 1, rows *h /V_, *ħ /V_, and *x /V_).

(c) Tunni ɔ between two consonants comes from PEC short *o (Table 2, row *o,environment unspecified).

(d) Tunni l always preserves PEC *l (Table 1, row *l /V_).

The Tunni data would thus allow either of three PEC reconstructions,*/ohol-, /oħol-, or /oxol-, one of which, */oxol-, is the same as that required bythe combined Afar and Arbore evidence and in keeping with the evidence of theGollango reflex.

The Saho dialect of Afar, not included in the tables, has oklo “donkey.” Tothe regular sound changes which its stem okl- shares with the Afar dialect, Saho addsa further regular sound change of its own, the eliding of medial vowels in thisparticular environment, hence the loss of the root vowel intervening between k and l.

Together, the Arbore, Gollango, and Tunni reflexes pinpoint what the Afar (andSaho) evidence by itself could not: The reconstructed pronunciation of the rootattested by these reflexes was */oxol-. The weight of evidence supports reconstruc-tion of the proto-Eastern Cushitic meaning “donkey” for this root, in that the genericmeaning is attested in all but one reflex of the root. Tunni alone gives the word anarrower meaning “female donkey,” with even the other language of its sub-branchthat possesses the root, Arbore, applying it as the generic term for the animal. As the

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 123

sole attester of an alternative meaning, Tunni was in all probability the innovatinglanguage.

Stratifying the Lexical Artifact

With the regular correspondences and the reconstructed root shape */oxol- system-atically justified, we are now ready to stratify the lexical artifact and so complete itsestablishment as hard evidence. What allows us to trace this root to the proto-EasternCushitic language? For a word to be assigned to the protolanguage of a family or abranch of a family, the word must turn up with regular sound correspondences inlanguages belonging to at least two of the primary branches of the group.

Figure 1 lays out the lines of descent of Eastern Cushitic. Arrows mark the lines oflinguistic descent that account for the presence of the phonologically regular reflexesof the root */oxol- in the modern-day Eastern Cushitic languages. The regularreflexes of */oxol- do indeed occur in languages of two of the three primary branches,Lowland East Cushitic and Yaaku-Dullay. Because the lines of descent of the twobranches connect only at the PEC node, the arrows therefore track the transmission ofthe root */oxol- “donkey” back in time to the proto-Eastern Cushitic society.

Possessing a word for the donkey, the proto-Eastern Cushites at a minimum eitherraised donkeys or lived in a region in which this animal was part of the wild fauna.This term is in fact just one of at least three old Cushitic root words for this animal inthe PEC language. The cumulative implication of this evidence is that the proto-Eastern Cushites raised and kept donkeys (Ehret 2011b).

The steps taken in the case of */oxol- typify the procedures necessary tovalidate and stratify each particular root word. The authors cited at the beginningof this article (Ehret 1971, 1998; Vansina 1978, 1990, 2003; Ali 1985; Schoenbrun1998; Klieman 2003; Gonzales 2009), it should be pointed out, relied on this kindof analysis not once, but hundreds and, sometimes, thousands of times in

EASTERN CUSHITIC TREE / STRATIGRAPHY

proto-Eastern Cushitic

proto-Yaaku-Dullay proto-Lowland Eastern Cushitic

proto-South Lowland Eastern Cushitic

proto-Highland Eastern Cushitic proto-Omo-Tana

proto-East Omo-Tana (Soomaali)

proto-Westproto-North Highland proto-Konsoromo Omo-Tana proto-Bayso-J. proto-Dawo (Sam)

Eastern Cushitic

proto-NorthProto-Sidamo- Lowland

proto-Dullay Hadiya E. Cushitic proto-Konsoid proto- proto-

proto- Maay MaxayOromo

Harso Tsamay Hadiya Saho Konso Busa Arbore Bayso Rendille GeeliidleYaaku Gollango Dobase Burji Gedeo Sidamo Kambata Afar Gidole Dhaasanech Elmolo Jiiddu Tunni Garree

Fig. 1 Eastern Cushitic tree/stratigraphy */oxol-“donkey”

124 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

generating the corpuses of old root words—the lexical artifacts—that theyutilized in their works.

What Every Scholar of the Past should Know

Two lessons of broader implication emerge from these considerations.The first lesson relates to the nature of linguistic evidence and argument.

