Везде
Lexical Reconstruction to Reconstruct Prehistory: The Proto-Afrasian Terms for Weapons, War, and Other Armed Conflicts
Оглавление
Аннотация Оценить Содержание публикации
Библиография Комментарии
Поделиться
QR
Метрика
Lexical Reconstruction to Reconstruct Prehistory: The Proto-Afrasian Terms for Weapons, War, and Other Armed Conflicts
Аннотация
Код статьи
S086954150016794-3-1
DOI
10.31857/S086954150016795-4
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Милитарёв А. Ю. Юрьевич 
ORCID: 0000-0002-5684-3053
Аффилиация: Russian State University for the Humanities
Адрес: Russian Federation, Moscow
Выпуск
№4
Страницы
237-252
Аннотация

The article aims to reconstruct the Proto-Afrasian terminology of weapons and armed conflicts, including illuminating the problem of war in prehistory from a linguistic point of view, usually ignored by archaeologists and prehistorians when discussing this problem. The proto-language of the early Afrasians and their immediate descendants, the North Afrasians (who spoke the Proto-Semitic-Egyptian-Berber-Chadic language), whom the author identifies with the creators of the Natufian and post-Natufian archaeological cultures of the Levant, started branching, according to his glottochronological calculations, by the method of M. Swadesh, significantly improved by Sergei Starostin, in the 11th-10th mill. BCE. The article provides detailed etymologies of 12 reconstructed Proto-Afrasian terms for weapons (from mace to shield) and 13 terms denoting different types of armed conflicts; several of these indicate either an already established or an emerging meaning of “war” in the Proto-Afrasian language, and thus in the minds of its speaker community.

Ключевые слова
comparative-historical linguistics, reconstruction, proto-language, lexicon, Afrasian languages, weapons, war
Источник финансирования
This article is a translation of: А.Ю. Милитарёв. Лексическая реконструкция для реконструкции предыстории: праафразийские термины, относящиеся к оружию, войне и другим вооруженным конфликтам // Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2021. No 4. P. 5–23. DOI: 10.31857/S086954150016695-4
Классификатор
Получено
22.09.2021
Дата публикации
28.09.2021
Всего подписок
6
Всего просмотров
79
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Цитировать Скачать pdf Скачать JATS
1 Recent decades’ breakthroughs in population and archaeological genetics, satellite archaeology, dating methods, progress in sociocultural anthropology, cross-cultural research, comparative mythology and folklore studies have significantly advanced the reconstruction of human prehistory1. Another rapidly advancing, though most underappreciated, field of study is comparative and historical linguistics, the application of which can illuminate aspects of prehistory that are less accessible or even unavailable to other fields and methods and are most effective when coordinated with extralinguistic data.
1. See Korotayev et al. 2019.
2 The ground-breaking interdisciplinary works in the 1980s, including those by Diakonoff2, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov3, stimulated similar research in different language families of the Old World. In the Afrasian (Afro-Asiatic, Semito-Hamitic) macrofamily, these were mainly the various works of the Czech linguist Vaclav Blažek4 and the present author5. On the current state, importance, and further prospects of this line of research in Eurasian and African studies, see the paper by Korotayev et al.6.
2. Diakonoff 1981.

3. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984

4. Blažek 1994; 2008; 2013.

5. Militarev 1990; 2000; 2002; 2019.

6. Korotayev et al.
3 The present article has a dual purpose: (1) to present a set of reconstructed Proto-Afrasian terms of a particular semantic field, which in itself may be of interest to prehistorians, archaeologists, and ethnographers, and (2) to demonstrate the possibilities of the classical comparative and historical method, enriched by later additional methods, such as glottochronology developed by Morris Swadesh7 and substantially improved by Sergei Starostin8, by the example of one of the controversial problems of ancient history: prehistoric warfare.
7. Swadesh 1955.

8. Starostin S.A. 2000.
4 In the scholarly press, especially of the last two decades, the causes of ancient wars and the motivations of the warring parties9, early evidence of wars10, and other problems related to prehistoric wars are vividly discussed. A recent international conference in 2018 was devoted to the issue of wars and, more broadly, prehistoric conflicts11. War itself is said to be correctly identified by a number of researchers as one of the causes of social evolution12. However, the very validity of the issue of the causes of wars is questioned: “despite the importance of a process such as war, the search for the cause of wars actually distracts and obscures their nature and place in the evolution of human societies”, and further: “The problem is that the attempt to explain wars assumes that they are entities that can be described, analysed, and explained. A more productive approach is to recognise the following: that we resort to aggression to achieve our goals is part of our biological heritage, and we need to explain how aggression is expressed under different circumstances”13. Note that such a view of human nature, human “biological heritage”, dating back to Sir Arthur Keith and apparently dominating in modern anthropology, is not the only one – let us recall the passionate rejection of it by our great compatriot Vladimir Pavlovich Efroimson in his “Genealogy of Altruism”.
9. Ferguson 2000.

10. Otterbein 2004; Kennedy 2016.

11. Hansen, Krause 2019.

12. Carneiro 1970, cited in Johnson, Earle 2017: 34

13. Ibid. P. 34–35.
5 At first glance at the discussion of prehistoric warfare by archaeologists and prehistorians, it is striking that there is no consensus on the distinction between war and any other type of armed conflicts in the prehistoric era; it appears that such a consensus can only be tentative and purely terminological. Moreover, the very debates about the existence of a war in Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic seem speculative, taking into account that they revolve around only a few (usually two) bioarchaeological pieces of evidence of interpersonal violence14, while “other interpretations, including capital punishment, human sacrifice, murder... cannot be ruled out”15. Ethnographic extrapolations may suggest some insights, but they hardly significantly enrich the understanding of the war in prehistory16 and even less shed light on the key question: can prehistoric armed conflicts be considered as war – and, if so, which ones? The formulation of Haas also helps little to answer this question. He considers war to be “armed conflict and related activities and relations between independent political units in societies of all types”17 and suggests – unclear on what basis – “that wars as we define them rarely occurred before ten thousand years ago”18.
14. Antoine et al. 2013: 68; Kennedy 2016.

15. Otterbein 2004: 71.

16. Haas, Piscitelli 2013.

17. Haas 1996: 1357, cited in Johnson, Earle 2017: 34.

18. Ibid.
6 The search for an answer to this question in this debate does not seem promising to the author.
7 Korotayev et al. aptly note: “Currently, the main source for the reconstruction of the most ancient history of humankind is archeology, which almost by definition makes it possible to restore only just a few elements of the most ancient human culture (naturally, almost exclusively – material culture)”, while “A mere introduction of comparative linguistic data makes it possible to significantly refine our reconstruction of a respective culture”19.
19. Korotayev et al.: 287.
8 It is, first of all, about the reconstruction of the corresponding proto-language terms, relying on methodologically correct and technically qualified comparison of the related words in the “daughter” languages. In particular, the somewhat scholastic dispute about the definition of war in the prehistoric context can be resolved by reference to the perception of war by the prehistoric people themselves, reflected in the reconstructed proto-languages they once spoke – or, to put it more cautiously, in models reconstructed with varying degrees of approximation to the living languages they spoke. Despite all the objective difficulties and nuances of translation in all languages, both ancient extinct and living, the term “war” is usually distinguished from the terms “struggle”, “skirmish”, “plunder”, “raid”, and others located in the same semantic field. If in a representative selection of the daughter languages, related words have the meaning of “war” specifically (and it can be justified that they are all inherited from the proto-language rather than borrowed later), it is highly unlikely that a proto-language term with a different meaning – say, “fight” – in different descendant languages, independently of each other, changed its meaning to “war”, so that in the proto-language the corresponding reconstructed word could mean something other than “war” in the meaning of that term, which was once associated with it by the speakers of the proto-language.
9 By reconstructing the proto-language term, we can, with the help of glottochronology, attribute its use to a certain period in absolute, albeit approximate, time; optimally, also to a specific space, if this proto-language can be identified with a specific region and a specific archaeological culture.
10 Speaking of Afrasian: it is one of the most (if not the most) practically unanimously accepted by the academic community linguistic macro families20. The author’s genealogical classification, based on lexicostatistics, and the chronology of language branching, based on the glottochronological method of Starostin, are as follows (dates indicate the time21 prior to the division of the respective proto-language into subsidiary dialects):
20. There is no consensus on the other proposed macrofamilies – Nostratic, Sino-Dene-Caucasian, Austric, Amerindian, etc. – and a sceptical attitude towards them clearly prevails. The author belongs to The Moscow School of Comparative Linguistics and thus the reality of at least the first two macrofamilies for him is a working part of the world linguistic panorama.

