No Afro Asiatic Migrations.

Hello once again. What would be the results if the ancestors of the Afro Asiatic languages were to die off early on, or at least never expand as far as they did? As you can imagine this POD goes back LONG ways (18,000 years according to some). Thus it will have a lot of changes later on.

Just for the uninitiated here are some languages descended from this group.
  • Coptic, and ancient Egyptian
  • Arabic
  • Hebrew(Plus Judaism and the other Abrahamic Religions.)
  • Berber
  • Punic
  • Ethiopian
  • Somali
  • Hausa
  • Akkadian, Syriac, Assyrian
but there are plenty other I didn't mention. Have at it.
 
Things still happen in the regions that are IOTL occupied by Afroasiatic peoples, but they end up speaking different languages and having different religions. History ends up being pretty much entirely different, mostly due to butterflies.
 
Everything west of the Altai mountains would be pretty unrecognizable. The biggest reason would be the absence of a familiar Ancient Egypt, although a similar civilization certainly exist, probably descended from Nubians (Nilo-Saharan). Sumer would continue, not replaced by Akkadian and Aramaic and may have a whole Sumerian language family instead of being a linguistic isolate.

Without Afro-Asiatic languages, North Africa is probably inhabited by Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples and linguistic isolates due to previous populations surviving or new migrations. Niger-Congo affiliated peoples may migrate into Morocco and Algeria and we may see more West African influences north of the Sahara.

Indo-European speaking peoples would expand into most of the areas that Afro-Asiatic speaking civilizations did. Possibly as far as Egypt eventually, but this may be ephemeral. Indo-European and vaguely affiliated peoples like Hittites and the Mitanni would dominate the Near East for some period of time. Whether they assimilate Sumer as Aramaeans did is unclear.

South Arabia would likely be assimilated by Nubians and descendant peoples.
 
Hello once again. What would be the results if the ancestors of the Afro Asiatic languages were to die off early on, or at least never expand as far as they did? As you can imagine this POD goes back LONG ways (18,000 years according to some). Thus it will have a lot of changes later on.

Just for the uninitiated here are some languages descended from this group.
  • Coptic, and ancient Egyptian
  • Arabic
  • Hebrew(Plus Judaism and the other Abrahamic Religions.)
  • Berber
  • Punic
  • Ethiopian
  • Somali
  • Hausa
  • Akkadian, Syriac, Assyrian
but there are plenty other I didn't mention. Have at it.
I don't want to sound rude or anything, but this kind of pointless, because with a pod so back in the past, we might as well, start creating a new world. But anyway, if you supress the asian-african locutors, you basically supress the original first civilisations, and it depends on who then get to the area, is modern egypt and arabia colonized by nubiens, or indo-europeans or even sino-tibetans, so yes china is still here, so must of the development (gunpowder, paper, compass) are still here, however, no Egyptians, meaning no egyptian influence on greek philosophy, no alphabet (since that comes from phoenicians and various syrians inhabitants, no carthage, thus no maritime civilisation that goes through the mediterannean sea, and a lot of butterflies that would make this world totally alien to us, might as well starting on a new planet.
 
Okay, I get it, you don't like the speed which I update the fresh prince tl, but that doesn't mean you should erase me from existence. :p

The World would be very different, around 4 billion people are part of the Abrahamic faith for a starter.
 
This would leave the Mid East essentially unrecognizable frankly. We have no idea what was existing within the Southern Levant, Arabia or Egypt linguistically prior and there are not even examples of non Afro-Asiatic languages in these areas form historical record. From what we gather, it is not clear which group predated who within what we term Iraq or lower Mesopotamia. Some say the Sumerians arrived at a later time and subsumed a local culture, which possibly cohabited along with nomadic Semitic populaces. From some name lists in the Sumerian king list, the more ancient names, appear a mixture of Semitic and Sumerian names. One of the kings mentioned that ruled for some obscene period of time (something approximate to 32,000 years) is literally the Akkadian word for scorpion. The area was a general area of constant migration and assimilation of cultures; a situation is thus came to by some thinkers, that within Sumer, there was three different spoken tongues or people, a local Ubaid farming culture/associated language, the Sumerians and the Akkado-Semites.