Linguistics is a separate, capacious source of evidence about history and cultureof earlier times, with its own well-developed body of theory and practice. Itsevidence is subject to rigorous validation. Its findings stand on their own. Theyare not some impressionistic adjuncts to other kinds of historical argument. Wedo not get to pick and choose among the archaeological data to support ourideas. Neither do we get to pick and choose or to engage in special pleading tomake the linguistic evidence fit our notions.

A Case in Point

We possess a thorough, systematic phonological reconstruction of the Indo-Europeanlanguage family. The lexical evidence reconstructed on this basis does not require theknowledge and use of wheels at the very earliest threshold of Indo-European history,the proto-Indo-Hittite period. But in the immediately succeeding era—the period inwhich proto-Indo-European proper, the ancestral language of the remainder of thefamily, was spoken—multiple reconstructed root words for and relating to the wheelhad come into existence (Anthony 1995, 2007). These data require that the speakersof this language, from which descend all the Indo-European languages from Gaelic atthe westernmost edge of Europe to Tocharian in the Tarim Basin of east-central Asia,knew and used the wheel. The proto-Indo-Hittite stage may date to around 4000 BCEor just before, but the wheel-using proto-Indo-European era itself cannot therefore bedated earlier than sometime in the fourth millennium BCE.

In addition, the reconstructed vocabulary of proto-Indo-European relating tosubsistence solidly identifies livestock raising among the speakers of this language.In contrast, it only weakly indicates their acquaintance with cultivation. Overall thesedata fit with a history in which the original Indo-Europeans were predominantlypastoralists, although with some knowledge or practice of cultivation.

The protolanguages of all branches of the family, except for proto-Balto-Slavic, took up major bodies of loanwords from non-Indo-European lan-guages.1 Everywhere, these word-borrowing sets included terminology relating tocultivation and often to livestock. The strongest and most pervasive linguistic impactfrom previous populations is evident in the languages of the Anatolian branch. Theexceedingly high proportion of word borrowings in these languages from non-Indo-European languages, along with the intrusion of loanwords even into parts of the

1 I am indebted to Henning Anderson, Professor of Slavic Languages at the University of California at LosAngeles, for his extended and informative discussions and for bringing this feature of Balto-Slavic lexicalhistory to my attention.

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 125

lexicon in which borrowing only rarely takes place, puts beyond cavil the conclusionthat the speakers of proto-Anatolian and each of its descendant languages, such asHittite and Luwian, were intruders into the Anatolian regions (Anthony 2007 issolidly grounded on this point; contra Gramkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 1990; Grayand Atkinson 2003).2

The combined implication of the Indo-European evidence is that the speakers ofthe protolanguages of every branch of Indo-European—except for Balto-Slavic, theearly homeland of which is generally considered to have lain most probably in somepart of Ukraine—expanded into areas of already well-established agricultural pop-ulations. The early Indo-European speakers, this evidence indicates, did not bringagriculture to Europe any more that they brought it to India. The homeland of proto-Indo-European lay most likely on the fringes of the early areas of agriculture. Amongall the possibilities, it would make the most sense if the origin region were one inwhich extensive word borrowing from earlier populations did not take place. The onelater Indo-European speech region with those characteristics was the area extendingnorthward from the Black Sea.

Why, one might then ask, have some archaeologists, beginning with ColinRenfrew, been able to spend almost three decades arguing for the Indo-Europeans as the bringers of agriculture to Europe, when the linguisticevidence for Indo-European culture comports not at all with this proposal?

The second and more important lesson is that any work that does notvalidate its lexical evidence against a systematic phonological reconstruction—and does not, as well, explicitly set out the validating apparatus or else directthe reader to where that apparatus is to be found—is not suitable for scholarlypublication. Substantive historical inference from language evidence requiresthat one possess a systematic phonological reconstruction and apply this recon-struction to the evaluation of each and every lexical artifact. In some caseswhere only some portions of a systematic linguistic reconstruction of a familyhave yet been established—for example, many but not all of the consonants,and not yet the vowels—one may still be able to offer provisional historicalproposals. But in those instances, one must present the rationales behind suchproposals in extenso, explain their limitations, and make explicit their interim andprovisional nature. To reiterate, to claim to do history from language without asystematic phonological reconstruction is like claiming to do archaeology withoutstratigraphy and without engaging the essential analytical tools of the discipline.