21. All the dates given for the division of languages are BCE; all of them are, of course, approximate.
11
  1. Proto-Afrasian (PAA) – 10,500
12
  1. North Afrasian (NAA): Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic (SEBCh) ‒ 9000
13
  1. Semitic ‒ 4500
14
  1. South Semitic (modern South Arabian: Mehri, Harsusi, Jibbali, Hobyot, Soqotri) ‒ 700
15
  1. North Semitic ‒ 3900
16
  1. Akkadian
17
  1. Central Semitic ‒ 3000
18
  1. Ethiosemitic ‒ 900
19
  1. Arabic ‒ 100
20
  1. Levantine (= West Semitic) ‒ 2300
21
  1. North Levantine (Ugaritic) ‒ 1400–1300
22
  1. South Levantine ‒ 1900
23
  1. Southeast Levantine ‒ 1400–1300
24
  1. South Arabian Epigraphic (Sabaean)
25
  1. Aramaic ‒ 1000–900
26
  1. Southwest Levantine (Canaanite: Phoenician, Hebrew) ‒ 1500–1400
27
  1. North Afrasian African (NAAAfr): Egyptian, Berber-Canarian, Chadic (EBCh) ‒ 7800
28
  1. Egyptian
29
  1. Berber-Chadic ‒ 6500
30
  1. Berber-Canarian ‒ 3rd mill. (?)
31
  1. Berber ‒ 1100–1000
32
  1. Chadic ‒ 5500
33
  1. West Chadic (including Hausa) ‒ 4800
34
  1. Central Chadic ‒ 4700
35
  1. Eastern Chadic ‒ 4500
36
  1. South Afrasian (SAA): Cushitic-Omotic ‒ 8800
37
  1. Cushitic ‒ 7500
38
  1. North Central Cushitic ‒ 6800
39
  1. North Cushitic: Beja (=Bedauye)
40
  1. Central Cushitic (Agaw) ‒ 1900
41
  1. East Cushitic (including Yaaku-Mogogodo) ‒ 6000
42
  1. South Cushitic (including Ma’a and Dahalo) ‒ 4800
43
  1. Omotic ‒ 6000
44
  1. North Omotic (including Dizi and Mao) ‒ 4200
45
  1. South Omotic (including Ongota) ‒ 4600
46

The split of the Proto-Afrasian language into North Afrasian and South Afrasian in the mid-11th millennium BCE, which falls on the Late Dryas, according to the author, took place in the Levant, where he identifies PAA speakers with the creators of the Natufian and post-Natufian (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, PPNA) archaeological cultures. One of the main arguments in favour of the Levantine Urheimat is based on a set of reconstructed PAA terms22, indicating both intensive gathering of wild cereals and legumes and incipient agriculture, including the cultivation of figs. While the 11th millennium is regarded by modern scholarship as too early a period for farming, one of the plausible scenarios to explain the early agricultural terms may be as follows: the PAA speakers were Natufians; after the split of PAA, the Proto-Cushitic-Omotic speakers after some time migrated to Africa, while Proto-SEBCh was spoken by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A makers. The former may have borrowed some agricultural terms from the latter before leaving for Africa (in the 9th or 8th millennium), which accounts for a number of pseudo-PAA but in fact Proto-SEBCh agricultural terms. The speakers of EBCh must have moved to North Africa not earlier than the 7th or 6th millennium, bringing the Neolithic farming and animal husbandry skills with them. By the 8th millennium, both the speakers of EBCh and the Proto-Semites, living in the same area, separated not more than 1.5 thousand years before and speaking closely related languages, probably still partially understandable, had mastered the domestication of animals, exchanging cultural innovations and corresponding terminology. Two of the most qualified modern Afrasian linguists, Václav Blažek and Gabor Takács, support the hypothesis of the Western Asian ancestral home of the Proto-Afrasian speakers, and one of the classics of comparative Afrasian linguistics Aharon Dolgopolsky expressed the same point of view. Another of its founders, Igor Diakonoff, put forward serious linguistic arguments in favour of the African Urheimat23, but later, with the introduction and elaboration of new lexical data, in particular, the non-Semitic Afrasian loanwords in Sumerian24, recognized the hypothesis proposed by the author of this article as possible and even likely25. On the contrary, one of the leading Russian comparative linguists Sergei Nikolaev26 considers East Sudan to be the Afrasian Urheimat, based on a set of the Proto-Afrasian zoonyms reconstructed by the author in our joint paper27.

22. Militarev 2002. The paper included 32 reconstructed terms (see their critical analysis in Starostin G.S. 2017); with the processing of larger and newer lexical data, their number more than doubled.

23. Diakonoff 1981.

24. Militarev 1995.

25. Diakonoff 1996.

26. The idea of an Afrasian ancestral homeland in Africa has also been put forward by other Africanists, in particular, Christopher Ehret and Roger Blench, but their methods of etymologization and lexical material they base it upon are very weak.

27. See the forthcoming article Militarev A.Yu., Nikolayev S.L. Proto-Afrasian animal names and the problem of Proto-Afrasian Urheimat // Voprosy iazykovogo rodstva [Journal of Language Relationship]. 2021. No. 1.
47 Before proceeding to the lexical material, let us introduce the following rating of the lexemes compared in each taxon of the Afrasian macrofamily: ●●●●● – terms identical in meaning in all (or in a representative majority) of the languages compared, with strictly regular phonetic correspondences28 between them, containing at least three (or two low-frequency/rare) root consonants, fully representative of each of the branches compared; ●●●● – terms clearly comparable semantically29 with regular phonetic correspondences, containing three to two “hard”30 root consonants, representing at least one subbranch of a given branch; ●●● – terms comparable semantically and phonetically, containing only one “hard” root consonant, representing groups/subgroups of the branch, no alternative etymology; ●● – terms supposedly comparable semantically and phonetically, but under-represented in the languages being compared; ● – terms isolated in their taxon, hypothetically commensurable, brought into comparison for the sake of “aggregate picture”. The rating of any Proto-Afrasian or Proto-North Afrasian root is derived from the rating of at least two constituent parts (branches, groups) of the respective taxon31. Let us proceed to the material:
28. This condition applies to consonants; the correspondence between vowels in the Afrasian languages (which play a secondary role in the majority of lexemes) is not strictly established; the reconstructed vocalism in proto-forms of all levels is conventional in most cases. However, it is quite legitimate to consider as related lexemes with vocalism and the base structure even not reducible to a single pattern, but with the same consonantal root composition and comparable meaning, unless each of these lexemes has a better alternative etymology; naturally, this implies a certain degree of hypothetical and tentative nature of the proposed etymologies, which is unavoidable until a comprehensive and well-elaborated Afrasian etymological dictionary is completed with a step-by-step reconstruction at all taxonomic levels.

29. In comparative-historical linguistics – while there is a high demand for strict sound correspondences (in the case of Afrasian languages – in consonantism, see footnote 29), the criteria for semantic comparison are still often based on obviousness and common sense.

