British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs No. 12 Series editors: D. Kennet & St J. Simpson Navigated Spaces, Connected Places Proceedings of Red Sea Project V held at the University of Exeter, 16–19 September 2010 Edited by Dionisius A. Agius John P. Cooper Athena Trakadas Chiara Zazzaro BAR International Series 2346 2012 Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S2346 British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs No. 12 Navigated Spaces, Connected Places: Proceedings of Red Sea Project V held at the University of Exeter, 16–19 September 2010 © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012 ISBN 978 1 4073 0929 3 Front cover: Detail from a Gujerati map of the Red Sea, drawn by an inhabitant of Kutch. Given the Alex Jones by a pilot in June 1835. © Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Printed in England by 4edge, Hockley DTP by Athena Trakadas All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com R. BLENCH: THE SEMITICISATION OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA The Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula and the Problem of its Reflection in the Archaeological Record Roger Blench Introduction One intriguing issue that remains unresolved is the posi- The Arabian Peninsula is entirely Semitic-speaking today, tion of the Gurage languages of Ethiopia; these languages with Arabic dominant and Modern South Arabian lan- are so different from Ethiosemitic (i.e., Amharic, etc.) guages confined to a small area of the extreme south, along and from each other that it is a real possibility that these the coast of the Ḥaḍramawt, in Oman and on Socotra. How- are relic Semitic languages, remaining in Ethiopia after ever, epigraphic South Arabian languages (Sabaean, etc.) the migration of the main core of Semites up the Nile Riv- were once much more widespread and indeed their speak- er.5 ers migrated across the Red Sea, speaking what would become Ethio-Semitic languages. Semitic languages are The South Semitic languages consist of three branches, relatively well-attested compared with other branches Modern South Arabian (MSA), Epigraphic South Arabian of Afroasiatic and the lack of diversity within Modern (ESA) and Ethiosemitic. The MSA languages are a set South Arabian argues that their arrival cannot be of any of six languages, confined to a small area of the extreme great antiquity. Nonetheless, we have no clear idea of when south, along the coast of the Ḥaḍramawt, in Oman and on Semitic languages became dominant in the Arabian Pe- Socotra (Figure 8:3). They are relatively well-document- ninsula, nor by what mechanism the existing populations ed, with substantial dictionaries of four of them.6 The ESA disappeared or were assimilated. The archaeology of languages are the so-called “Sabaean” languages which Arabia and adjacent parts of Ethiopia has become signif- are generally considered ancestral to modern South Se- icantly better known in the last few years and yet there mitic.7 These include Sabaean, Minaean and Qatabanian is no clear correlate in the material record for this re- inscriptions and are generally dated to between the 8th cen- markable process. This paper examines the evidence and tury BC and the 6th century AD.8 The ESA languages in- makes some proposals as to the nature and chronology of clude Aksumite, which is attested on both sides of the Red the Semiticisation of the Arabian Peninsula, using prin- Sea (Figure 8:4). During the 3rd century AD inscriptions of cipally lexical evidence from the Modern South Arabian the so-called (’)l type appear and are almost certainly the languages. precursors of Arabic-type languages gradually spreading down into the peninsula. However, it is logical to assume The Linguistic Situation the speakers reached the region much earlier and the lan- Semitic languages are part of the larger language phylum, guages only took on written form towards the last part of Afroasiatic, which includes Berber, Ancient Egyptian and their lifespan. the languages of Ethiopia as well as the Chadic languages of Central Africa (Figure 8:1). This classification is not There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both Epi- wholly settled, especially as to the inclusion of Omotic graphic (ESA) and Modern South Arabian (MSA) were and Elamitic.1 languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethio- pia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of The Semitic branch of Afroasiatic is well-known and de- these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. scribed, and has significant ancient attestations in the form Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain of Eblaitic and other epigraphic languages of the Near evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing East.2 By the