The upper Levant and Euphrates, it seems that the Semitic peoples are relatively the most dominant populace as early as records are available. However migrations from the north did come, firstly from an Indo-European route and then later from a Hurrian route. Hurrians likewise would likewise spread into northern Mesopotamia across the Tigris river, merging in settlement patterns with the Akado-Semitic populaces. Some examples include Nizu. Despite this knowledge, I do not know the consensus on the Hurrian origins; my instinct would suggest the vicinity of Lake Van and the highlands surrounding it. The relation between the Hatti and Hurrians, is also alluring, if there is one. Gutians and Kassites are a wildcard, along with the Mannaeans, who may be termed people of the Zagros, which possibly formed an extremely diverse collective of linguistic groups due to the separation of communities in remote mountains and frequent ejections of peoples due to competition or conflict. Elam presumably remains existing, all evidences suggest that they are indigenous to at least Susana or Anshan, which one of these two, matters little.

So, the peoples whom you intend to limit in spread, are essentially for all intents and purposes, the indigenous people or language group of most of the Ancient Near East, at least in terms of historical record. The only ones whom we have firm record of and can define as outside of this group that you remove from the tl are:

Sumerians
Elamites
Hurrians/Biai (Urartians)
Indo-Europeans/Hittites/Pala/Luwians/Greeks/Scythians/Cimmerians/Thracians/etc
Minoans
Zagros peoples (Kassites/Gutians/Mannaeans)
Caucasian peoples
Kaska (not sure on their classification, other than not Semitic)
Hattians

And these groups together, inhabit less lands than the group that you have erased from your scenario.
 
Everything west of the Altai mountains would be pretty unrecognizable. The biggest reason would be the absence of a familiar Ancient Egypt, although a similar civilization certainly exist, probably descended from Nubians (Nilo-Saharan). Sumer would continue, not replaced by Akkadian and Aramaic and may have a whole Sumerian language family instead of being a linguistic isolate.
Modern Nubians didn't arrive until late BC times, since in during most of Egyptian history that area spoke Afroasiatic languages. So it could be any Nilo-Saharan language spoken there and in Egypt proper.

Without Afro-Asiatic languages, North Africa is probably inhabited by Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples and linguistic isolates due to previous populations surviving or new migrations. Niger-Congo affiliated peoples may migrate into Morocco and Algeria and we may see more West African influences north of the Sahara.
I think it's much more likely the pre-Indo-Europeans of the Mediterranean would be there instead, considering the similar climate and proximity and the fact that crossing the Sahara was rare before the dromedary was introduced. So maybe links to southern Iberian peoples or the Nuragic peoples of Sardinia.

Indo-European speaking peoples would expand into most of the areas that Afro-Asiatic speaking civilizations did. Possibly as far as Egypt eventually, but this may be ephemeral. Indo-European and vaguely affiliated peoples like Hittites and the Mitanni would dominate the Near East for some period of time. Whether they assimilate Sumer as Aramaeans did is unclear.
The Sea Peoples too, of course.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Probably Caucasians(people originating from Caucasus and Highlands speaking Caucasian and Language isolates) and Indo-Europeans will dominate. Elamites will exiee but as a smaller players and in this timeline also,they could be assimilated like how Iranians assimilated them OTL.
Sumerians
Elamites
Hurrians/Biai (Urartians)
Indo-Europeans/Hittites/Pala/Luwians/Greeks/Scythians/Cimmerians/Thracians/etc
Minoans
Zagros peoples (Kassites/Gutians/Mannaeans)
Caucasian peoples
Kaska (not sure on their classification, other than not Semitic)
Hattians
Sumerians were probably migrants from the Northeast. Some say they are Caucasian language speakers and some say they are a Primitive Turkic speakers,etc. Right now they are a language isolate speakers as we know and probably rooted from Anatolia/Caucasus/Steppe/Fertile Crescent.

Kaskians were said to be in most to all probability as a Caucasian people somewhat similar to today's Circassians.

Hurrians and Urartians are also Caucasian peoples,Armenians being their living descendants.