30. All consonants except w, y, and ʔ (glottal stop) can be considered “hard” in the Afrasian languages.

31. The meanings of the words are given in the European language of the corresponding bilingual dictionary.
48 WEAPONRY32
32. Although some of the weaponry terminology may also refer to hunting, the presence of a term for shield seems to indicate only an armed conflict.
49 *ma/iṭw- ~ *may/wṭ- “mace (including for throwing), club, throwing stick”33 ●●●●
33. There is an apparent association with the palm tree, cf.: Arab., Mhr. and Cush. E.: LEC: Oromo meeṭii “palm tree”, Somali mayḍo “Phoenix reclinata, the wild date palm”, Dasenech meeṭṭe “palm tree”, HEC: Darasa meeṭṭe, Burji mayč̣e, Dullay: Golango mayṭa “palm tree”; Omot. *mi(n)ṭ- “tree (gen.)”.
50 NAA ●●●●●:
51 Sem. *ma/iṭw- ~ *mayṭ- “mace, rod, club”: Akk. (OB on) miṭṭu, mī/ēṭu “mace; a divine weapon”; Ugr. mṭ “rod, staff, riding crop; poetic designation of the arrow”; Hbr. maṭṭǟ “staff, rod, scepter, stick”; Arab. ma/iṭw- “branche de palmier fendue en deux”; Tgr. məṭ ʔabälä “to beat with rods”; Mhr. mīṭáyn (*myṭ) “tree the wood of which is very hard (it is a favorite wood for making sticks and clubs)” ●●●●●
52 Eg. (OK) mdw (
53 Chad. W.: Hs. múčíyā, pl. mū́tàitai “stirring stick; long pole” ●
54 SAA ●●●
55 Cush. E.: LEC: Oromo muṭuṭḗ “Keule, Knüttel, Prügel”, HEC: Sidamo amāṭṭ-o “specie di lancia”, amāṭṭ-o “arrow” ●●●
56 Omot. N.: Chara meyt-ā, Gimirra (She) māyṭ “lance” (< Sidamo?) ●
57 [] Cf. Takács, 2008, p. 216, 776-9. AADB, # 2454.
58 *ḳVs- “bow” ●●●●●
59 NAA ●●●●●
60 Sem. *ḳaš-t-/*ḳaws- “bow”: Akk. ḳaštu; Ugr. ḳšt; Ph. ḳšt, Hbr. ḳäšät; Syr. ḳeštā, Arab. ḳaws-, Gz. ḳast, Tna. ḳästi, Amh. ḳäst; Jib. ḳansč (
61 Eg. (PT) ḳꜣs “Strick, Band, Fessel”, (MK) ḳꜣs “string (bow), bind (victim), tie (rope-leather)” // unless < *r or *l, ꜣ probably conveys the a vowel, i.e. to read [ḳas]; the primary meaning in Eg. likely was “bow-string” ●●●
62 Chad. *ḳVs- “arrow; bow” [Stolbova, 2016, #530] // Cf. *ḳVs- “war” [ibid., #527], likely related ●●●●●
63 SAA ●●●●●
64 Cush. C.: Bilin ḳis-t-; E.: LEC: Somali ḳaanso, Boni 'ááse “bow”, Dullay: Gollango kaaš-ankó “Schild”; S.: Qwadza ḳasa-mato “bow” ●●●●●
65 [] AADB, # 531.
66 *dVg- “arrow and bow” ●●
67 NAA ●●●●
68 Sem.: (?) Arab. duǯy-at- “morceau de cuir noir dont on entoure le bout de l’arc; ganse en cuir à l’aide de laquelle on accroche l’arc”; Gz. dagān, dogān, digān, Harari dīgān “bow”, Amh. dägan, Gur. *dägan “carding bow” ●●●
69 Berb.: Wargla degg, dagga “combattre, faire la guerre”, dugg “frapper avec une pointe, assassiner”, Ghat eddeǧ “piquer”, Ahaggar edeǧ “piquer, percer; donner des élancement à” ●●●●
70 Chad. (1) *dVg- “arrow”: W.: Ngizim də̀gà; C.: Logone dagi; E.: Tobanga doge “lancer”; (2) *dVŋg- (met.) “bow” (cf. [Stolbova, 2016, #138]) ●●●●●
71 SAA ●
72 Cush. E.: HEC: Sidamo dogá “arrow, bow” ●
73 Omot.: Ari doŋgi “arrow” ●
74 [] AADB, # 546.
75 *dayVw- ~ *wVdy- “arrow” ●●●34
34. The meanings “shoot” in Hebrew, “arrow” and “dart” in the two Chadic branches, “arrow head” in Dahalo, and the easily imaginable transition from “arrow” to “quiver” in the other Cushitic examples – all make the reconstruction of the meaning “arrow” in PAA very likely. It is worse with phonetics – one “hard” consonant d, which is why the author rated this root as “three”. The same applies to the mediocre root *fayaʔ- “(sharp) edge, arrow”.
76 NAA ●●
77 Sem.: Hbr. ydy “to shoot35, cast (lots, stones)”; Arab. wdy II “ê. armé jusqu’aux dents” ●●
35. It is “to shoot a bow” (cf. Jeremiah 50:14). Regarding the meaning shift from “shoot an arrow” to “cast a lot”, cf. a similar transition in Arabic: sahm- “arrow” and the verb sahama “to cast lots” or ḳidḥ- “unfledged arrow” and “arrow that is cast as a lot”.
78 Chad. *diw-: W.: Tangale diya “knife”, Jimi dī̀wà “arrow”; E.: Tumak dəəw “dart” ●●●
79 SAA ●●●
80 Cush.: E.: LEC: Bayso dawwe, HEC: Burji daaya; S.: Iraqw daʔa- “bamboo-cane quiver”, Ma”a ndaʔaté “quiver”; Dahalo ʔaaḏo (met.) “arrow head for small animals” ●●●
81 [] AADB, # 585.
82 *fayaʔ- “(sharp) edge, arrow” ●●●
83 NAA ●●
84 Sem. *payʔ(-at)-: Akk. pātu “Rand”; Ugr. pʔ-t “limit, border, (?) corner”; Hbr. pēʔā “corner, side”, pʔy (hif.) “to strike down, wipe out”; Syr. paʔtā “side, blade of a sword”, Arab. fʔy/w “fendre, pourfendre d’un coup de sabre la tête de qqn.”; cf. fiʔ-at- “detachment, party of soldiers”; Gur.: Ennemor, Endegeñ feʔä “sharpen with a rasp, sharpen the edge” ●●
85 Chad. *fay(H)-: W.: Tangale peyi “shoot, sting”; C.: Mofu fáf, féf (redupl.) “pierce with a spear”; E.: Kera féyá “prick” ●●
86 SAA
87 Cush.: E.: Oromo fia, fue “arrow”; S.: Alagwa, Burunge fayu “arrow” ●●●●
88 [] AADB, # 513; cf. [Orel, Stolbova, 1994, #788].
89 *rumḥ- (var. *runḥ-) ~ *mVrḥ- “spear, lance” ●●●●●
90 NAA ●●●●
91 Sem. *rumḥ- “spear”: Ugr. mrḥ; Hbr. romaḥ; Syr. rumḥ-; Arab. rumḥ-; Gz. ra/əmḥ; Mhr. rəmḥāt “spear, wand”, Jib. rəmḥ-át “wand, arrow” ●●●●●
92 Eg. (late NK) mrḥ “lance” (< Ugr.?) ●
93 Berb.: Sus ta-mūr-t “spear, lance” (isolated word) ●
94 Chad. W. *rVn/m(H)-: Hs. rìnoo “wooden skewer, spit”, Karekare, Bolewa róndi “spear” (if < *rVn-di), Bade rúum-ə́n “Kriegslanze” (cf. [Stolbova, 2005, #947]) ●●●
95 SAA ●●●●●
96 Cush. *warḥan/m-: C.: Awiya werém “spear”; E.: LEC: Oromo woraan-a, Som. waran “spear”, Rendille warḥan “knife”; Dullay: Dobase, Gobeze, Harso orḥan-ko, pl. orḥamme “spear, lance.” ●●●●●