standards of Afroasiatic, Semitic languages with ESA. Beeston9 cites an inscription from Marib which are extremely close to one another. Omotic, by contrast, begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown lan- is so internally divided that it has been long debated as guage. He mentions several other texts that have similar to whether it is a member of the Afroasiatic group and morphology (a final –k suffix) and may represent an un- whether Omotic constitutes a coherent branch.3 But the known non-Semitic language (or possibly a Nilo-Saharan Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED)4 is likely to recon- language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would struct thousands of roots for common Semitic, the internal be typical). classification of which is generally agreed upon by schol- ars (Figure 8:2). 5. See, i.e., lexical data in Leslau 1979. 6. Leslau 1938; Johnstone 1977, 1981, 1987. 1. See Blench 2006 for a review of some of the alternative proposals. 7. Höfner 1943; Beeston 1984; Kogan & Korotayev 1997; Nebes & 2. Fronzaroli 1969; Rubin 2008. Stein 2004. 3. This is generally considered resolved. See e.g., Bender 2000, 2003. 8. Ricks 1982; Versteegh 2001. 4. Militariev & Kogan 2005, also in progress. 9. Beeston 1981: 181. 65 NAVIGATED SPACES, CONNECTED PLACES Figure 8:1. Afroasiatic classification. Figure 8:2. Semitic lan- guage phylog- eny. Figure 8:3. Modern South Arabian languages. MSA languages share an intriguing common feature with They have disappeared in other branches of Semitic, but some Afroasiatic languages on the mainland: the conserva- it is thought that they were a feature of proto-Afroasiatic. tion of lateral fricatives. The lateral fricatives, /ɮ/ and /ɬ/, This conservation may have relevance for the peopling of are relatively rare in the world’s languages but within Afro- South Arabia, as the old Afroasiatic root for “cattle” is ɬa, asiatic they occur in Chadic, Cushitic and MSA languages. which is widely attested with a lateral fricative. 66 R. BLENCH: THE SEMITICISATION OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA Figure 8:4. Map showing approximate locations where ri.13 It is likely that they were assimilated by the incoming Epigraphic South Arabian languages are spoken. South Arabians and the possibility is that sedentarisation and the elaborated material culture that marks this is a sign of these early interactions. Although stone tools provide abundant evidence for early foragers, there are few clues to the ethno-linguistic iden- tity of their users, as Semitic languages are now dominant in Arabia. There is surprisingly little substrate vocabulary in MSA languages, providing few clues to the pre-Semit- ic populations. However, one possibility presents itself. All across the Arabian Peninsula, spreading as far north as Palmyra, the Solubba, hunter-gatherer traders, tinkers and musicians, persisted until as late as World War II.14 They were reputed to ‘not look like’ Bedouin and to have a deep knowledge of the desert. They have been identi- fied with the Selappayu of Akkadian records.15 One of the links with the foraging past was their use of the so-called “desert kites”, or gazelle traps, which are attested as early as 7,000 BC,16 but which were still in use in the 20th cen- tury. So the Solubba may have represented the last re- maining traces of the pre-Islamic populations of Arabia. Unfortunately, there seems to be no recent information on whether any still survive and whether their technical vo- cabulary of hunting or dog-breeding includes any distinc- tive lexemes. Western Asia was an important centre for livestock do- mestication, with goats, sheep and cattle all first attested archaeologically in this region.17 Livestock began to filter Evidence from Ethnography and Archaeology down into the peninsula by 6th or 7th millennium BC.18 The The ultimate homeland of Afroasiatic is Africa and most initial evidence is for cattle, but sheep and goats and pos- probably Ethiopia, where its most diverse branches, sibly domestic donkeys followed soon after. The earliest Omotic and Cushitic, are spoken. Semitic is a relatively site with evidence of domestic cattle is Manayzah in east- late branching from Afroasiatic, as testified by the relative ern the Ḥaḍramawt, which is dated to 6,000 BC.19 Shortly closeness of all Semitic languages. As a consequence, the afterwards the nearby site of Shi’b Keshiya (mid 5th mil- dominance of Semitic in the Arabian Peninsula is presum- lennium BC) provides evidence for ritual assemblages of ably comparatively recent. It must be the case that other cattle skulls, as well as co-associated ovicaprine herding quite different languages were spoken prior to Semiticisa- and continued extensive hunting. Analysis of the Keshiya tion several thousand years ago.