Appendix: What Can Go Wrong?

To illustrate what happens if one lacks or fails to take account of theessential analytical tools and procedures, let us consider a previously pub-lished collection of terms for donkey (Blench 2006, Table 9.8). I have corrected

2 Gray and Atkinson’s work, in its linguistic geographical aspects, actually allows either of two locations asequally probable origin regions, the area immediately south of the Black Sea, i.e., Anatolia, or the areasaround the north side of the Black Sea. The word-borrowing evidence cited in this chapter rules outAnatolia. The reconstructed proto-Indo-European lexicon rules out the dating of this language to the erasbefore the invention of the wheel.

126 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

the names of the branches to which the cited Omotic languages belong, andalso the subgroup of Mbay in Nilo-Saharan, so as to accord with the acceptedstandard terminologies of those groups. Because of the immense additionalcomplexity of providing the systematic tables of sound correspondence for eachfamily represented in these words, the relevant published sources of thisinformation will be cited instead (the notation 2–3 following the Bench word isnot a footnote but marks the presence of a rising tone, mid [2] to high [3], on theword):

Language phylum Family Branch Language Attestation

Afroasiatic Omotic North Omotic Bench kur2-3

North Omotic Hozo kuuri

South Omotic Karo uk’uli

Cushitic Eastern Cushitic Oromo bukura

Eastern Cushitic Saho okáalo

Chadic West Chadic Karekare kóoró

Central Chadic Vulum kùré

Masa Peve koro

East Chadic Nancere kurá

Nilo-Saharan Central Sudanic Bongo-Bagirmi Mbay kòro

Saharan Bodele Kanuri kóro

Two of the terms cited for the Omotic group, from Bench and Hozo, fit at eachpoint in their pronunciation with the regular Omotic sound correspondences (Ehret1995; Bender 2003). This root actually occurs more widely in languages of the Northbranch of Omotic, and the sound correspondences establish the reconstructed root asproto-North Omotic *kuur- “donkey.” The final vowel in each of the attested items isa singular suffix added to the stem.

In contrast, the South Omotic term, Karo uk’uli, in spite of what might seem to besurface resemblances in pronunciation, fails the tests of regular Omotic soundcorrespondence at every single point in the word. First, there is no rule in the SouthOmotic branch deleting initial vowels in reconstructed stems. If a word in Karobegins in u as this item does, then any regular corresponding word in the otherOmotic languages would also retain the u. Second, Karo k’ always corresponds to *k’in North Omotic languages, and never to *k, as the claimed attribution here wouldpresume. Third, Karo l always corresponds to *l in North Omotic languages, never to*r. In addition, if North Omotic has a long vowel *uu, then Karo should have uu also.Two quite distinct roots, *uk’ul- and *kuur-, thus lie behind the respective Karo andNorth Omotic words.

The cited Saho term is a dialect variant of the more usual Saho reflex oklo ofproto-Eastern Cushitic (PEC) */oxol-. PEC */oxol- fails regular sound correspon-dence with both the North Omotic root and the Karo word at almost every point. Inaddition to the missing first syllable in the North Omotic comparison root, PEC *oregularly corresponds to *o in North Omotic and Karo and not at all to long *uu, andPEC *l to North Omotic and Karo *l, not *r. PEC *x does correspond regularly to Karok, but its regular outcomes are k in some North Omotic languages and h in others.

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 127

The inclusion of Oromo bukura “young donkey” in the list is baffling. Its citationviolates a primary requirement of comparison—the necessity of first breaking downthe morphological composition of a word into its stem and any affixes added to thatstem. The final vowel is indeed a common suffix in Cushitic nouns; but there is notonly no prefix bu- in Oromo, but no such prefix anywhere else in the Afroasiaticfamily. We are left with an irreducible core, *buk-, which does not accord at all withthe rest of the items on the list.

What about the Chadic terms? Again, the list provides only a few examples of aroot much more widely attested. The overall evidence supports a reconstructed proto-Chadic root shape *kwaar-. Orel and Stolbova (1995: 323) reconstruct the vowel *o,but Ngizim kwáará and Karekare kóoró, among other Chadic reflexes, make it clearthat the original vowel was *aa.