97 [] Cf. Takács, 2008, p. 437-8; Sasse, 1978, p. 37.
98 *ḳVlaʕ- “sling” ●●●●36
36. The Ugaritic ḳlʕ “shield” is obviously related to this root – how the transition from “sling” to “shield” occurred is a matter for experts in ancient Near Eastern weapons. The Chadic verbs “to throw stones”, “to strike on the head”, “to throw with intention to kill” echo the meaning “to hit or kill with a stone from a sling”, as are Beja “strap” (as part of a belted sling) and “distance to which stick can be thrown” (throwing stick?); the shift of the meaning to “bow” in Sidamo is also not difficult. The somewhat risky comparison of different meanings is supported by regular correspondences: a common etymology in this case is more likely than chance coincidence.
99 NAA ●●●●
100 Sem. *ḳi/ulaʕ- “sling”: Ugr. ḳlʕ “shield, shield-bearer”; Ph. h-ḳlʕ “slinger(?)”, Hbr. ḳälaʕ “sling”, ḳlʕ “to sling (stones)”; Syr. ḳelʕ- “sling”; Arab. ḳulāʕ-at- “pierre que l’on enlève du sol pour la lancer”, maḳlāʕ- “sling”; Gz. ḳəlʕa “throw from a sling”, maḳləʕ “sling; club” (cf. Jib. ḳelaʕ, Soq. ḳálaʕ “to drop, let fall”) ●●●●●
101 (?) Eg. (19th Dyn.) ḳrʕ.w “shield” (likely
102 Chad. *ḳawVl-> ḳʷal- “to throw (with force)”: W.: Hs. ḳwáalà “throw to the ground, strike (on the head)”, Tangale kwalɛ “to kill, to throw (with an intention to kill)”; C.: Chuvok mɛ́kɛ́lɛ̀y “throw stones”, etc. [Stolbova, 2016, #497; comp. to Gz.] ●●●
103 SAA
104 Cush. N.: Beja kili, keli “strap, thong”, kolɛi “stick; distance to which stick can be thrown” (!) [Roper, 1928, p. 202]; E.: HEC: Sidamo ḳale “bow” ●●●
105 [] AADB, # 4172.
106 *gawb- “guard, shield” ●●●●●
107 NAA ●●●●●
108 Sem.: Akk. gabābu (and kabābu) “shield”; Hbr. gab “bosses of a shield” (in Köhler, Baumgartner, 1994–1996, the entry for “back”); Sab. gyb “defend, protect”; Arab. ǯawb- “bouclier”; Mhr. gawb, Jib. gub “shield of hippopotamus hide” (hardly < Arab.) ●●●●●
109 (?) Chad. W.: Zaar ngúp “bow” ●
110 SAA ●●●●●
111 Cush. *gaw(i)b- “shield”: N.: Beja gwibe; C.: Bilin, Qwara gib; E.: SA: Afar gob, Saho goob-e “shield”, LEC: Oromo (dial.) goob-oo “bow”, Somali goob “battle”, HEC: Darasa gabe “bow and arrow”, Burji góob-i “brave man, warrior” (LEC and HEC with a shift of meaning); S. *gamb- “shield”: Iraqw gaambóot, Gorowa gaambóo37 ●●●●●
37. It is less likely that these words are borrowed from Datoga, as suggested in Kiessling, Mous 2003: 113.
112 [] AADB # 2090.
113 *(wa)rik/g- “bow with arrow” ●●
114 NAA ●●●
115 Sem.: Akk. (SB) ariktu “spear”, “bow?”; Arab wirk- “un côté de l’arc; un arc (sp.)” ●●
116 Eg. (PT) rwḏ.t (< *rwg-t
117 Chad. (1) *(wV)rik- “bow”: W. *ri(n)k-: Karekare, Ngamo rìnká, Gera ríkà, Dera rə́kà “bow”, Tangale rìk “arrow”; C. *(wV)lik- (< *-rik-) “bow”; (2) C. *ri/ag- “bow”: Higi rigi, etc.; (2a) W. *rVg- “to hunt (with a bow or spear)”: Tangale riga ●●●●●
118 SAA
119 Cush. E.: HEC *wVrag-: Kambatta uragä, Hadiya urāgo “first shot of hunters that kills an animal” ●●
120 [] Cf. Stolbova, 2005, #844 (*n-rV[k]V; comp. to Arab.) and 810 (*rVg-
121 *ʕVbVl- “arrow or spear (with a flint head?)” ●●
122 NAA ●●●●
123 Sem.: Akk. (NAss, SB) bêlu “weapon” (
38. Likely the meaning shift from “to equip an arrow with a flint arrow head”.
124 Eg. (PT) mʕbꜣ “lance, spear; harpune”39. ●●●●
39. Cf. Eg. (PT) ʕbꜣ “Opferstein”, possibly referring to flint.
125 Chad. *ba/iHVl-: W.: Hs. ḅíllà “to throw, Karekare ḅèlu, Tangale ḅɔl “arrow”, Fyer, Bokkos, Daffo-Butura ḅol “schiessen”; C.: Muktele áḅal “tirer (a l”arc), flecher”, Daba ḅāl “to throw (an arrow)”; E.: Sarwa ḅálāw, Gadang ḅālū “lance de guerre” ●●●●
126 SAA
127 Cush. E.: LEC: Oromo ablee (and albee) “knife”, HEC: Sidamo bolot-iččo “easily broken rock” ●
128 [] AADB, # 2309; cf. Takács, 2008, p. 174-5 (with extensive discussion).
129 *gayĉ- “kind of throwing weapon” ●●●
130 NAA
131 Sem.: Arab. ǯašʔ/w- “javeline, arc”, ǯaššāʔ- “arc fait d’un bois gros et dur”; Gur. *gašša “k. of spear”40 ●●●
40. Presumably, the archaic PAA meaning is preserved in Arabic and Gurage, which developed as early as at the Proto-Semitic level into *gayŝ- “(armed) detachment, gang” with the same composition of “hard” consonants: Aram. Jud. gayyāsā “troope, esp. ravaging troop, invaders, raiders”, Syr. gaysā “troupe, troupe de brigands”; Sab. gys2 “unit, detachment”; Arab. ǯayš- “armée, surtout grande et complete”; Tgr. gays “robbing excursion, booty”; Jib. s̃ə-gēŝ “collect (tribe for battle, etc.)”.
132 Berb. *ga(n)z-ay-(
133 SAA
134 Cush.: N.: Beja gwišʔ- “to cast to a distance, esp. lance, spear” [Roper, 1928, p. 189] ●●●
135 [] Cf. Dolgopolsky, 1973, p. 291-2; AADB, # 573. Cf. Greek gaisos “javelin” and Basque gesi, gezi, geza “arrow, dart”.
136 ARMED CONFLICTS AND WARFARE
137 PAA *lVḥm- “fight, war” ●●●●
138 NAA ●●●●
139 Sem. *lḥm “to fight”, *mi/a-lḥam- “war”: Ugr. lḥm “to fight (against someone)”, mlḥm “war”; Hbr. lḥm “to fight”, milḥāmā “war”; Aram. mlḥm “war”; Arab. lḥm “tuer”, laḥm-at- “combat acharné corps a ̀corps”, malḥam-at- “guerre” ●●●●●
140 Eg. (Demotic) mlẖ, Coptic mlax “combat, Streit, Kampf” (< Hbr.?) ●
141 Chad. C. *li(H)m-: Hitkalanchi lə̀mò “fight, war”, Hide lmo “fight, to fight”, Daba lim “war”, Logone lümlüm “resist, defend oneself” [Stolbova, 2005, #285] ●●●●
142 SAA
143 Cush. C.: Beja lḗmi “Fang, Raub”, lemi “ganz ausplündern” [Reinisch, 1885]; C.: Bilin lāmlā́m “kämpfen”, etc. [Reinisch, 1887] ●●●●