Greeks,though faraway,were very powerful and strong. In a fairly more divided ME,a Greek dominance is highly possible.

Anatolians and Minoans are a strong possibility.

Scythians are too faraway.

Iranians and Aryans,again a strong possibility.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
IMO,the strongest contenders are Anatolians,Indo-Iranians and Caucasians with Caucasians occupying the top place in terms of possibility as far as Levant and Mesopotamia are concerned.

North Africa and Egypt could have Pre-Indo-European Europeans,Greeks,Italic and Celtic peoples. Arabia could have a mix of all these.
 
Probably Caucasians(people originating from Caucasus and Highlands speaking Caucasian and Language isolates) and Indo-Europeans will dominate. Elamites will exiee but as a smaller players and in this timeline also,they could be assimilated like how Iranians assimilated them OTL.

Sumerians were probably migrants from the Northeast. Some say they are Caucasian language speakers and some say they are a Primitive Turkic speakers,etc. Right now they are a language isolate speakers as we know and probably rooted from Anatolia/Caucasus/Steppe/Fertile Crescent.

Kaskians were said to be in most to all probability as a Caucasian people somewhat similar to today's Circassians.

Hurrians and Urartians are also Caucasian peoples,Armenians being their living descendants.

Greeks,though faraway,were very powerful and strong. In a fairly more divided ME,a Greek dominance is highly possible.

Anatolians and Minoans are a strong possibility.

Scythians are too faraway.

Iranians and Aryans,again a strong possibility.

The Hurrians and the Biai do not seem to be Caucasians in language and are also separate from the Armenians. From what we gather historically, Armenia is to Biai what Persia was to Elam. A level of Indo European replacement that hit several stages and intensified from 620-550 BCE. This demographic change occurred in the northern sectors of Urartu’s kingdom, wherein the main heartland of Hurrian-Biai civilization was in the southern regions of Biai-Urartu. Thus, they are quite a distance from the Caucasian mountains and from even the central point of the Orontonid dynasty of Armenia 200 years after the fall of Urartu to what seems, a Medo-Armenian invasion/rebellion.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
The Hurrians and the Biai do not seem to be Caucasians in language and are also separate from the Armenians. From what we gather historically, Armenia is to Biai what Persia was to Elam. A level of Indo European replacement that hit several stages and intensified from 620-550 BCE. This demographic change occurred in the northern sectors of Urartu’s kingdom, wherein the main heartland of Hurrian-Biai civilization was in the southern regions of Biai-Urartu. Thus, they are quite a distance from the Caucasian mountains and from even the central point of the Orontonid dynasty of Armenia 200 years after the fall of Urartu to what seems, a Medo-Armenian invasion/rebellion.
I doubt the level of Indo-European migrations that took place to replace the Elamites would have taken place with the Armenians/Urartians. For one,the Armenian language seems to have a lot of Pre-Indo-European words unlike Iranian or other Indo-European languages. Secondly,the R1a and R1b haplogroups that mainly coincide with Indo-Europeans worldwide seems to be a minority for Armenians who possess more of J and G groups which the Caucasian peoples carry. Hurro-Urartian people in most to all probability were similar to other current Caucasian peoples.

Lastly,replacement level Indo-European migrations would leave several other languages in a large family spread across a vast region. But Armenian is a small single language sub family.

Caucasians even today are very diverse in language families though Genetically seem to cluster. So that needn't be a surprise.
 
I think with how far back the POD is, it's likely that the Indo-Europeans would get butterflied away, let alone specific branches of them.
 
No particular reason that I know of, but in a period of over 5,000 years there's bound to be butterflies. At the very least, the language would be unrecognizable.

Whole heartedly agree with this. The various clades and subclades of Indo-European may not exist in any recognisable form due to butterflies. For what it’s worth even centum and satem may not be apparent in Indo-European languages if the migrations happen on a larger scale and further into the Middle East.

Also there will be an even heavier Guthian substrate in any conquerors languages even if Proto-Indo-European is present in a recognisable form. The advent of Semitic speaking peoples relegated the Guthians pretty solidly into the Southern Caucasus and Alborz.
 
Last edited:
Top