With the invalid Cushitic comparisons removed from consideration, the obviousfollow-up question is whether or not the Chadic and North Omotic or the Chadic andKaro roots correspond regularly to each other. The Karo word certainly does notcorrespond, because Omotic *k’ regularly matches with proto-Chadic *k’, not *k,and Omotic *l with Chadic *l, not *r, and therefore can be disregarded once again asa chance resemblance.

But the proto-Chadic and proto-North Omotic root do appear to be regular reflexesof a common older root (Orel and Stolbova 1995 recognize this connection, althoughonly partially identifying the phonological regularities). The presence of a long *aa ina proto-Chadic root, as here in *kwaar- “donkey,” normally indicates that a Afroasi-atic laryngeal consonant, */, *ʕ, *h, or *ħ, was lost in proto-Chadic, leaving behindthe vowels on either side of it (Ehret 1995). The still earlier pre-proto-Chadic shapewould thus have been *kwaHar-, in which H represents any of the four possiblelaryngeals. Because proto-Chadic *a could come from either proto-Afroasiatic *a or*e (Ehret 1995), the actual pre-proto-Chadic shape of this root for “donkey” couldhave been either *kwaHar- or *kweHer-.

The proto-Afroasiatic laryngeals also were lost in proto-Omotic in the par-ticular environment /#CV_VC, again changing a proto-Afroasiatic shape*CVHVC into a long-vowel outcome, *CVVC, in proto-Omotic. A secondfeature of proto-Omotic was that it converted the labial velar series of proto-Afroasiatic consonants—*kw, *gw, *xw, *ɣw, and *kw’—into plain velars, *k,*g, *x, *ɣ, and *k’. If the following consonant was *r or *l and the interveningvowel was *a, *aa, *e, *ee, *i, or *ii, these vowels also underwent a set of regularsound changes simultaneously with the loss of the labial element w: *a became *o,*aa became *oo, *e and *i became *u, and *ee and *ii became *uu in proto-NorthOmotic (Ehret 1995). An earlier Afroasiatic root shape *kweHer- would thereforehave become proto-North Omotic *kuur-, whereas a root shape *kwaHar- wouldhave yielded proto-North Omotic *koor-. Taken together, the Omotic *kuur- andChadic *kwaar- root shapes require an original proto-Afroasiatic *kweHer- “don-key,” in which the specific value of *H cannot yet be established, but the vowels andthe other consonants can be identified.

Orel and Stolbova (1995) link Arabic kurr- “young donkey” to this root, but sinceArabic always retains the laryngeal consonants of proto-Afrosiatic, its regularcorresponding shape would have to be *kuHr, not kurr. The Arabic term thereforedoes not belong here. It is a chance resemblance and cannot be included in the set.

128 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

What of the words for donkey in Kanuri and in Mbay? These two languages bothwere intrusive into their current regions around and to the south of Lake Chad duringthe past 2000 years. Before that time Chadic languages dominated across these areas.Kanuri and Mbay each attest koro. This shape, with short /o/, is the regular phono-logical outcome the root *kweHer- in several Chadic languages spoken around thesouth of Lake Chad (e.g., Masa), thus identifying the Kanuri and Mbay words asborrowings from the earlier Chadic languages of the region.

References

Ali, Mohamed Nuuh. 1985. History in the Horn of Africa, 1000 B.C.–1500 A.D: Aspects of social andeconomic change between the Rift Valley and the Indian Ocean. Ph.D. dissertation. University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles

Anthony, D. W. (1995). Horse, wagon and chariot: Indo-European languages and archaeology. Antiquity,69, 554–565.

Anthony, D. W. (2007). The horse, the wheel, and language: How Bronze Age riders from the Eurasiansteppes shaped the modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Arvanites, Linda. 1991. The glottalic phonemes of Proto-Eastern Cushitic. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universityof California at Los Angeles

Bender, M. L. (2003). Omotic lexicon and phonology. Carbondale: SIU.Black, Paul. 1974. Lowland East Cushitic: Reconstruction and subgrouping. Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale

University, New HavenBlench, R. (2006). Archaeology, language, and the African Past. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Ehret, C. (1971). Southern Nilotic history: Linguistic approaches to the study of the past. Evanston:

Northwestern University Press.Ehret, C. (1991). Revising the consonant inventory of Proto-Eastern Cushitic. Studies in African Linguis-

tics, 22(3), 211–275.Ehret, C. (1995). Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vo-

cabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Ehret, C. (1998). An African classical age: Eastern and Southern Africa in world history, 1000 B.C. to A.D.

400. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Ehret, C. (2008a). The primary branches of Cushitic: Seriating the diagnostic sound change rules. In J.

Bengtson (Ed.), In hot pursuit of language in prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology (pp.149–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ehret, C. 2008b. Yaakuan and Eastern Cushitic: A historical linguistic overview. In: G. Takacs (Ed.),Semito-Hamitic festschrift for A. B. Dolgopolsky and H. Jungraithmayr. Dietrich Reimer, Berlin, pp.128–141.

Ehret, C. (2011a). History and the testimony of language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Ehret, C. (2011b). A linguistic history of cultivation and herding in Northeastern Africa. In A.G. Fahmy, S.

Kahlheber & A.C. D’Andrea (Eds.), Windows on the African past: Current approaches to Africanarchaeobotany, Vol. 3. Frankfurt am Main: Africa Magna Verlag

Ehret, C., & Ali, M. N. (1985). Soomaali classification. In T. Labahn (Ed.), Proceedings of the SecondInternational Congress of Somali Studies (Hamburg, August, 1983) vol. 1 (pp. 201–269). Hamburg:Buske.

Gonzales, R. (2009). Societies, religion, and history: Central-east Tanzanians and the world they created,c. 200 BCE to 1800 CE. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gramkrelidze, T. V., & Ivanov, V. V. (1984). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction andhistorical typological analysis of a protolanguage and proto-culture. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University.

Gramkrelidze, T. V., and Ivanov V. V. (1990). The early history of Indo-European languages. ScientificAmerican, March 1990, pp. 110–116.

Gray, R. D., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2003). Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory ofIndo-European origin. Nature, 426, 435–439.

Hayward, R. (1978a). Bayso revisited: Some preliminary linguistic observations—I. Bulletin of the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies, 41(3), 539–570.

Hayward, R. (1978b). The Qawko dialects and Yaaku. Abbay, 9, 59–70.

Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130 129

Hayward, R. (1979). Bayso revisited: Some preliminary linguistic observations—II. Bulletin of the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies, 42(1), 101–132.

Hayward, R. (1984). The Arbore language: A first investigation. Hamburg: Buske.Hayward, R. (1989). Comparative notes on the language of the S’aamakko. Journal of Afroasiatic

Languages, 2(1), 1–53.Heine, B. (1978). The Sam languages: A history of Rendille, Boni and Somali. Afroasiatic Linguistics, 6, 2.Hudson, G. (1989). Highland East Cushitic dictionary. Hamburg: Buske.Klieman, Kairn. (2003). ‘The Pygmies were our compass’: Bantu and Batwa in the history of West Central

Africa, early times to c. 1900 C.E. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Orel, V., & Stolbova, O. (1995). Hamito-Semitic etymological dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction.

Leiden: Brill.Sapir, E. (1916). Time perspective in aboriginal American culture. Ottawa: Canadian Geological Series.Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1975a. “The extension of Macro-Somali.” Unpublished paper. Colloque international

sur les langues couchitiques et les peuples qui les parlent, Paris.Sasse, H-J. (1975b). Galla /š/, /s/, and /f/. Afrika und Übersee 58-244-263.Sasse, H.-J. (1976). Weiteres zu den ostkuschitischen Sibilanten. Afrika und Übersee, 59, 125–142.Sasse, H.-J. (1979). The consonant phonemes of Proto-East-Cushitic (PEC): A first approximation.

Afroasiatic Linguistics, 1, 1–67.Sasse, H.-J. (1982). An etymological dictionary of Burji. Hamburg: Verlag.Schoenbrun, D. (1998). A green place, a good place: Agrarian change, gender, and social identity in the

Great Lakes region to the 15th Century. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Vansina. (1990). Paths in the rainforests: Toward a history of political tradition in Equatorial Africa.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Vansina. (2003). How societies are born: Governance in West Central Africa before 1600. Charlottesville:

University of Virginia Press.Vansina. (1978). The children of Woot: A history of the Kuba peoples. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press.Wedekind, K. (1976). Sidamo, Derasa (Gedeo), Burji—Phonological differences and likenesses. Unpub-

lished paper.

130 Afr Archaeol Rev (2012) 29:109–130

Copyright of African Archaeological Review is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.