144 [] Cf. Takács, 2008, p. 317; AADB, # 1546.
145 PAA *sabay- “spoils of war, taking prisoners” ●●●●●
146 NAA ●●●●●
147 Sem. *šabay/ʔ- “captive”: Ugr. šby “captive”; Hbr. šābā “capture in the course of a battle, deport”; Aram. Off. šby, Syr. šəbāʔ-; Sab. s1by “captive”, s1bʔ “carry out an undertaking (e.g., military expedition, diplomatic mission, etc.”; Arab. sby “faire prisonier”, saby- “prisonier”; Mhr. sebū, Jib. sē “to capture, take prisoner”, Soq. sébəʔ “to seize” ●●●●●
148 Eg (OK) sby “Rebell, Frevler”, (MK) “spoils of army” ●●●●●
149 Chad. W.: Hs. sábàbii “wrangling; violent dispute” // Cf. *(ʔa)sVḅ- “spear” [Stolbova, 2016, #678, derived noun] ●
150 SAA
151 Cush. C.: Bilin šab- “go on the prowl”, šabā “war”, Qwara sab- “wage war, riot”, Qemant säb-s, Awiya seb “to fight”; E.: SA: Saho sabā “attack” ●●●●●
152 PAA *(wa)čVb- “assault, (mass) killing” ●●●
153 NAA ●●●●
154 Sem. *wṯb “to assault (with abduction?)”41: Sab. t-wṯb “commit an assault on; ambush”; Arab. waṯb-at- “assaut, attaque, agression”, wṯb V “faire une invasion injuste sur la proprieté de qqn” ●●●
41. Perhaps the original meaning is a raid to abduct women, cf.: Syr. ʔawteb “marry”; Gz. ʔawsaba, Tna. ʔawäsäbä “take a wife, marry”, Amh. (a)wässäbä “copulate” and Gz. sabsaba “marry off (a son or a daughter in a religious ceremony)”. Another meaning of *wṯb in Proto-Semitic – “sit, settle, reside” – is possibly secondary from “abduct (really or ritually) a woman and have a separate dwelling”.
155 Chad. *čVb- “mass killing; war” (Stolbova 2016, #91, comp. with Arab.): C.: Wandala, Malgwa čə́ɓa “to kill a lot of people”, Glavda čib-, Podoko čɨɓé “kill” (pl.); E.: Mubi čóɓɓù, Zirenkel ǯabu-ki “war” ●●●●●
156 SAA
157 Omot. N.: Koyra šúpe, Gimirra (Bench) ṣ̌up (­p < *­b?) “slaughter”, Dizi šub- “die”, S.: Ongota šup/b- “kill” ●●●
158 [] AADB, # 2933.
159 NAA *dVrʔ- “war, fight” ●●●●
160 Sem.: Akk. dirdirru (redupl.) “battle, combat”; Syr. darā “certamen; pugna; bellum”; Sab. drʔ “make a sudden assault on”; Arab. darʔ- “invasion subit” ●●●●
161 Chad. *dur- “fight, war” (Stolbova 2016, #159, comp. with Akk.): W.: Angas tuur (t-
162 [] AADB, # 4236.
163 NAA *ĉVg- “fight, killing” ●●
164 Sem. (ʔa-)ŝVgag-: Akk. (MB, SB) ašgagu, ašgugu “battle, fray”; Arab šǯǯ “blesser, casser, briser (tête, crâne)” ●●
165 Chad. *ŝa/ig- “to fight and kill” (Stolbova 2016, #842) comp. with Arab.): W.: Tangale saagɛ “to fight”; C.: Tera łaɣa\ì, Lamang łigo, Muyang éɮìgì “kill” ●●●
166 NAA *ĉVg(ʷ)Vr-42 “fight, battle” ●●●
42. Probably from *ĉVg- with a “frozen” suffix -r.
167 Sem. *ŝVg(ʷ)Vr- “fighter, guard”: Arab. šǯr “percer avec une lance”, VI “se disputer, lutter”, šaǯīr- “sabre”; Gz. ŝagara “become a soldier”, ŝagar “keeper of the instrument of torture, guard, soldier of the guard, garrison”, Tna šägʷari “prison keeper”, Amh. säggärä “be taught drill” ●●●
168 Chad. *ŝVgVr- “(to provoke) a battle”: C.: Podoko łəgə́la (regressive assim. of -r-) “wrestling”, Musey łagara “la ceinture de cuir tissé portée dans une bataille”; E.: W.Dangla čògìrè “to provoke, to incite a battle”. ●●●
169 [] AADB, # 4210. Cf. Stolbova, 2016, #842a (comp. with Arab.).
170 PAA *ʕawl- ~ ʕalw/y- “assault, plunder, war” ●●●●
171 NAA ●●●●
172 Sem.: Ugr. ʕly “to attack, assail, launch oneself (upon); to fire, shoot (arrows)”; Sab. h-ʕly “destroy, violate, infringe (and remove)”; Arab. ʕlw “frapper qqn. avec un sabre”, ʕilway “ennemi” ●●●●
173 Eg. (OK) ʕḥꜣ “(to) fight”43, ʕwꜣy “rauben”, (MK) ʕwn “to hurt, plunder, despoil (of), betray” (the graphic alternation of ꜣ and n points to the etymological *l) ●●●●
43. According to G. Takács (Takács, 1999, p. 280), dissimilation from *ʕʕl.
174 Chad. *n-[ʕ]al- “to plunder, steal” (derived verb in n-): C.: Buwal ŋ̀xɛֿl “steal; thief”, Gavar ŋhəl “steal; thief”; E.: Kera náalé “plündern” (Stolbova, 2019, #52 compared to Eg. ˁwꜢy) ●●●
175 SAA ●●●●
176 Cush. *ʕawl- “war, use of a weapon”: E.: LEC: Somali ʕol “army; enemy”, ʕolad (
177 Omot. N. *ʕaw/yl- “fight, war”: Wolaita ola “war”, olet- “to fight”, Zala olaa “war”, ol- “to fight, be at war”, Mao (Bambeshi) yol-, (Diddesa) yoli “fight” (borrowing from E.Cush. is not to be ruled out) ●●●
178 [] AADB, # 3524, 1110. Cf. Dolgopolsky. 1973, p. 162. This root is hard to distinguish44 (contaminated or related on the PSem. or NAA level?) from Sem. (or NAA) *ʕawl- ~ *ʕalw- ~ *ʕily- “injustice, sin, wrong, rebel”: Akk. eʔiltu “sin”; Hbr. ʕwl (pi.) “to act unjustly”, ʕāwäl “perversity, injustice; dishonesty (in trade)”, ʕawwāl “criminal, sinner”, ʕawlā (and ʕalwā) “badness, malice, injustice”; ʕalwā “disobedience”; Aram. Jud. ʕawl- “sin”, Syr. ʕwl (af.) “to act unjustly”, ʕely- “malice, wrong”; Arab. ʕwl “to deviate (from what is right)”, ʕalaw- “rebel”; Gz. ʕalawa “deal treacherously, conspire, pervert, rebel”, Tna. ʕaläwä “rebel”, Tgr. (tä)ʕalla “start a riot”.
44. For example, the author still hesitates about which of the two roots the terms referring to “rebel, riot” should have been included into – cf. a similar problem with Hs. bòoree “perversity, disobedience, rebelling against authority” in *bVr- ~ *bVrbVr- “assail, riot, pillage, war”.
179 PAA *bVr- ~ *bVrbVr- “war, riot, plunder” ●●●●●
180 NAA ●●●●●
181 Sem. *brr ~ *brbr “to revolt, attack, plunder”: Akk. bâru (OB on) “stir up a revolt”; Neo-Syr. barber “attack, assail”; Sab. brr “make a sally, come into the open (to fight)”; Arab. brr VIII “dépouiller, priver”, bry “rivalizer, s’acharner contre”; Gz. barbara “pillage, plunder, rummage, confiscate”, Tna. bärbärä, Tgr. bärbära, Amh. bäräbbärä, Gur. *bäräbärä “pillage” ●●●●●
182 Berb. S. *bubbar “kind of fight”: Ahaggar ǎ-bubbâr “lutte (entre 2 adversaires, sans armes, corps à corps)”, E. Wlm. ǎ-bobbar “discussion chaude et menac̣ante entre deux groupes de pers.; manifestation de violence” ●●
183 Chad. *bV(ʔ/wV)r- *ba/uʔir- “fighting, rebellion” (Stolbova, 2016, #21): W.: Hausa bòoree “perversity, disobedience, rebelling against authority”, Mushere ɓèer “war, fight”, Pero ɓuґrè “fighting”, Sha bur, Richa bûr “Krieg”, Daffo-Butura ɓúur “Krieg, Kampf”; C.: Muyong àbrá “armed robbery”, Peve ɓar “rebel” ●●●●●
184 SAA
185 Cush. *bar(-at): C.: Bilin barat “erobern, in Besitz nehmen”; E.: SA: Afar boore “oppress; ransack”, (?) Yaaku pórté, pl. pórri “enemy” (p- can continue *p- and *b-); S.: Dahalo mbṓri “war” ●●●●●
186 [] AADB, # 3764.
187 PAA *gVd- “troop of archers”45 ●●●
45. The unifying reconstructed meaning is hypothetical.
188
  1. “(armed) band, troop” ●●●●
189 NAA “(aggressive, hostile) armed band, troop; ambush” ●●●●
190 Sem.*gu(n)d-: Akk. (Ass.) gudūd- “band (< W. Sem.?), Hbr. gdd “to band together (against)”, gədūd “band, raid, troop of warriors” (cf. gad “tribe”); Syr. gūdədā “legion, troop”, Mandaic gunda; Arab. ǯund- “troupe d’hommes”, ǯnd II “to mobilize”, Tgr. gädo “brigand” ●●●●●
191 Berb. N.: Shilh a-gdud “bande, troupe de gens réuni en group”, Tamazight a-gdud “assemblée, groupe bruyant”, Qabyle a-gdad “groupe bruyant, qui parle fort” ●●●
192 Chad.: W.: Hausa gádè “rude, disrespective speech, manners”, Bolewa ngadàr “quarrelsome person”; E.: W. & E. Dangla gíḍé “to quarrel” (Stolbova 2011 #484) ●●
193 SAA “ambush” ●●●●●
194 Cush.: E.: HEC: Somali gad- “make a surprise attack on; ambush”; S.: Iraqw, Alagwa giir, Burunge giid “lie in ambush” ●●●●●
195
  1. “arrow” ●●●
196 NAA
197 Chad.: C. *gVd- “(point of a) sharp arrow”: Daba gàḍəḍ “arrow, point of the arrow”, Cuvok gàdà “douille, bâton guerre”, *g/gʷVd-Vm- “arrow”: Hide gwadam “sagai, hunting spear with one barb”, Mada godom, Mbuko gadam “arrow” (Stolbova 2011 #497) ●●●
198 SAA
199 Cush. *gayd-: N.: Beja gid “to throw, to fire”; E.: LEC: Arbore gudɛ “arrow” ●●●●
200 [] AADB, # 3855.
201 PAA *gdl “armed fight, killing”46 ●●●
46. Possibly from *gVd- with a “frozen” suffix -l.
202 NAA
203 Sem. *gdl “fight, kill”: Arab. ǯdl III, VI “quarrel, fight”; Gz. gadala “strive”,
204 Tna. tägadälä “fight”, Tgr. gadäla “wrestle, fight”, gədla “conflict”, Amh. gäddälä “kill”, tägaddälä “struggle”, Arg. gäddäla, Har. gädälä kill”, Soddo gäddäläm “kill”, tägaddälä “wrestle, struggle” ●●●
205 Berb. S. *gadil “javelin”: Ahaggar a-ḡdel, Ayr é-gdel, E. Wlm. a-gdel “javelot à tige de bois” (cf. Ayr, E. Wlm. tə-gadle “stratagème, ruse de guerre, plan de défense”) ●●●
206 SAA
207 Cush. E.: LEC *lagad- (met.): Somali legd- “to wrestle, throw down”, Jidda
208 legdi, Bayso lagad- “to kill” ●●●
209 [] AADB, # 2765.
210 PAA *gVr- “hostilities, war” ●●●●
211 NAA
212 Sem. *gry ~ *gwr “hostilities, war, lawsuit”: Akk. gerû (OB on) “wage war; to be hostile, start a lawsuit”, D “to open up hostilities, make war”; Ugr. gr(y) “to attack; to oppose (?)”; Hbr. gry (piel) “to stir up a strife, go to court”; Official Aram. gry “to sue, institute suit against”, Syr. gry (pael) “be persecuted”, (etpa) “be attacked”; Arab. ǯwr “ê. injuste, commetre un injustice à l’égard de qqn; opprimer, agir en tyran”; Tgr. gərgur “war-cry”, Tna. (ʔa)gʷrärä, Amh. (a)gärrärä “sing a war song”; Mhr. gəyōr, Jib. gɛr “to oppress” ●●●●●
213 Hbr. (PT) ḏꜣy (if < *gry) “sich wiedersetzen (act hostile, oppose”)”, mḏꜣ.w (if < *m-gr-w) “Wiedersacher”, cf. ḏꜣḏꜣ “be hostile” (Takács 2008: 821] ●●●
214 Berb. Ahaggar guret “disputer”, Qabyle egru “be enraged” ●●
215 Chad. *gVr- “war, fight” (Stolbova 2016, #237; comp. with Akk. and debatable Arab.): W Paa gwùr-sáa “wrestling”, Bade gòorai “rebellion”, Duwai gə̀r-ɓùwo “go into a fight”; C.: Bura nggara “to lead a person into rebellion”, Dzepaw gìr “struggle”; E.: E. Dangla gār-tā “la guerre” ●●●●●
216 SAA
217 Cush.: N.: Beja gwirir “to keep one”s eye on (in hostile fashion)”; C.: Bilin gurgur “berauben”; E.: SA: Afar gaaroowe “debate, argue, dispute a case”, LEC: Somali gerar, Oromo gērara “war-song”47, HEC: Sidamo gaaro “war, campaign” (cf. Hadiya, Kambatta gora “act of doing smth. to spite so.”) ●●●●
47. The inter-borrowing between Amharic (where from in Tigre and Tigrinya) and Oromo (where from in Somali) is quite likely, but as both lexemes have a solid etymology – one in Semitic, the other in Cushitic – an independent development from PAA of the term “war” (with a secondary mutual influence on the meaning?) is not to be ruled out either.
218 [] AADB, # 3717; cf. Takács 2008: 821-2.
219 PAA *gihaʒ- “fight, raid” ●●
220 NAA ●●●●
221 Sem. *gahz- “raid, battle”: Arab. ǯhz “expédier, envoyer des troupes équipées à qqn, ou contre qqn”, taǯhīz- “expédition, envoi de troupes”; Har., Selti, Endegeñ gāz, Wolane, Soddo, Chaha, etc. gaz “raid, expedition, battle” ●●●●
222 Chad. *gVz- “fight, war; be hostile” (cf. Stolbova 2011, #529; compared to Arab. ʕaǯūz- “malheur, désastre, guerre”): W.: Guruntum gezu “to fight”; C.: Daba ngə̀z “threaten”, Ouldem ŋgìz ŋgìz “be quarrelsome”; E.: Ubi geza “guerre, war” ●●●●
223 SAA
224 Cush.: E. *ga(Ha)ʒ/ǯ-: LEC: Oromo gaad- “plot against, plan to destroy, spy on”, HEC: Hadiya gaaz- “wage war, raid”, Sidamo gaado, Kambatta gaazu “war, campaign”, Tembaro gaǯǯe “raid” (cf. Burji gaazé “shield”) ●●48
48. The connection with the Southern Ethiopic forms is obvious, but with a clear Semitic correspondence (in Arabic) and a possible Eastern Cushite correspondence (in Oromo) it is difficult to determine the direction of the likely borrowing.
225 [] AADB, # 3786.
226 PAA *mVr- “rob (in a fight), dispossess” ●●●●
227 NAA ●●●●
228 Sem. *mry “to fight, be rebellious”: Hbr. mārā “to be recalcitrant, rebellious”; Syr. mārā “to rival”; Arab. mry “to incite”, III “to wrangle”, miryat- “querelle, dispute” (cf. also mry “nier une dette”) ●●●
229 Eg. (MK) mꜣr “berauben von..., to dispossess” ●●●●
230 Chad. *mu/ir-: W.: Ankwe mûr “to thieve, theft”, Gerka mur “to rob, steel”, Gera, Galambu mòorə̀-, Sayanchi mīr “to steal”, Tala muur, Kir mwûr, Bubure móré “theft, thief”; C.: Tera muru “stealing”; E.: Bidiya miraŋ “tricher” ●●●●
231 SAA
232 Cush. *mVr-: N..: Beja maray “nehmen, rauben”, meri/u “nehmen, erbeuten”, mára “Beute, Fund”; C.: Qwara mir “rauben, plündern”; E.: HEC: Darasa, Sidamo moor- “to steal, rob” ●●●●●
233 [] Takács, 2008, p. 85; AADB, # 3622. Cf. Dolgopolsky, 2008, #̣689 *gEyVŝV “to cast (spear); spear” with IE parallels.
234 RECONSTRUCTED PROTOFORMS (WITH THE AUTHOR’S RATING):
235 WEAPONRY
236 *ma/iṭw- ~ *may/wṭ- “mace (including for throwing), club, throwing stick” PAA 4
237 *ḳVs- “bow” PAA 5
238 *dVg- “arrow and bow” NAA 4, SAA 1
239 *dayVw- ~ *wVdy- “arrow” NAA 2, SAA 3, PAA 3
240 *fayaʔ- “(sharp) edge, arrow” NAA 2, SAA 4, PAA 3
241 *rumḥ- (var. *runḥ-) ~ *mVrḥ- “spear, lance” NAA 4, SAA 5, PAA 5
242 *ḳVlaʕ- “sling” NAA 4, SAA 3, PAA 4
243 *gawb- “shield” PAA 5
244 *(wa)rik/g- “bow with arrow” NAA 3, SAA 2, PAA 2
245 *ʕVbVl- “arrow or spear (with a flint head?)” NAA 4, SAA 1
246 *gayĉ- “kind of throwing weapon” NAA 3, SAA 3, PAA 3
247 ARMED CONFLICTS AND WARFARE
248 *lVḥm- “fight, war” NAA 4, SAA 4, PAA 4
249 *sabay- “spoils of war, taking prisoners” PAA 5
250 *(wa)čVb- “assault, mass killing” NAA 4, SAA 4, PAA 4
251 *dVrʔ- “war, fight” NAA 4 (Sem., Chad.)
252 *ĉVg- “fight, killing” NAA 2
253 *ĉVg(ʷ)Vr- “fight, battle” NAA 3 (Sem., Chad.)
254 *ʕawl- ~ ʕalw/y- “assault, plunder, war” NAA 4, SAA 4
255 *bVr- ~ *bVrbVr- “war, riot, plunder” 5
256 *gVd- “troop of archers”: (1) NAA “(armed) band, troop” 4, SAA”ambush” 5; (2) “arrow” NAA 3, SAA 4
257 *gdl “armed fight, killing” NAA 3, SAA 3, PAA 3
258 *gVr- “hostilities, war” NAA 5, SAA 4, PAA 4-5
259 *gihaʒ- “fight, raid” NAA 4, SAA 2, PAA 2
260 *mVr- “rob (in a fight), dispossess” NAA 4, SAA 5, PAA 4-5
261 Conclusions:
262 WEAPONRY
263 There is no doubt (score 5) about the terms for bow (*ḳVs-) and shield (*gawb-) at the PAA level; with a high degree of probability (score 4), the terms are reconstructed for mace (*ma/iṭw- ~ *may/wṭ-), spear (*rumḥ- ~ *mVrḥ-), sling (*ḳVlaʕ-); at the NAA level – for an arrow or spear, probably with a flint head; the reconstruction of additional or synonymous terms for bow with arrow and some kind of throwing weapon is quite likely (score 3). There is nothing unexpected for the prehistorians and archaeologists in this (perhaps, except for an immaculate term for shield).
264 The situation with armed conflicts and war, in particular, is more complicated.
265 ARMED CONFLICTS AND WARFARE
266 The following conclusions can be drawn from the reconstructed proto-forms:
267 Formally, Proto-Afrasian or even North Afrasian and South Afrasian terms, yielding the meaning of “war” in all and every descendant language, are not reconstructed with a 100% credibility (the roots *gVr- and *bVr- are closest to this meaning) – they are all combined either with more or less related meanings (fight, battle, killing) or with words referring to other armed conflicts (assault, plunder, riot). The unquestionable term “spoils of war, taking prisoners” (*sabay-) is indicative in this context. Several terms for assault, plunder, and armed robbery are reconstructed convincingly. As for war, the reconstructed terms – despite all the difficulties with interpreting the historical reality in this subject – seem to indicate that the concept of war as a large-scale armed conflict, different from its other types, either already had its lexical expression in the separate terms *gVr- and *bVr- at the PAA level, or came close to being expressed in words, ergo, in the perception of the late Mesolithic man in the Near East around the 11th millennium BCE.
268 Abbreviations of languages and language periods
269 Akk. – Akkadian; Amh. – Amharic; Arab. – Arabic; Aram. – Aramaic; Berb. – Berber; C. – Central; Chad. – Chadic; Cush. – Cushitic; E.– East; Wlm. – Tawllemmet; Eg. – Egyptian; Gur. – Gurage; Gz. – Geʕez; Har. – Harari; Hbr. – Hebrew; HEC – Highland East Cushitic; Jib. – Jibbali; Jud. – Judaic Aramaic; LEC –Lowland East Cushitic; MB – Middle Babylonian; Mhr. – Mehri; MK – Middle Kingdom; MSA – Modern South Arabian; N. – North; OB – Old Babylonian; OK – Old Kingdom; PAA – Proto-Afrasian; S. – South;
270 Sab. – Sabaic; SB – Standard Babylonian; Sem. – Semitic; Soq. – Soqotri; Syr. – Syriac; Tgr. – Tigre; Tna. – Tigrinya (Tigray); Ugr. – Ugaritic; W. – West.

Библиография

1. Diakonov, I.M. Shumery i afraziitsy glazami istorika [Sumerians and Afrasians through the eyes of an historian] // Vestnik Drevney istorii [Journal of Ancient History]. 1996. No. 4. P. 81-88. (In Russ.)

2. Dolgopolsky A.B. Sravnitelno-istoricheskaia fonetika kushitskikh iazykov [Comparative historical phonetics of the Cushite languages]. Moskva, 1973. (In Russ.)

3. Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov V.V. Indoevropeiskii iazyk i indoevropeitsy [Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans]. Tbilisi, 1984. (In Russ.)

4. Johnson A., Earle T. Evoliutsiia chelovecheskikh obshchestv [Evolution of human societies]. Moskva, 2017. (In Russ.)

5. Militarev A.Yu. Shumery i afraziitsy [Sumerians and Afrasians] // Vestnik drevnei istorii [Journal of Ancient History]. 1995. No. 2. P. 113-127. (In Russ.)

6. Militarev A.Yu. Etimologiia i leksicheskaia rekonstruktsiia dlia drevnei i drevneishei istorii blizhnevostochno-severnoafrikansko-sredizemnomorskogo areala [Etymology and lexical reconstruction for the ancient and most ancient history of the Middle East-North African-Mediterranean area] // Voprosy iazykovogo rodstva [Journal of language relationship]. 2019. No. 17.3-4. P. 246–262. (In Russ.)

7. Stolbova O.V. Etimologicheskii slovar' chadskikh iazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Chadic languages]. Moskva, 2016. (In Russ.)

8. Stolbova O.V. Leksicheskaia baza dannykh po chadskim iazykam [Lexical database of the Chadic languages]. Issues 1, IV, V. Kaluga, 2005, Moskva, 2011, 2019. (In Russ.)

9. AADB – Afrasian Etymological Database. http://starling.rinet.ru (access date 12.03.2021)

10. Amborn H., Minker G., Sasse H.-J. Das Dullay. Materialen zu einer ostkuschitischen Sprachgruppe // Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik. 1980. No. 6. P. 228–281.

11. Antoine D., Zazzo A., Freidman R. Revisiting Jebel Sahaba: New apatite radiocarbon dates for one of the Nile Valley’s earliest cemeteries // American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2013. Supplement 56.

12. Appleyard D.A. Comparative Dictionary of the Agaw Language. Köln, 2006.

13. Bender M.L. Proto-Omotic Phonology and Lexicon. Carbondale, 2003.

14. Biberstein-Kazimirski A. de. Dictionnaire arabe-franc̣ais. Paris, 1860.

15. Blažek V. Elephant, hippopotamus and others: On some ecological aspects of the Afroasiatic homeland // Asian and African Studies. 1994. No. 3/2. P. 196–212.

16. Blažek V. A lexicostatistic comparison of Omotic languages // Bengtson J. (Ed.), Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 2008.

17. Blažek V. Afroasiatic migrations // Ness I., Bellwood P. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration I. Oxford, 2013. P. 125–132.

18. Brockelmann C. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle, 1928.

19. Carneiro R. A theory of the origin of the state. Science. 1970. No. 169: 733–738.

20. Cohen D., Bron F., Lonnet A. Dictionnaire des racines sémitique. Fasc. 1-2. Paris, 1970. Fasc. 3-5. Leuven, 1993.

21. Diakonoff I.M. Earliest Semites in Asia: agriculture and animal husbandry according to linguistic data (VIIIth-IVth milennia) // Altorientalische Forschungen. 1981. No. 8. P. 23–74.

22. Dolgopolsky A.B. Nostratic Dictionary. Cambridge, 2008.

23. Ehret C. The Historical Reconstruction of Southern Cushitic Phonology and Vocabulary. Berlin, 1980.

24. Erman A., Grapow H. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Bds. I-VI. Berlin, 1937–1971.

25. Faulkner R.O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford, 1962.

26. Ferguson R.B. The causes and origins of “primitive warfare”: On evolved motivations for War // Anthropological Quarterly. 2000. Vol. 73. No. 3. P. 159–164.

27. Gelb L.J. et al. (Eds.). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Glückstadt, 1957–2010.

28. Haas J. War. Encyclopedia of cultural anthropology 1996, No. 4: 1357–1361. New York: Henry Holt.

29. Haas J., Piscitelli M. The prehistory of warfare: Misled by ethnography // Fry D.P. (Ed.), War, Peace, and Human Nature I. New York, 2013. P. 168–190.

30. Hansen S., Krause R. (Eds.) Materialisation of Conflicts. Proceedings of the Third International LOEWE Conference, 24-27 September 2018 in Fulda. UPA 346. Bonn, 2019.

31. Hudson G. Highland East Cushitic Dictionary. Hamburg, 1989.

32. Johnstone T.M. Jibbāli Lexicon. New York, 1981.

33. Johnstone T.M. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. London, 1987.

34. Kennedy M. Stone-age massacre offers earliest evidence of human warfare // The Guardian. 2016, 20 January.

35. Kiessling R., Mous M. The Lexical Reconstruction of West-Rift Southern Cushitic. Köln, 2003.

36. Köhler L., Baumgartner W. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vols. I–V. Leiden–New York–Boston, 1994–1996, 1999–2000.

37. Korotayev A., Borinskaya S., Starostin G., Meshcherina K. Evolution of Eurasian and African family systems, cross-cultural research, comparative linguistics, and deep history // Social Evolution and History. 2019. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 286–312.

38. Kossmann M. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère. Köln, 1999.

39. Lazaridis I. et al. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature. 2016. No. 536. P. 419–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19310.

40. Leslau W. Lexique Soqoṭri (Sudarabique moderne) avec comparaisons et explications étymologiques. Paris, 1938.

41. Leslau W. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic). Vol. III. Wiesbaden, 1979.

42. Leslau W. Comparative Dictionary of Geʕez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden, 1987.

43. Militarev A. Afrasian cultural terms (preliminary report) // Shevoroshkin V. (Ed.), Proto-Languages and Proto-Cultures. Bochum, 1990. P. 33–54.

44. Militarev A. Towards the chronology of Afrasian (Afroasiatic) and its daughter families // Renfrew C., McMahon A., Trask, L. (Eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, 2000. P. 267–307.

45. Militarev A. The prehistory of a dispersal: The Proto-Afrasian (Afroasiatic) farming lexicon // Renfrew C., Bellwood P. (Eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge, 2002. P. 135–150.

46. Militarev A.Yu., Nikolayev S.L. Proto-Afrasian animal names and the problem of Proto-Afrasian Urheimat // Voprosy iazykovogo rodstva [Journal of language relationship]. 2021. No. 1.

47. Nakano A. Comparative Vocabulary of Southern Arabic – Mahri, Gibbali and Soqotri. Tokyo, 1986.

48. Neit-Zerrad K. Dictionnaire des racines berbères. Paris-Louvain, 1998.

49. Orel V., Stolbova O. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden–New York–Köln, 1994.

50. Otterbein K.F. How War Began. Texas, 2004.

51. Reinisch L. Die Bilin-Sprache. Wörterbuch der Bilin-Sprache. Wien, 1887.

52. Reinisch L. Wörterbuch der Beḍauye-Sprache. Wien, 1895.

53. Roper E.-M. Tu Beḍawiɛ. Hertford, 1928.

54. Sasse H.-J. Consonant phonemes of Proto-East-Cushitic. Afrosiatic Linguistics. 1978. No. 7(1).

55. Starostin S.A. Comparative-historical linguistics and lexicostatistics. // Renfrew C., McMahon A., Trask L. (Eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, 2000. P. 233–259.

56. Starostin G.S. Macrofamilies and agricultural lexicon // Robbeets M., Savelyev A. (Eds.), Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2017. P. 215–233.

57. Swadesh M. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating // International Journal of American Linguistics. 1955. No. 21. P. 121–137.

58. Takács G. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Vol. I, 1999; II, 2001; III, 2008. Leiden.

59. Takács G. Studies in Afro-Asiatic Comparative Phonology: Consonants. Berlin, 2011.

60. Vycichl W. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven, 1983.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести