posted
It is very important to note that the state building in Ethiopia had its roots in Africa, not Yemen. Fattovich notes that: A sedentary people, apparently with Afro-Arabian cultural traditions, was settled on the plateau around Asmara (Eritrea) in the late second millennium BC (the ‘Ona Group A’ with red pottery, c. 1500–1000 BC). They were in contact with the Jebel Mokram people of the western lowlands and the coastal ones along the Red Sea. Some finds from ‘Ona Group A’ sites suggest that this population was directly in contact with Egypt through the Red Sea maritime route. The same evidence, recording some chiefs of Punt, might suggest that a complex society arose on the eastern plateau in the mid-second millennium BC (Fig. 5; Tringali 1979; Tringali 1981; Fattovich 1988; Fattovich 1993). Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millennium BC (the ‘Tihama Cultural Complex’, c. 1500–1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea, Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq’ in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and ‘C-Group’ of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the ‘Gash Group’ at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins, Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980). In the first millennium BC, cattle herders were moving on the Tigrean plateau in Eritrea and eastern Tigray. They are identified by rock pictures of cattle in Ethio-Arabian, seminaturalistic, and very schematic styles. Some groups practiced milking and a rock picture of ploughing at Amba Focada rock shelter (eastern Tigray) might suggest that the ‘plough and cereal complex’ was already established on the plateau (Graziosi 1941; Conti Rossini 1948; Graziosi 1964a; Graziosi 1964b; Cervicek 1979). By the first millennium BC, also the Atbara and Gash alluvial plains in the western lowlands were occupied by cattle herders, practicing some cultivation of cereals (the ‘Hagiz Group’, c. 500 BC–AD 300/400) (Fattovich, Marks & Ali 1984; Marks & Sadr 1988; Fattovich, Sadr & Vitagliano 1988–89; Fattovich 1990b; Fattovich 1991b; Sadr 1991). The classical sources, however, suggest that in the Hellenistic times the hinterland regions towards the plateau were inhabited by peoples who hunted large savanna mammals, particularly elephants (Conti Rossini 1928; Fattovich 1987a; Fattovich 1990b).
Researchers claim a Yemeni origin for the Ethiopian civilizations without any support what so ever for example Fattovich noted that:
quote:
During the first millennium BC, a state with Sabean characteristics appeared on the plateau in Tigray and Eritrea. It is archaeologically identified by the so-called pre-Aksumite culture (c. 1000/900 BC–100 BC/AD 100). This state is recorded in the inscriptions with the name of ‘Kingdom of Da’amat’. It most likely relied on the ‘plough and cereal complex’. The ruins of a stone dam, possibly going back to this period, at Safra in the Kohaito region (central Eritrea) suggest that artificial irrigation also was practiced (Anfray 1967; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1977a; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; de Contenson 1981; Fattovich 1988; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c).
On linguistic, epigraphic and monumental evidence, the origins of this state have been usually ascribed to a south Arabian – more specifically Sabean – colonization of the plateau in the first half of the first millennium BC (see Conti Rossini 1928; von Wissmann 1975; Ricci 1984). At present, it seems that the kingdom originated from the contacts between an indigenous chiefdom and the southern Arabians, who deeply affected the local cultural pattern (Drewes 1962; Anfray 1968; Schneider 1976; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). So far, the pre-Aksumite culture has been divided into three main phases of development (Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c): 1 The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 1000–800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existed (Schneider 1976), but no safe archaeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the southern Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5). 2 The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600–300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphical evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia. Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world.
This statement is contradictory. On the one hand Fattovich makes it clear that Sabaean inscriptions dating back to the Di'amat Kingdom were first found in Ethiopia as well as the earliest dam. Yet, in the next breath the author claims these elements came from Yemen, yet Fattovich does not provide any archaeological sites from Yemen dating back to this period which supports his bold claim. Lets not remember that the Yemeni dam and inscriptions date to the 4th century BC, 600 years after similar monuments appeared in Ethiopia.
Given the evidence, I am making only one claim: archaeological evidence indicate that the Oldest Sabaean inscriptions are found in Ethiopia, along with monumental architecture. This means only one thing: Sabaean writing was invented by the Ethiopians who took the writing to Yemen, no matter what some experts claim.
The archaeology does not indicate a higher civilization in Yemen than in Ethiopia. All the archaeological data indicate that Ethiopian civilizations were homegrown and taken to Yemen by the ancient Ethiopians who probably founded Saba or Sheba.
MysterySolver
quote: An edited version of the above, since that function amongst others cease to exist:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The parameter(s) I use is that where ever a cultural tradition first occurs,temporally , it is that place where the cultural complex originated.
Would this be a single tradition or multiple? If multiple, please lay out the "full range" of the criterea used; If single, how can you claim that a "complex" culture is of so and so origin based on a single "tradition", while ignoring other traditions that may or may not have been imported?
Moreover:
In other for you to claim that a cultural complex at a certain location is not of in situ origin, you'd have to prove that there was no cultural complex there to begin? Can you show us how your claim about the "Tihama" complex fits into this criterea.
quote:Clyde: 3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.
What was this "script" called and what date has specifically been attributed to this script, in the exact words of the cited author; not to mention why he said so? Present the 'specifics' contained in this 'evidence' in the words of the author you attribute it to.
I have cited several others, who talk about the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script in both south Arabia and in the African horn, spanning more or less the same time era. Although, I don't have the specifics, Munro-Hay mentioned "new" discoveries in Yemen, involving "paleography", that may push date-approximations of the Ethio-Sabean contact in pre-Aksume complex back to ca. 800th cen. or so. I suspect this includes the south Arabian scripts that one website attributed to Minean dialect. Now, Epigraphic "South Arabian" is not something that implies "Ethiopic" script; similarily "Sabean" script as you keep referring to it, does not imply "Ethiopic". You also ignore the fact that the "Epigraphic South Arabian" scripts found in Ethiopia, are written both in pure Sabean, and some unidentified, presumably local Ethiopic language. Why is that? Have you identified some Ethiopic language in "Sabean/ESA" script in South Arabia? If not, Why? It would also be interesting how you address Daniels' notes on those early scripts found.
quote:Clyde:
Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.
Nobody but you, claims that Sabeans are local Pre-Aksumites, rather than South Arabians, who had contact with the locals of the Pre-Aksumite complex in early first Millenium B.C. Next, you'll tell us that Saba was in Ethiopia, right?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'll respond in full later (i.e. tomorrow), but here's a note on chronology again. The 8th c. date for Ma'in (Minaeans) and D`mt seem to be the first inscriptions in ESA known to date. Not sure if the first in Saba' (Sabaeans) were 8th c. or 7th, but the dating seems to be becoming more and more certain.
Walter W. Muller identifies Karab'il Watar as being from the early 7th century and having an inscription noting a Hadramite (from Hadramawt - first non-Hadramawt mention) king named Yada`'il (that's ayin and alif, not a typo) as his ally, so the earlier date seems to be certain based on more than regular dating, but instead synchronies.
What is the reference for the W.W. Muller article.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Müller, Walter W., "Ḥaḍramawt," in von Uhlig, Siegbert, Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005, pp.965-6.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is very important to note that the state building in Ethiopia had its roots in Africa, not Yemen...
You must not have been paying careful attention to the exchanges made on this topic thus far, notwithstanding some posts you've made here and there, and so, let's skip to relevant matters...
quote:Clyde: Researchers claim a Yemeni origin for the Ethiopian civilizations without any support what so ever for example Fattovich noted that:
quote:
During the first millennium BC, a state with Sabean characteristics appeared on the plateau in Tigray and Eritrea. It is archaeologically identified by the so-called pre-Aksumite culture (c. 1000/900 BC–100 BC/AD 100). This state is recorded in the inscriptions with the name of ‘Kingdom of Da’amat’. It most likely relied on the ‘plough and cereal complex’. The ruins of a stone dam, possibly going back to this period, at Safra in the Kohaito region (central Eritrea) suggest that artificial irrigation also was practiced (Anfray 1967; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1977a; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; de Contenson 1981; Fattovich 1988; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c).
On linguistic, epigraphic and monumental evidence, the origins of this state have been usually ascribed to a south Arabian – more specifically Sabean – colonization of the plateau in the first half of the first millennium BC (see Conti Rossini 1928; von Wissmann 1975; Ricci 1984). At present, it seems that the kingdom originated from the contacts between an indigenous chiefdom and the southern Arabians, who deeply affected the local cultural pattern (Drewes 1962; Anfray 1968; Schneider 1976; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). So far, the pre-Aksumite culture has been divided into three main phases of development (Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c): 1 The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 1000–800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existed (Schneider 1976), but no safe archaeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the southern Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5). 2 The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600–300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphical evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia. Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world.
This statement is contradictory. On the one hand Fattovich makes it clear that Sabaean inscriptions dating back to the Di'amat Kingdom were first found in Ethiopia as well as the earliest dam.
Have you read Fattovich's piece that you requested from me? Yes, the inscriptions mentioning "D'mt" were found in Pre-Aksumite ruins. Unlike your wild accusations, Fattovich doesn't attribute complex culture in the African Horn to South Arabians, or the notion of state building.
quote:Clyde:
Yet, in the next breath the author claims these elements came from Yemen, yet Fattovich does not provide any archaeological sites from Yemen dating back to this period which supports his bold claim. Lets not remember that the Yemeni dam and inscriptions date to the 4th century BC, 600 years after similar monuments appeared in Ethiopia.
Given the evidence, I am making only one claim: archaeological evidence indicate that the Oldest Sabaean inscriptions are found in Ethiopia, along with monumental architecture. This means only one thing: Sabaean writing was invented by the Ethiopians who took the writing to Yemen, no matter what some experts claim.
Do you know "all" the inscriptions found in South Arabia. If so, provide us with the specifics, as well as the sources for these? The earliest inscriptions, to my knowledge found in Ethiopia, are the "Epigraphic South Arabian Inscriptions" found in at least two languages; one happens to be in "pure Sabean", and again, another happens to be some unidentified language, which has been presumed to be of a local one. These date back to approx. 5th cen. BC or so. Among these, the term "D'MT" has been identified. The dates for these are within the vicinity of inscriptions found in South Arabia. As I have mentioned, "discoveries" have been said to have been found in Yemen, suggesting dating to about 8th cen. BC or so. For instance, from another website, we have:
PRE-ISLAMIC ERA
Historical facts and epigraphic evidence suggest that the Saba kingdom ruled Yemen in its entirety in the first millenium BC. The state of Saba' is mentioned in both the Holy Koran and in the Old Testament. Yemeni anthropologists, moreover, consider Saba' as a symbol of their country's ancestral entity and of the origin of its being undivided; a characteristic which is idiosyncratic of virtually Yemen alone. In volume II of his book "ON THE ERYTHRAEANSEA", Agatharchiodes, the Greek historian in the second millennium BC describes the Sabeans as "the most populous among the Arabs. They occupy and inhabit the territory called Eudainon Arabia (fortunate Arabia) which is rich in valuables ... a land that produces everything nice we need ...and the people are of nicely-built figures. Saba' which represents the entire nation is situated on a hill and it is one of the nicest cities in the Arab land. Its ruler is mandated by the people to govern the whole territory".
According to ancient inscriptions unearthed and are at present on display in Sarwah, Sabean Mukerribs (high priest-princes who combined religious and temporal power in the state) were authorized by Mokha and Saba' Gods to rule the land of Yemen in the seventh century B.C.
The inscription show the name of the territory under the rule of the Mukerribs, namely Saba' and the central highlands (from Taiz to Sa'ada), Najran, Ma'afer (Taiz province) Shabwah, Datheena to the sea, Yafi'a, Ebyan, Lahji, Mayfa'a and the rest of Hadramawt. Early Himyaritic inscriptions in the first half of the first millennium AD give the names of kings who ruled the land of Yemen the lest of whom is Abrahah the Abyssinian (542 AD). Each king carries a title, which in reality represents the name of a Mikhlaf (administrative unit). {On the names of kings and their relevance to Yemeni Mikhlafs and the political unity of Yemen in the first millennium BC, one can refer to: SABEAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM MAHRAM BALQIS by Albert Janne, publication of the American Foundation for the study of Man-volume III, Baltimore, 1962, L'Unification du Yemen Antique, M.A.K.Bafaqih, Geunthuer, Paris 1990; and Die Geschichte von Saba, H.Von Wissmann, Wien 1982} .
Fattovich gives examples of items that show connections with South Arabians. For some reason, you choose to ignore those. He talks about trade conditions in the early 1st Millenium and how at the end of this period, South Arabian handle on the trade routes in question seem to have dwindled. Interestingly, he shows how this decline coincides with the decline of the Pre-Aksumite complex. Reiterating Fattovich:
"The late second and early first millennia BC were marked by the decline of Egyptian power, and the rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush in Nubia, and the kingdoms in southwest Arabia.. **Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians**, but it is possible , however, that the Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak under the control of the kingdom of Saba. At this time, the pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat was surely an important partner of Saba.…
In the early first millennium BC, the South Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba.. That contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat.. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial center and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara.
In the late first millennium BC, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed. The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms,…" - Fattovich, 2002.
So, in the meantime you ignore, in response to this:
quote::Clyde: 3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.
[1]What was this "script" called and what date has specifically been attributed to this script, in the exact words of the cited author; not to mention why he said so? Present the 'specifics' contained in this 'evidence' in the words of the author you attribute it to.
[2]I have cited several others, who talk about the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script in both south Arabia and in the African horn, spanning more or less the same time era. Although, I don't have the specifics, Munro-Hay mentioned "new" discoveries in Yemen, involving "paleography", that may push date-approximations of the Ethio-Sabean contact in pre-Aksume complex back to ca. 800th cen. or so. I suspect this includes the south Arabian scripts that one website attributed to Minean dialect. Now, Epigraphic "South Arabian" is not something that implies "Ethiopic" script; similarily "Sabean" script as you keep referring to it, does not imply "Ethiopic".
You also ignore the fact that the "Epigraphic South Arabian" scripts found in Ethiopia, are written both in pure Sabean, and some unidentified, presumably local Ethiopic language. Why is that?
[3] Have you identified some Ethiopic language in "Sabean/ESA" script in South Arabia? If not, Why? It would also be interesting how you address Daniels' notes on those early scripts found.
Ps - particularly pertaining to the last point; if the Pre-Aksumite complex was more dominant, than why is it that pure "Sabean" was obviously used, alongside another language, presumably Ethiopic, in the Pre-Aksumite complex, while a local "Ethiopic" language had not been recovered in South Arabia at about the same period?
Why did the pre-Aksumite use south Arabian terms for ruling elites, chiefs, or what have you?
Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). - Stuart Munro-Hay
Fattovich doesn't attribute the origins of the Pre-Aksumite complex to South Arabians, at least not to my knowledge; what he does appear to be suggesting though, is that the natives of the local complex interacted with Sabeans, to evolve an existing complex into the kind of Sabean "influenced" complex that the ruins found in the plateau today hint on.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'll respond in full later (i.e. tomorrow), but here's a note on chronology again. The 8th c. date for Ma'in (Minaeans) and D`mt seem to be the first inscriptions in ESA known to date. Not sure if the first in Saba' (Sabaeans) were 8th c. or 7th, but the dating seems to be becoming more and more certain.
Walter W. Muller identifies Karab'il Watar as being from the early 7th century and having an inscription noting a Hadramite (from Hadramawt - first non-Hadramawt mention) king named Yada`'il (that's ayin and alif, not a typo) as his ally, so the earlier date seems to be certain based on more than regular dating, but instead synchronies.
What is the reference for the W.W. Muller article.
.
Note that I'm talking about first inscriptions in South Arabia (SA). I should have clarified. The D`mt ESA inscriptions are also 8th-7th c. BC, but specific dates are out of the question. The only specific ones we know are W`rn Hywt, Karib'il Watar and the Hadramawt king. The Assyrian inscription is from 692 BC, so W`rn Hywt and Karib'il Watar (r.695-680 according to a source I'll note later, though probably inaccurate) are ca. 700 BC. (also LMN ruled at the same time as a certain Sabaean Sumhualay, but I'm not sure what time period that is. I have seen the following time period tentatively proposed at a Near East (professor's) discussion board before, though: W`rn Hywt -10 years; R`DM - 10 years; RBH - 17 years; LMN -17 years = probably just a guess based on synchrony).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Saba' certainly wasn't wholly within the 1st Millenium BC, it was allied with and later at war with Aksum in the South Arabian wars in the 3rd century and wasn't subjugated by Himyar until the latter part of the century.
Regarding the Sabaean language inscriptions, the inscriptions were written by Sabaeans, not Ethiopians using it for prestige or anything like that (and of course, as we already know, they weren't royal). For example, a text found in 1970 by Roger Schneider and AJ Drewes specifically says in the text that the man is "ḏmryb," i.e. ḏu maryib, meaning "of Marib," the capital of Saba' (the text is one sentence and is about him giving the fruits of his labor to Almaqah/Ilmuqah).
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Saba' certainly wasn't wholly within the 1st Millenium BC
I am not sure what you mean by "wholly" in "the 1st millennium BC.
quote:Yom: , it was allied with and later at war with Aksum in the South Arabian wars in the 3rd century and wasn't subjugated by Himyar until the latter part of the century.
Okay, and this has what bearings on Fattovich's notes about the 1st millennium BC south Arabian relations with the Pre-Aksumite complex?
quote:Yom: Regarding the Sabaean language inscriptions, the inscriptions were written by Sabaeans, not Ethiopians using it for prestige or anything like that (and of course, as we already know, they weren't royal). For example, a text found in 1970 by Roger Schneider and AJ Drewes specifically says in the text that the man is "ḏmryb," i.e. ḏu maryib, meaning "of Marib," the capital of Saba' (the text is one sentence and is about him giving the fruits of his labor to Almaqah/Ilmuqah).
There is no reason to doubt that the ESA inscriptions in the language identified as "pure" Sabean, could have been meant for the benefit of resident Sabeans on the plateau, possibly by the Sabeans themselves, or by locals who could also speak pure Sabean. However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself. On the other hand, we also have, and I reiterate yet again:
Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973)...
Its rulers, kings and mukarribs, by including the name Saba in their titles, appear to have expressly claimed control over the resident Sabaeans in their country; actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo according to present information (Schneider 1973: 388). The inscriptions of mukarribs of D`MT and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and Drewes 1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93)...
The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have kept in contact with their own country, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network. Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first, and nagashi (najashi) or negus later; no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known.
- Stuart Munro-Hay
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The info about Himyar was just to show that Saba existed in AD times. No point in general, just clarifying information in general.
Regarding the inscriptions, none of the Sabaean ones seem to be public in nature (e.g. the worshipping one I referenced), so I don't know where you get that idea from. As I noted earlier, the title "mukarrib," does not necessarily mean priest-king. That was the earlier view of the terms meaning, but the terms meaning is actually uncertain.
quote:The rulers of D. bear the title mlkn ('the king' and mkrb (here meaning uncertain), there names, LMN, RBḤ, and RD'M appear to be of Semitic origin.
From Alexander Sima as earlier referenced.
quote:However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself.
What does this have to do with anything? There obviously weren't Ethiopians in Saba' back then (this reply should be addressed to Clyde, not me). Besides, Sabaean was still used by Abraha in his inscription on the Marib Dam, even though he was an Aksumite and it was an Aksumite province.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: ^^^Wholly as in didn't exist in AD times.
I guess you earlier statement talking about 1st millennium BC must have been a typo, unless I'm missing something here.
quote:Yom: Regarding the inscriptions, none of the Sabaean ones seem to be public in nature (e.g. the worshipping one I referenced), so I don't know where you get that idea from.
Are you then suggesting that the inscriptions in "Pure" Sabean, would have been for the benefit of the locals?
quote:Yom: As I noted earlier, the title "mukarrib," does not necessarily mean priest-king. That was the earlier view of the terms meaning, but the terms meaning is actually uncertain.
People are talking about the mentioning of "mukarrib" on the inscriptions, and you keep referring to the 'meaning' of the term.
quote:Yom:
quote:Supercar:
However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself.
What does this have to do with anything?
Paying carefull attention to ongoing exchanges simply cannot be overemphasized. This is another point that favors a Sabean introduction of ESA in the Pre-Aksumite plateau, not to mention puts to question, the notion that the Pre-Aksumite complex would have been dominant over the South Arabian Saba complex, whereby the ESA would have been introduced from the Pre-Aksumites to the Sabeans.
quote:Yom: There obviously weren't Ethiopians in Saba' back then (this reply should be addressed to Clyde, not me). Besides, Sabaean was still used by Abraha in his inscription on the Marib Dam, even though he was an Aksumite and it was an Aksumite province.
Concerning the first point, its relevancy to your comment has been state in the post above; please reference it. Pertaining to the second highlighted piece, I say,...exactly! This fellow of "Abyssinian/Ethiopian" origin used "Sabean" language in the South Arabian script, even though the region would have been under the Aksumite control. No "Ethiopic" language has been identified side by side with "pure" Sabean in South Arabia itself; none that has been brought to my attention, that could date to about the same era as the Pre-Aksumite period.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fattovich doesn't attribute the origins of the Pre-Aksumite complex to South Arabians, at least not to my knowledge; what he does appear to be suggesting though, is that the natives of the local complex interacted with Sabeans, to evolve an existing complex into the kind of Sabean "influenced" complex that the ruins found in the plateau today hint on.
This is what I mean by double talk by Fattovich. He claims that South Arabia (SA) influenced civilization in Ethiopia, but the earliest evidence of what later became known as the Sabaean "cultural complex" has its antecedents in Ethiopia. Moreover the dates for the Sabaean architectural and epigraphic evidence in SA is much later than similar events in Ethiopia.
Why is it so hard to believe that the Sabaeans originated in Ethiopia and then settled in SA, given the fluidity of population movements on the Horn of Africa and Yemen. If this was the case the Sabaeans of Ethiopia would have used terms for chiefs and etc., first in Ethiopia, and later SA. Since the Sabaeans may have originated in Ethiopia, where the earliest inscriptions in this language have been found, it is only natural that they would have written in Sabaean, which may have been a lingua franca, since it was used in both countries for centuries and even used by Abraha to write inscriptions in SA.
Supercar
quote:
PRE-ISLAMIC ERA
Historical facts and epigraphic evidence suggest that the Saba kingdom ruled Yemen in its entirety in the first millenium BC. The state of Saba' is mentioned in both the Holy Koran and in the Old Testament. Yemeni anthropologists, moreover, consider Saba' as a symbol of their country's ancestral entity and of the origin of its being undivided; a characteristic which is idiosyncratic of virtually Yemen alone. In volume II of his book "ON THE ERYTHRAEANSEA", Agatharchiodes, the Greek historian in the second millennium BC describes the Sabeans as "the most populous among the Arabs. They occupy and inhabit the territory called Eudainon Arabia (fortunate Arabia) which is rich in valuables ... a land that produces everything nice we need ...and the people are of nicely-built figures. Saba' which represents the entire nation is situated on a hill and it is one of the nicest cities in the Arab land. Its ruler is mandated by the people to govern the whole territory".
According to ancient inscriptions unearthed and are at present on display in Sarwah, Sabean Mukerribs (high priest-princes who combined religious and temporal power in the state) were authorized by Mokha and Saba' Gods to rule the land of Yemen in the seventh century B.C.
The inscription show the name of the territory under the rule of the Mukerribs, namely Saba' and the central highlands (from Taiz to Sa'ada), Najran, Ma'afer (Taiz province) Shabwah, Datheena to the sea, Yafi'a, Ebyan, Lahji, Mayfa'a and the rest of Hadramawt. Early Himyaritic inscriptions in the first half of the first millennium AD give the names of kings who ruled the land of Yemen the lest of whom is Abrahah the Abyssinian (542 AD). Each king carries a title, which in reality represents the name of a Mikhlaf (administrative unit). {On the names of kings and their relevance to Yemeni Mikhlafs and the political unity of Yemen in the first millennium BC, one can refer to: SABEAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM MAHRAM BALQIS by Albert Janne, publication of the American Foundation for the study of Man-volume III, Baltimore, 1962, L'Unification du Yemen Antique, M.A.K.Bafaqih, Geunthuer, Paris 1990; and Die Geschichte von Saba, H.Von Wissmann, Wien 1982} .
This is another example of double talk. First they claim that South Arabian civilization began in the 1st Millenium BC. But they provide no specific dates. Next they talk about Classical sources that discuss Saba during the early Christian era. Next they mention an alleged 7th Century SA inscription, but does not name where it was found, and then go back to the historic period.
This is in sharp contrast to Fattovich's careful discussion of the rise of High Culture in Ethiopia, which indicates a careful transition of cultures in Ethiopia over a period of at least 2500 years. Although all the evidence supports an Ethiopian origin for Sabaean culture researchers, ignore this evidence and claim that Sabaean civilization arose first in SA without the archaeology to back up this claim. This is just another case of Eurocentrics placing the origin of an African civilization, within a regions--these Eurocentrics claim to be centers of caucasian habitation.
Granted, the South Arabians can not be correlated with Europeans. Yet in the popular mind the people of Arabia are Arab caucasians.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I guess you earlier statement talking about 1st millennium BC must have been a typo, unless I'm missing something here.
Oops. I read the "entirely" as referring to Saba' existing in its entirety in the 1st millenium BC (as in it didn't exist after or before), rather than controlling Yemen in its entirety. Nevermind all this. I'm doubtul of the claim of controlling all of Yemen (I don't think Hadramawt was ever conquered before 225 AD), but that's not really pertinent to the discussion. I was just trying to point out what I thought was incorrect for the benefit of all reading.
quote:Yom: Regarding the inscriptions, none of the Sabaean ones seem to be public in nature (e.g. the worshipping one I referenced), so I don't know where you get that idea from.
Are you then suggesting that the inscriptions in "Pure" Sabean, would have been for the benefit of the locals?[/quote]Er...no, I'm saying that they seem to be for the benefit of the inscriber rather than anyone else; I haven't seen all of the Sabaean ones, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case for all of them.
quote:Yom: As I noted earlier, the title "mukarrib," does not necessarily mean priest-king. That was the earlier view of the terms meaning, but the terms meaning is actually uncertain.
People are talking about the mentioning of "mukarrib" on the inscriptions, and you keep referring to the 'meaning' of the term.[/quote]Only because you highlighted the meaning of the term as well as the mentioning in your quote.
quote:Yom:
quote:Supercar:
However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself.
What does this have to do with anything?
Paying carefull attention to ongoing exchanges simply cannot be overemphasized. This is another point that favors a Sabean introduction of ESA in the Pre-Aksumite plateau, not to mention puts to question, the notion that the Pre-Aksumite complex would have been dominant over the South Arabian Saba complex, whereby the ESA would have been introduced from the Pre-Aksumites to the Sabeans. [/quote] No, I read what Clyde said, so I realize its relevance with regard to Clyde's claims, but in general, the finding of texts outside of the area where they are spoken doesn't mean dominance of the language (e.g. Greek in the Orient in some areas where its control has never reached). Nor does the dominance of one state over the other necessarily mean that the dominating state's language will be used. For historical examples, see Abraha in Yemen and the status of Aramaic throughout the middle east, despite always being a conquered people (their language was adopted by all conquerers even though they never had a dominating state of their own). Personally, I believe that a shared heritage for the complex is most likely, but there hasn't been enough research done in this field to make any conclusions.
quote:Yom: There obviously weren't Ethiopians in Saba' back then (this reply should be addressed to Clyde, not me). Besides, Sabaean was still used by Abraha in his inscription on the Marib Dam, even though he was an Aksumite and it was an Aksumite province.
Concerning the first point, its relevancy to your comment has been state in the post above; please reference it. Pertaining to the second highlighted piece, I say,...exactly! This fellow of "Abyssinian/Ethiopian" origin used "Sabean" language in the South Arabian script, even though the region would have been under the Aksumite control. No "Ethiopic" language has been identified side by side with "pure" Sabean in South Arabia itself; none that has been brought to my attention, that could date to about the same era as the Pre-Aksumite period. [/QUOTE]I don't have a reference, so I may be wrong. considering the ancientness of the trade network, it probably is. Perhaps its better to say that we don't have evidence of substantial number of Ethiopians living in Saba, and given the closeness of the cultures at the two time, it would be difficult to differentiate the two in the first place unless an Ethiopian language was used. Regarding "Ethiopic" being used in South Arabia, further excavations will probably reveal that there are such inscriptions, as there was an Ethiopian presence (in the early stages control) in the Tihama, West coast and al-Ma'afir (southwest around Aden). The invasion of Yemen by Kaleb wasn't only because of Dhu Nuwas's persecution of Yemenite Christians, but also because of his persecution of Aksumite Christians, particularly in Najran and Zafar (the west coast was also where most Christians lived), the latter of which had an Aksumite garisson.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is what I mean by double talk by Fattovich. He claims that South Arabia (SA) influenced civilization in Ethiopia,...
So, you are hereby denying Sabean "influences"?
quote:Clyde:
...but the earliest evidence of what later became known as the Sabaean "cultural complex" has its antecedents in Ethiopia.
Which would be...? After the several facets of Epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions have been brought to light, you can't still possibly be hanging onto your weak claims about the unspecified "earliest" scripts found in the Pre-Askumite ruins, are you?
quote:
Moreover the dates for the Sabaean architectural and epigraphic evidence in SA is much later than similar events in Ethiopia.
Name all the Sabean 'architecture' and 'inscriptions' and show how they date later than Sabean architecture in the Pre-Aksumite complex.
quote:Clyde:
Why is it so hard to believe that the Sabaeans originated in Ethiopia and then settled in SA, given the fluidity of population movements on the Horn of Africa and Yemen.
Lack of evidence.
quote:Clyde:
If this was the case the Sabaeans of Ethiopia would have used terms for chiefs and etc., first in Ethiopia, and later SA.
South Arabians had a long tradition of ruling elite titles like "Mukarribs," something which as Stuart Munro-Hay points out, was otherwise not known in the pre-Ethiopian complexes, until in the Pre-Aksumite complex. Again, these points run contrary to what you'd like to believe.
quote:Clyde:
Since the Sabaeans may have originated in Ethiopia, where the earliest inscriptions in this language have been found, it is only natural that they would have written in Sabaean, which may have been a lingua franca, since it was used in both countries for centuries and even used by Abraha to write inscriptions in SA.
Of course, you keep repeating discredited and questionable claims, the questions pertaining to which you haven't answered. This will not make them any less inaccurate than when you first posted them, save for spamming the topic needlessly. I suggest you conserve your energy on actually fulfilling the outstanding requests, and moving the discussion forward, not backward.
And oh, just to remind you: Sabean was apparently used in both complexes, while "pure" Sabean inscriptions was uncovered in both regions. You haven't produced anything on an "Ethiopic" language in these inscriptions being uncovered in both complexes, i.e. Pre-Aksumite and the Saba complex, exposing the straws on which you hang onto, claiming that Sabeans originate in Ethiopia. This becomes even more evident when one considers:
The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have **kept in contact with their own country**, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to **maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.** Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first, and nagashi (najashi) or negus later; no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known...
It seems that these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so — or perhaps even only a few decades — as a **separate** and [/b]**identifiable**[/b] people. Possibly their presence was connected to a contemporary efflorescence of Saba on the other side of the Red Sea. Their influence was only in a limited geographical area, affecting the autochthonous population in that area to a greater or lesser degree. Such influences as did remain after **their departure** or **assimilation** fused with the local cultural background, and contributed to the ensemble of traits which constituted Ethiopian civilisation in the rest of the pre-Aksumite period. - Stuart Munro-Hay
...but, I don't expect you to want to understand the implications herein.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Concerning the first point, its relevancy to your comment has been state in the post above; please reference it. Pertaining to the second highlighted piece, I say,...exactly! This fellow of "Abyssinian/Ethiopian" origin used "Sabean" language in the South Arabian script, even though the region would have been under the Aksumite control. No "Ethiopic" language has been identified side by side with "pure" Sabean in South Arabia itself; none that has been brought to my attention, that could date to about the same era as the Pre-Aksumite period.
I don't have a reference, so I may be wrong. considering the ancientness of the trade network, it probably is. Perhaps its better to say that we don't have evidence of substantial number of Ethiopians living in Saba, and given the closeness of the cultures at the two time, it would be difficult to differentiate the two in the first place unless an Ethiopian language was used. Regarding "Ethiopic" being used in South Arabia, further excavations will probably reveal that there are such inscriptions, as there was an Ethiopian presence (in the early stages control) in the Tihama, West coast and al-Ma'afir (southwest around Aden). The invasion of Yemen by Kaleb wasn't only because of Dhu Nuwas's persecution of Yemenite Christians, but also because of his persecution of Aksumite Christians, particularly in Najran and Zafar (the west coast was also where most Christians lived), the latter of which had an Aksumite garisson.
[/quote]
Yom what point are you trying to make? Are you claiming that the Sabaeans originated in Yemen and influenced Ethiopia? Are you saying that the Sabaeans came from Ethiopia and influenced South Arabia? Are you claiming that pre-Sabaean Ethiopian inscriptions will one day be found in South Arabia?
Please tell us in a simple paragraph what you want us to take from your exposition. This is very important because it is very difficult to differiate between the Ethiopians and South Arabians because both groups practiced many of the same cultural practices, spoke similar languages and worshipped the same religion ( as demonstrated by the name for their gods) until Christianity was introduced to Ethiopia.
The fact that Sabaean was used in both areas make it clear that this language may have been a lingua franca used by trading groups both in South Arabia and Ethiopia. This would explain the presence of the earliest examples of the script on the Horn of Africa, and not Yemen.
Right now Supercar has expertly laid out his propositions and supported them with abundance of evidence. I hate to say it but I can't really understand what you are trying to say.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yom what point are you trying to make? Are you claiming that the Sabaeans originated in Yemen and influenced Ethiopia? Are you saying that the Sabaeans came from Ethiopia and influenced South Arabia? Are you claiming that pre-Sabaean Ethiopian inscriptions will one day be found in South Arabia?
Sabaeans certainly originated in Yemen and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, however there has obviously been mutual cultural influence since time immemorial. Regarding the nature of the early complex, it is not really known, so we can't make any conclusions or assumptions. It is my belief that facets of the culture were not imports by either Ethiopia or Saba' (at that time period), but shared inherited culture from an earlier era, based on the antiquity of contacts (e.g. Tihama cultural complex). Even if this is true, however, it still might be possible to ascribe an African or Asian origin on certain cultural traits through examining any predecessor cultural complexes. There's much archaeological work to be done (Aksum, the most excavated site in Ethiopia is only 3% so; Yemen isn't very well-excavated either), however, so much that making conclusions are difficult and very tentative.
Regarding inscriptions, who knows as to pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I was mainly referring to inscriptions between 200 AD and 525 AD, but I wouldn't be surprised if earlier inscriptions are found due to the proximity of the countries and because of trade.
quote:The fact that Sabaean was used in both areas make it clear that this language may have been a lingua franca used by trading groups both in South Arabia and Ethiopia. This would explain the presence of the earliest examples of the script on the Horn of Africa, and not Yemen.
It probably was a lingua franca in the red sea area, or some related language. Regarding the dates of the scripts. They cannot be determined precisely before the 692 synchrony with Assyrian chronicles, so the 8th century inscriptions existing in both Yemen and Ethiopia are roughly contemporary. From that we cannot make a determination if it originated in Ethiopia or Yemen.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oops. I read the "entirely" as referring to Saba' existing in its entirety in the 1st millenium BC (as in it didn't exist after or before), rather than controlling Yemen in its entirety. Nevermind all this. I'm doubtul of the claim of controlling all of Yemen (I don't think Hadramawt was ever conquered before 225 AD), but that's not really pertinent to the discussion. I was just trying to point out what I thought was incorrect for the benefit of all reading.
I am doubtful of your claim that Saba must have only existed in the 1st millennium BC, when it was about this time, they actually had reached their peak, and controlling Red Sea trade routes by the mid-1st millennium as the Fattovich notes point out.
quote:Yom: Er...no, I'm saying that they seem to be for the benefit of the inscriber rather than anyone else; I haven't seen all of the Sabaean ones, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case for all of them.
We can talk about 'individual' scribers all day, but it has no bearings on the point made about the "pure" Sabean inscriptions being there likely for the benefit of resident Sabeans in the pre-Aksumite complex.
quote:Yom: Only because you highlighted the meaning of the term as well as the mentioning in your quote.
I highlighted a segment containing the term, because the segment is clear and concise in its implication.
quote:Yom:
No, I read what Clyde said, so I realize its relevance with regard to Clyde's claims, but in general, the finding of texts outside of the area where they are spoken doesn't mean dominance of the language (e.g. Greek in the Orient in some areas where its control has never reached). Nor does the dominance of one state over the other necessarily mean that the dominating state's language will be used. For historical examples, see Abraha in Yemen and the status of Aramaic throughout the middle east, despite always being a conquered people (their language was adopted by all conquerers even though they never had a dominating state of their own). Personally, I believe that a shared heritage for the complex is most likely, but there hasn't been enough research done in this field to make any conclusions.
Certainly a dominating force that is apparently a minority in the region, would use the local languages to get its message across to the locals. However, why would the dominating force not use its own language within its administration, comprising people of the same background? For instance, the American military in Iraq, would naturally have to use Arabic, if they wanted to get their message to the wider Iraqi community. However, it would be impractical for the Americans to speak Arabic amongst fellow minority Americans within the American military and administrative concerns in that region. "Pure" Sabean was used apparently for the benefit of Sabeans in the Pre-Aksumite complex, who at the time, maintained a separate identity from locals. It goes without saying, there must have been Sabeans in enough numbers, such that archeology would easily recover this. A main point to be drawn here, is that the notion of ESA inscriptions in both complexes dating to more or less the same era, or as Clyde keeps repeating all day, that ESA in Ehiopia supposedly predate those in Arabia, isn't something that one can dwell on, to say that it couldn't have been South Arabian in origin, in the face of ESA inscriptions written in both Sabean and another unidentified language, presumably of a local Pre-Aksumite.
quote:Yom: ...considering the ancientness of the trade network, it probably is. Perhaps its better to say that we don't have evidence of substantial number of Ethiopians living in Saba, and given the closeness of the cultures at the two time, it would be difficult to differentiate the two in the first place unless an Ethiopian language was used. Regarding "Ethiopic" being used in South Arabia, further excavations will probably reveal that there are such inscriptions, as there was an Ethiopian presence (in the early stages control) in the Tihama, West coast and al-Ma'afir (southwest around Aden).
I don't make conclusions based on what is "better to say" [or sugar-coating to make discussants happy], but what can be said based on available and existing evidence. Reasonable numbers of Sabeans living in the Pre-Aksumite complex works well with the notion of South Arabians having considerable monopoly over the Red Sea trade route in the early 1st millennium. Under such conditions, it is understandable that with reasonable numbers of south Arabian residents in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in addition to the interactions between the Pre-Aksumite complex and the Saba complex, that potential local elites would adopt traditionally South Arabian-used titles of ruling elites, e.g. "mukarrib," strategically to forge closer political ties. There were likely cultural similarities in the region prior to development of either cultural complex; this however, doesn’t negate the fact that experts have been able to identify some elements which were specifically attributed to Sabeans, in the pre-Aksumite complex.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sabaeans certainly originated in Yemen and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, however there has obviously been mutual cultural influence since time immemorial. Regarding the nature of the early complex, it is not really known, so we can't make any conclusions or assumptions. It is my belief that facets of the culture were not imports by either Ethiopia or Saba' (at that time period), but shared inherited culture from an earlier era, based on the antiquity of contacts (e.g. Tihama cultural complex). Even if this is true, however, it still might be possible to ascribe an African or Asian origin on certain cultural traits through examining any predecessor cultural complexes. There's much archaeological work to be done (Aksum, the most excavated site in Ethiopia is only 3% so; Yemen isn't very well-excavated either), however, so much that making conclusions are difficult and very tentative.
Regarding inscriptions, who knows as to pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I was mainly referring to inscriptions between 200 AD and 525 AD, but I wouldn't be surprised if earlier inscriptions are found due to the proximity of the countries and because of trade.
Thank you. Now I see that we are talking about two different time periods.
If you are using epigraphic evidence dating to this late period it is difficult to argue about events taking place almost 1000 years before these inscriptions were written.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I don't make conclusions based on what is "better to say" [or sugar-coating to make discussants happy], but what can be said based on available and existing evidence. Reasonable numbers of Sabeans living in the Pre-Aksumite complex works well with the notion of South Arabians having considerable monopoly over the Red Sea trade route in the early 1st millennium. Under such conditions, it is understandable that with reasonable numbers of south Arabian residents in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in addition to the interactions between the Pre-Aksumite complex and the Saba complex, that potential local elites would adopt traditionally South Arabian-used titles of ruling elites, e.g. "mukarrib," strategically to forge closer political ties. There were likely cultural similarities in the region prior to development of either cultural complex; this however, doesn’t negate the fact that experts have been able to identify some elements which were specifically attributed to Sabeans, in the pre-Aksumite complex.
To claim that the South Arabians domenated the trade is pure speculation at this point given the lack of archaeological and epigraphic evidence from South Arabia, dating to a period earlier than the evidence discovered in Ethiopia. Granted we assume that culture elements such as the politico-religious term such as "mukarrib," is a traditional South Arabian term, yet this can not be proven by the South Arabia evidence which dates to a much later period. The fact that it comes from a later period suggest that the original Sabaeans may have originally lived in Ethiopia and later formed colonies in South Arabia. This suggest to me that Sabaean was a lingua franca in Ethiopia and South Arabia, until the Ethiopians decided to write their inscriptions in Ge'ez. They may have made this switch to differiate themselves from the South Arabias, when they began to worship a different religion.
No matter, I must concede to Supercar that his propositions are supported by most experts so I will leave this debate . It is also clear that Yom is talking about events separated in time by 1000 years and therefore does not correlate to what Supercar is discussing.
I again thank Supercar for providing me with the Fattovich article it really enlightened me about the connections between Nubia and Ethiopia.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oops. I read the "entirely" as referring to Saba' existing in its entirety in the 1st millenium BC (as in it didn't exist after or before), rather than controlling Yemen in its entirety. Nevermind all this. I'm doubtul of the claim of controlling all of Yemen (I don't think Hadramawt was ever conquered before 225 AD), but that's not really pertinent to the discussion. I was just trying to point out what I thought was incorrect for the benefit of all reading.
I am doubtful of your claim that Saba must have only existed in the 1st millennium BC, when it was about this time, they actually had reached their peak, and controlling Red Sea trade routes by the mid-1st millennium as the Fattovich notes point out.
(purposely kept my text) You misunderstood my second comment. I was saying that I misunderstood the quotation as saying that Saba only existed in the 1st millenium BC, so I provided evidence to the contrary. The part you bolded is me explaining what I misunderstood the article as saying. Saba existed from the 8th c. BC to the late 3rd century AD.
quote:We can talk about 'individual' scribers all day, but it has no bearings on the point made about the "pure" Sabean inscriptions being there likely for the benefit of resident Sabeans in the pre-Aksumite complex.
I don't see what relevance any of this has. This argument seems to be about whether the Sabaean inscriptions were for the inscriber himself, or for the local Sabaeans (whose presence I acknowledge). There are no changes in the inscriptions' implications on the central debate whatever the case may be, so let's just drop the discussion.
quote:Certainly a dominating force that is apparently a minority in the region, would use the local languages to get its message across to the locals. However, why would the dominating force not use its own language within its administration, comprising people of the same background? For instance, the American military in Iraq, would naturally have to use Arabic, if they wanted to get their message to the wider Iraqi community. However, it would be impractical for the Americans to speak Arabic amongst fellow minority Americans within the American military and administrative concerns in that region. "Pure" Sabean was used apparently for the benefit of Sabeans in the Pre-Aksumite complex, who at the time, maintained a separate identity from locals. It goes without saying, there must have been Sabeans in enough numbers, such that archeology would easily recover this. A main point to be drawn here, is that the notion of ESA inscriptions in both complexes dating to more or less the same era, or as Clyde keeps repeating all day, that ESA in Ehiopia supposedly predate those in Arabia, isn't something that one can dwell on, to say that it couldn't have been South Arabian in origin, in the face of ESA inscriptions written in both Sabean and another unidentified language, presumably of a local Pre-Aksumite.
Hold on a second. So are you now proposing that D`mt was founded and ruled by Sabaeans who used the presumably Ethiopian language for administration, while the inscriptions in Sabaean were local?
quote:I don't make conclusions based on what is "better to say" [or sugar-coating to make discussants happy], but what can be said based on available and existing evidence. Reasonable numbers of Sabeans living in the Pre-Aksumite complex works well with the notion of South Arabians having considerable monopoly over the Red Sea trade route in the early 1st millennium. Under such conditions, it is understandable that with reasonable numbers of south Arabian residents in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in addition to the interactions between the Pre-Aksumite complex and the Saba complex, that potential local elites would adopt traditionally South Arabian-used titles of ruling elites, e.g. "mukarrib," strategically to forge closer political ties. There were likely cultural similarities in the region prior to development of either cultural complex; this however, doesn’t negate the fact that experts have been able to identify some elements which were specifically attributed to Sabeans, in the pre-Aksumite complex.
"Better to say" simply means "more accurate" in this instance (i.e. not mak[ing] discussants happy"), so you shouldn't have any problem with the phraseology.
As to the rest of your comments, I don't find any fault with them, though I would like a citation on the reason to adopt mukarrib, as I've never heard this proposed before (though there's nothing unexpected or re???? in your description). As a note, however, given the different meaning of mukarrib in Ethiopia and the historical vacuum (regarding royal inscriptions) between D`mt and the 2nd-3rd century AD, however, archaeology may find that the term was used after D`mt, though this has no bearing on the origin of the term.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Change "local" in the "So are you now proposing that D`mt was founded and ruled by Sabaeans who used the presumably Ethiopian language for administration, while the inscriptions in Sabaean were local?" sentence to "for internal administrative matters" (no idea why I wrote local ).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also clear that Yom is talking about events separated in time by 1000 years and therefore does not correlate to what Supercar is discussing.
Er...I wasn't making arguments regarding "Ethiopic" inscriptions in South Arabia. Just making a note clarifying that some may be found later. Apparently everyone takes these notes as either red herrings or actual arguments, however.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
To claim that the South Arabians domenated the trade is pure speculation at this point given the lack of archaeological and epigraphic evidence from South Arabia, dating to a period earlier than the evidence discovered in Ethiopia.
Fattovich has spelt out the indicators for this, and yet you refuse to see it. That is a personal problem you have to deal with. Again, list all the evidence uncovered in South Arabia, and how this relates to your unfounded idea there are no evidence of Sabean complex contemporaneous to Sabean involvement in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in the face of a dose of examples already provided herein to the contrary. If the South Arabians didn't have considerable hold on the Red Sea trade route, explain the linguistic aspect of the inscriptions on both sides of the Red Sea, as I had requested earlier.
quote:Clyde: Granted we assume that culture elements such as the politico-religious term such as "mukarrib," is a traditional South Arabian term, yet this can not be proven by the South Arabia evidence which dates to a much later period.
See post above, about your need to fulfill the outstanding requests, pertaining to evidence.
quote:Clyde:
The fact that it comes from a later period suggest that the original Sabaeans may have originally lived in Ethiopia and later formed colonies in South Arabia.
The actual fact is, that you have no foundations for this claim whatsoever.
quote:Clyde: This suggest to me that Sabaean was a lingua franca in Ethiopia and South Arabia, until the Ethiopians decided to write their inscriptions in Ge'ez.
"Pure" Sabean language was the first language of Sabeans. The same cannot be said of the Pre-Aksumites.
quote:Clyde:
They may have made this switch to differiate themselves from the South Arabias, when they began to worship a different religion.
As the experts cited here have pointed out, it doesn't appear that the "inscriptional" distinctly-identifiable Sabeans, appeared so, for more than a century. There was clearly Sabeans sporting their separate identity at the early periods of the "Sabean" influenced Pre-Aksumite complex. You find it convenient to simply ignore Stuart's point about these folks maintaining contact with their fellow Sabeans in the Saba complex, while not addressing it.
quote:Clyde: No matter, I must concede to Supercar that his propositions are supported by most experts so I will leave this debate .
In other words, you know that your arguments are at large based on wishful thinking rather than material.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: (purposely kept my text) You misunderstood my second comment. I was saying that I misunderstood the quotation as saying that Saba only existed in the 1st millenium BC, so I provided evidence to the contrary. The part you bolded is me explaining what I misunderstood the article as saying. Saba existed from the 8th c. BC to the late 3rd century AD.
Ok.
quote:Yom:
I don't see what relevance any of this has. This argument seems to be about whether the Sabaean inscriptions were for the inscriber himself, or for the local Sabaeans (whose presence I acknowledge). There are no changes in the inscriptions' implications on the central debate whatever the case may be, so let's just drop the discussion.
On the contrary, I do see the relevance of "pure" Sabean being identified along side some other language, not too different from Sabean, in the Pre-Aksumite complex. The "argument" you point out, is your argument.
quote:Yom:
Hold on a second. So are you now proposing that D`mt was founded and ruled by Sabaeans who used the presumably Ethiopian language for administration, while the inscriptions in Sabaean were local?
Nope. I meant what I said, within the context in what stated.
quote:Yom:
"Better to say" simply means "more accurate" in this instance (i.e. not mak[ing] discussants happy"), so you shouldn't have any problem with the phraseology.
In that case, let me put it this way; that is what I do, say things "more accurately" based on available material and evidence.
quote:Yom:
As to the rest of your comments, I don't find any fault with them, though I would like a citation on the reason to adopt mukarrib, as I've never heard this proposed before (though there's nothing unexpected or re???? in your description).
Fitting pieces together, by recalling on:
From Fattovich:
"The late second and early first millennia BC were marked by the decline of Egyptian power, and the rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush in Nubia, and the kingdoms in southwest Arabia.. **Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians**, but it is possible , however, that the Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak under the control of the kingdom of Saba. At this time, the pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat was surely an important partner of Saba.…
In the early first millennium BC, the South Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba. That contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial center and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara.
In the late first millennium BC, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed. The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms,…" - Fattovich, 2002.
From Munro-Hay:
“The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have **kept in contact with their own country**, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to **maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.** Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first, and nagashi (najashi) or negus later; no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known…” - Munro-Hay
quote:Yom: As a note, however, given the different meaning of mukarrib in Ethiopia and the historical vacuum (regarding royal inscriptions) between D`mt and the 2nd-3rd century AD, however, archaeology may find that the term was used after D`mt, though this has no bearing on the origin of the term.
There is certainly no evidence of these titles making their way into the Aksumite complex, as Munro-Hay notes.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does the presence of Sabaeans explain the frequency of haplotype J in Ethiopia?
Also, if mtDNA haplotype N1a as an African marker which is found in Ethiopians is also found in Yemenis, what is the male y-chromosomal haplotype to correspond with it?? Since E3b in small frequencies and in a very derived form.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ran across some very interesting information in an article on Akkele Guzay in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (I modified the transliteration a little bit for simplicity):
Rock inscriptions dating from the 9th cent. B.C. have been recorded at `Ungulle, Tokonda, Kilitte `Afa, La`lay `Addi, Ruba Kodo, Ziban Mororo, Gobo Fintsih, Deqanamo, Saro, Mt. Awalo, Da`ru, `Addi Alawti, Met'era, Edit, Dibdib, Fiqya and Berekit. They are mostly Epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions, but also include inscriptions in unvocalized and vocalized Ge'ez[Gi'iz using my above simplifications]. These inscriptions in particular show the progressive development of the Ethiopic script from the South Arabian prototype.
From the wording its clear that by "Ge'ez," the alphabet and not language is meant, and it seems certain that Ge'ez is a descendent from the earlier ESA script. The date is very interesting however, as it precedes any other date I've seen for Epigraphic South Arabian anywhere (Minaic inscriptions are first attested from some time in the 8th c. B.C. and Sabaic from the turn of the century to the 7th c. B.C.).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So does the presence of Sabaeans explain the frequency of haplotype J in Ethiopia?
Doesn't seem to. Almost all J lineages in Ethiopia are J-M267 (without the identified Middle Eastern motif) from the Neolithic and not historic times.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^So exactly what's the difference between the form of J Ethiopians have and those carried by Arabians??
I thought J haplotypes in Ethiopia are attributed to migrations from Arabia.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the E3b thread (Semino et al. 2004), the J haplotypes are J-M267 (in Ethiopia ~33%) and arrived in the Neolithic, while Middle Eastern Haplotypes tend to be J-M172 (in Ethiopia ~2%). Moreover, most of the Middle Eastern J-M267 haplotypes (>70%) are characterized by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22, which is found "sporadically" in Europe and "much less frequent[ly]" in Ethiopia. Unfortunately he doesn't give percentages.
J arrived ultimately from the Middle East of course, but during the Neolithic and tied to the spread of Agriculture, not Sabaeans.
According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The TD of the two sister clades J-M267 and J-M172 was estimated, with V0 = 0, and turned out to be 31.7 ky (see phylogeny in fig. 2). This estimate, however, is not easily interpretable, because such old haplogroups are differently represented in different regions where they probably underwent multiple bottlenecks. The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations. In the absence of additional binary polymorphisms allowing further informative subdivision of J-M267, the YCAII microsatellite system provides important insights. The majority of J-M267 Y chromosomes harbor the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the Middle East (>70%) and in North Africa (>90%), whereas this association is **much less frequent** in Ethiopia and only sporadically found in southern Europe...
Given this little piece of info, the possibility of some of these J-M267 chromosomes bearing the said motif, i.e. YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 alleles, arriving in varying time frames during the historic period - perhaps coinciding with Arabian (from Arabian peninsula) migrations, cannot be ruled out. Now of course, one can always provide the specifics for these J-M267 lineages found in the African Horn, so as to be able to gauge the extent of variation between the YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 bearing J-M267 chromosomes in the African Horn and those in southwest Asian groups. For a general idea about the J distribution, courtesy of Semino et al., we have:
……
Other J-M267 not bearing the said single-banded motif, along with J-M172 lineages in Ethiopian samples, may reflect relatively more ancient arrivals than the chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif. The chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif, may well include dispersions brought about by migrating southwest Asians into the region spanning the historic period.
Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....
2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.
I mentioned on one of these threads before that according to Bekerie, according to three Ethiopian historical documents, i.e. 1)the "Kibra Negast", 2)"The Mystery of Heaven and Earth", and 3)____(I forgot the third), the language of Geez is a language of the house of Ham...............This is important cause these are primary documents that attest to the origin of the language. It is important that the writers of the language spoke about it origin coming from "Ham".
On the other hand, I don't really care IF(notice that I said "IF", cause if the oldest Sabean inscriptions are from Ethiopia, then Ethiopia would be the origination of the language we now dub "Sabean") Geez came from Sabean cause the Sabean civilization came from Kush(who was a son of Ham, of course). I posted some of this info. on another thread. It is about the Bibilcal sons of Kush, and how most of Kush's sons acutually founded Arabian civilization, including Sabean. Here it is:
According to Genesis 10:7,8, it says, "The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush became the father of Nimrod.........."
So, according to the Hebrew Bible, Kush(or Cush......whatever) had six sons. Most of these sons(and grand sons) are link, or identified with, parts of Arabia. This includes:
1)Havilah. Havilah is a place located somewhere in Arabia, but there are no specifics.........However, some Bibilical scholars say that Havilah may be used in regard to the entire land of Arabia........
2)Sabtah. The people of Sabtah were located in Arabia. Sabtah has been identified with Sabota, the cheif city of the land of Hadramaut(the Hazarmaveth of Gen. 10:26) on the south coast of Arabia. It is well established that Cushite people did extend their presence across the Red Sea from Nubia northeastward over the Arabian Peninsula.
3) Raamah. The placement of Raamah in Arabia is beyond dispute. But where exactly in Arabia is the question. Raamah has been identified both with Rhegma located in east Arabia and with Ragmat, a central town in northern Yemen; the latter being mentioned in Miaean and Sabean inscriptions. On the other hand, based on its association with Sheba and Dedan, Raamah could have been located in Northern Arabia. A strong position states that Raamah appears to reference a location in Southwestern Arabia near Maan. If this identification is correct the list of tribes in Genesis 10:7 PROCEEDS FROM THE AFRICAN TO THE ASIATIC SIDE OF THE RED SEA............
3a)Sheba. Sheba appears not only in Ham's genealogical line, but also in Shem's as a descendent of Joktan(Gen. 10:28). Hence, Sheba apparently represents an interconnection between Hamitic and Semitic peoples. In Cush's genealogical line, "Sheba", descended from Raamah, is a reference to Saba and are the SABEANS IN YEMEN.......
3b)Dedan. Dedan, the other descendant of Raamah, was located in northwestern Arabia along the Red Sea. The name oocus in South Arabic inscriptions. Dedan was an important tribe controlling caravan routes between South and North Arabia.
4)Sabteca. Sabteca was the fifth son of Cush. His name is thought to have passed on to a southeastern Arabian locality. It has not been certainly identified......
If you guys are wondering where I got this info from, I got it from, "The Black Biblical Presence in the Bible and the Table of Nations" by Rev. Walter McCray. Get the book and check the sources. He seems very accurate to me......
Real quick, he quoted a book by Rea called, "The Nations" on pg. 377. The quote is, ".........the Al Amran tribe of Arabia calls the region of Zebid in the Yemen by the name of Kush."
What is the significance of this you may ask? Well, including the linguistic evidence given by many of the scholars on this forum, even the Bible itself speaks about the Cushite foundation of Arabian civilization! The Biblical evidence suggests that the descendents of Kush branched out, leaving Africa and crossing over the Red Sea into Arabia. The Sabeans came from Cush(hence me not worrying about the Sabean language influencing Ethiopia because Sabeans came from the lineage of Ham through Cush. In other words, Sabean civilization was Kushite). If you don't believe, do the research. There are plently of commentaries on the Bible, not to mention lots of research done through Biblical archealogy that will back up these facts.
Well Supercar, what is your reponse to my questions and to the information that I posted? I am curious to see what you will say.....
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....
I haven't read the entire book, but I read some parts of the book through Google books to check it out a while back and it made a lot of obviously false claims. A lot of it is interesting regarding parts not related to Ge'ez's origin (much of the book deals with other subject matters), but those areas related to its origins are either based in Biblical arguments or outlandish ones. Moreover, where there is evidence to support a certain view that he espouses, he tends to ignore the important archaeological evidence and makes use of less substantial or even inconsequential pieces of evidence.
quote:2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.
According to Norbert Nebes, the earliest in SA are from some time in the 8th c. BC (from Ma'in). Fattovich refers to 9th c. BC inscriptions, but without detail, so we do not know if the method involved also pushes back the dates of scripts in SA, but that does seem to be the case. Hopefully even earlier inscriptions can be found to clear up its derivation from proto-Sinaitic.
quote:I mentioned on one of these threads before that according to Bekerie, according to three Ethiopian historical documents, i.e. 1)the "Kibra Negast", 2)"The Mystery of Heaven and Earth", and 3)____(I forgot the third), the language of Geez is a language of the house of Ham...............This is important cause these are primary documents that attest to the origin of the language. It is important that the writers of the language spoke about it origin coming from "Ham".
The Kibre Negest is a 13th century document* and the Metshafe Mist'ir (Book of Mystery, also known by its longer name(s)) is a 1424 work. You cannot rely on data this late for the "origins" of Ge'ez. If it's the name "Semitic" that's bothering you, then call it something else. Call it "Hamitic" or even "Puntite" ala Winters if it'd make you feel better. It's not the name that matters, but the classification. You need to stop ascribing modern terms for language families so much value. The Cushitic language family, for instance, has nothing to do with the Biblical Cush unless it is found that the language of the Kingdom of Kush would be classified as what is today called "Cushitic."
*As far as we know. It may predate it by a couple centuries, as there's (contemporary) evidence of the myth even before the Zagwe, but I can't find the citation right now.
quote:On the other hand, I don't really care IF(notice that I said "IF", cause if the oldest Sabean inscriptions are from Ethiopia, then Ethiopia would be the origination of the language we now dub "Sabean") Geez came from Sabean cause the Sabean civilization came from Kush(who was a son of Ham, of course).
The Ge'ez alphabet came from ESA, but not the Ge'ez language. See Weninger, Stefan "Ge'ez" in von Uhlig, ed., Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005, p.732:
"Ge'ez is not, as was stated by earlier researchers, an offshoot of Old South Arabian (Appleyard 1996)."
quote:Real quick, he quoted a book by Rea called, "The Nations" on pg. 377. The quote is, ".........the Al Amran tribe of Arabia calls the region of Zebid in the Yemen by the name of Kush."
Doesn't suprise me. Tihama inhabitants tend to be pretty dark. Here's a couple of examples:
posted
Geez isn't an offshoot of Sabean.......cool .
Concerning my use of terminologies, well, it is what it is. The fact that linguists from the past and present use Biblical terminology to describe all of these various languages is sufficient enough to prove that usage of the term "Ham" or "Kush" isn't out of place.......Again, I am not saying that the primary sources(Kibra Negast and others) are evidence concerning the origin of the language, but I am saying that you have to take into account the fact that the ancient scholars of the language proclaimed that Geez came from "Ham". Yom, my friend, you cannot tell me that that isn't significant on some type of level. I could seriously write a book concerning its importance........
Concerning Fattovich, I hope he is right. If there is more detail to his discovery, that would smash a serious hole into the "Sebean theory". Too bad he didn't provide more detail. Again, hopefully in the future more things will be unveiled and revealed.
Concerning Bekerie, well Yom, you and Supercar need to acutually go to the local library and read the book! That is my opinion. I haven't read the whole entire book in terms of every word, but I flipped through it beginning to end, and I can truly say that I grasp alot more of it than either one of you guys. So to say that he is misinformed when you haven't even really read most of what he wrote is not good scholarship in my opinion. I feel that before you smash this guy's stuff and label it as inaccurate, you should go and read it. I think the book is quite interesting in that it gives a different angle concerning the language called Geez. Even if you don't agree with it, it is still interesting. His quotes from Martin Delany were intriguing.......see what I'm saying? Martin Delany, contemporary of Frederick Douglass(and very Afrocentric.......back in the 1860s!), wrote a book concerning the Egyptian and Ethiopian languages. I don't remember the exact quotes that Bekerie uses, but it is interesting. My single point is: READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE IT!
Here is a critique of Bekerie's book, and Bekerie's RESPONSE to the critique. Here it is:
Editorial: African Writing Systems
By Gloria Emeagwali - Chief Editor
Vai, Bamum, Nsibi, Mande and Ajimi are significant West African writing systems of indigenous origin. In Northeast Africa, the now extinct ancient Egyptian writing systems coexisted with the Nubian Meroitic and Ethiopic writing systems.
In this issue of Africa Update, Dr. Ayele Bekerie of Cornell University reflects on the latter writing system. He argues that there are fundamental connections between the spiritual beliefs, language and writing system of precolonial ancient Egypt
This issue also contains a review of Ayele Bekerie's Ethiopic: An African System (Red Sea Press, 1997). The reviewer, David Zerbe, examines some of Bekerie's basic propositions in a provocative analysis. We asked Dr. bekerie to respond to Zerbe's critique and received a lucid and scholarly clarification on issues such as the syllabic nature of Ethiopic; distortions and misceptions in Ethiopian historiography; connections between the Puntites, ancient Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians; and the interconnections between the Agau language, Ge'ez, and Ethiopian writing systems in general.
Bekerie's comments about the Puntites provide insights into the ethnic composition of ancient Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. He points out that the Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origins as themselves. Pharaoh Hatshepsut's diplomatic overturesto punt are cited.there is the consideration that the land of Punt should not be restricted to the domain of the Isaak clan of Somaliland, but includes also sections of the Ethiopian highlands. Bekerie identifies this region as lying between Suwakin in the North and the Cape of Guardafui.in the Southeast.
There is also,a clarification of the Kebra Nagast and its significance in Ethiopian history as well as its relevance to the Solomonic dynasty. Recent excavations by Boston University archeologists in conjunction with their Ethiopian counterparts illuminate various dimensions of ancient Ethiopia. Bekerie's research into the cultural and literary dimensions of Ethiopia's scripts are significant for ancient Africa in general and more specifically the history of writing and written documents in Northeast Africa.
We have included in this issue another installment of Haines Brown's series on wireless digital communications in Africa.
We have taken note of forthcoming conferences on Africa in Japan, Moscow, and Latvia, and included as well Shauna Brown's comments on Hollywood's African-Americans. We thank all the contributors to this issue.
Writing could be simply defined as a representation of speech and thoughts through various forms of sound images or graphs. A writing system, then, is a conventional and principled way of actualizing activity and thoughts, such as languages, natural science, theology, commerce, and aesthetics.
It is our contention that writing systems are more than a technological tool to languages. Most of our understandings of writing systems are generally confined to linguistics and languages. Close and careful examination of writing systems, from Ethiopic to Vai, from Cretan to Meroitic, from Han'gul to Latin, reveals layers of knowledge beyond language and linguistics. It could be argued that the study of writing systems may provide a new approach to knowledge creations, organizations, and disseminations. Writing Systems are, indeed, rich sources of human intellectual activities, such as history, philosophy, social order, psychology, and aesthetics.
The Quipus of the Incas of South America, for instance, show parallel features with some of the thought patterns, organizations, and utilizations of the ancient Egyptian writing system. Further, the Dravidian writing system of southern India also appears to share parallelism in shapes or sign structures with the Easter Island Rongo- Rongo writing system, perhaps suggesting historical continuity between South Asia and the Americas much earlier than the Columbus era.
The Meroitic writing system of the Kushites of the Sudan uses two or three dots as word separators, just like the extant Ethiopic writing system, thereby suggesting a link between the two writing systems in the Abbay-Atbara river complex. The Institute for the Study of African Writing Systems was established in order to systematically compile, categorize, analyze, and interpret the various forms of writing in Africa. Writing systems are not only facilitators of speech and communication, they are also tools in the creation and utilization of knowledge systems, such as philosophy, astronomy, and numbers.
There were many different writing systems in Africa. The writing systems were and still are, a reflection of various philosophies [thought processes] found in African cultures and civilizations. Language, to an African mind is part of your spirituality. Spirituality is a way of life based on a society's belief systems and moral values as they relate to a higher being. Your spirituality cannot be separated from your being. Egyptians believed that God is everything and everything is God as did many other Africans, not the idea that God is just in everything. Spirituality is also the relationship between you and your ancestors. When a person dies, the "spirit" returns to a higher being. Your ancestors then become your link with that higher being. Symbolism is a way of expressing that spirituality through individual aspects of your culture. Therefore spiritual symbolism implies your relationship with a higher being and your ancestors who are parts of the higher being through the individual aspects of your culture in everyday life. Much of the texts written by Egyptian scribes were attached to an Egyptian spiritual belief system.
The Egyptian Language
The language consisted of approximately 121 bi-literals, 75 tri-literals, and various determinants and phonetic complements. The bi-literals were individual symbols which expressed two sounds and the tri-literals were individual symbols which expressed three sounds. Phonetic complements were monoliterals found in front of and/or behind multi-consonantal signs in order to provide clarity and also to complete the meaning of the word. They normally repeated sounds already found in the word, but had no separate sound value.
Special attention was given to the aesthetics of the language. The sentences were not written with one individual symbol after another. All words took a quadrangular form which some scholars call the square principle; the symbols were placed in an imaginary square and the upper ones took precedence over the lower. The language was generally written from right to left except for occasional specific purposes. The determinants were symbols which had no sound value and were used at the end of the word to decipher the meaning between two words with the same symbols. The determinant normally came at the end of the word and demonstrated the meaning of the entire word. Many of the determinants which were added to the words (sometimes more than one per word) did not seem to be relevant to the word's meaning to most European scholars, but I will show that there is a connection between the language and the spiritual beliefs of the people who spoke the language.
These symbols, "Medu Netcher" [Mdw Ntr], cannot be understood without understanding African spirituality and African spirituality cannot be understood without understanding Medu Netcher. The language had to be deciphered in two ways; first it had to be transliterated from symbols to orthographic text and then translated into English.
Ethiopic Writing System
Ethiopic is an African Writing System designed as a meaningful and graphic representation of knowledge. It is a component of the African Knowledge Systems and one of the signal contributions made by Africans to world history and cultures. It is created to holistically symbolize and locate the cultural and historical parameters of the Ethiopian people. The System, in its classic state, has a total of 182 syllographs, which are arranged in seven columns, each column containing 26 syllographs. Ethiopic is a knowledge system because it is brilliantly organized to represent philosophical features, such as ideography, mnemonics, syllography, astronomy, and grammatology. To view the Ethiopic numeric system visit the following site: http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems/Geez.html
Ayele Bekerie, Ethiopic, An African Writing System
(Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, 1997. Pp. 176, $18.95 paperback)
Reviewed by David S. Zerbe
As the title of the book suggests, this study examines the origins and history of the system of writing called Ethiopic, from which the first language in Ethiopia formed was Ge'ez , today the liturgical writing system of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. This fact, however, is never articulated in the text. Nor is there a discussion as to how other offshoots of the Ethiopic system of writing were established, such as Tigre, Tittering, or Amharic, and these are but two of the deficiencies in this text. The introduction establishes the conceptual framework of the study.
The conceptual framework is based on "locational theory." Ayele Bekerie postulates that the roots of the writing system of Ethiopic, as a system of knowledge, is an endogenous creation. What is theorized by Bekerie is that there is an endogenous flavor regarding causality between the Ethiopic writing system and Ethiopian civilization itself, i.e. that both are indigenous to Africa, and that the Ethiopic writing system is an effect of the establishment of an indigenous Ethiopian civilization, indigenous to Africa and not from South Arabia. Ayele Bekerie in fact refutes the South Arabia historiographic paradigm, which hypothesizes that the roots of Ethiopic as a writing system are contained in the Sabaean civilization's writing system, which emanated in South Arabia from the area of what today comprises the state of Yemen, and according to some historians was transplanted through commercial activity across the Red Sea to what is today the Eritrean coast and Ethiopian hiqhlands.
From this theoretical model, Ayele Bekerie commences with the first of a four chapter text. He attempts to examine Ethiopian historiography in the context of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Bekerie argues that the genesis of Ethiopian civilization itself is not of Semitic origin, that this is in fact a synthesis of 19th century Eurocentric historiography, which still remains in place today. The argument continues that Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa.
Besides secondary source information which shows commercial relations to have existed between Egypt and the "land of Punt" from 2743 BCE, there is no primary-source data, no linkage to the claim of Puntites establishing themselves in what is today Ethiopia, and no mention that Puntite and Sabaean civilizations could have coexisted in the highlands of what is today Ethiopia. Further, he does not establish that the Puntite peoples are the original inhabitants of Ethiopia and, if assumed the Puntites are the original inhabitants of the Ethiopian highlands, Bekerie does not effectively argue that Ethiopic as a writing system had its origins with the Puntites. It is commonly held to be the case in the historiography of the Horn of Africa that the Puntites today are the ancestors of peoples from the Isaak clan in what is now the de facto state of Somaliland.
Regarding Egypt, Bekerie also attempts to link the writing systems of Ethiopic and ancient Egypt, but cannot explain why there is a system of hieroglyphics in Egypt and not in Ethiopia, and consequently he fails to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and ancient Egyptian writing systems. There is only cursory mention of the relationship between Coptic and Ge'ez scriptures. Even without any evidence or with scant evidence, Ayele Bekerie is bent on arguing that Ethiopic is not of Semitic origin, but of African origin, but does come to the conclusion in the second chapter that the origins of Ethiopic and of Ethiopian civilization itself are to date still indeterminable.
Ayele Bekerie moves forward and discusses in some detail the principles of Ethiopic as a writing system. He establishes this discussion on the premise that the writing system of Ethiopic is actually a philosophy, because the ideographical iconography of the Ethiopic alphabet is conducive in generating knowledge, such as beliefs and concepts. Though he does not address the relationship between linguistics and the philosophical knowledge directly, he establishes that The Ethiopic Book of Henok, written in the BC era in Ge'ez, is not only a religious text but a philosophical one as well.
Throughout chapters three and four, Ayele Bekerie demonstrates the significance of Ethiopic as a writing system through Abyssinian literature, such as the Book of Enoch, and the legendary epic tale Kebra Nagast. This book was written in the time of Amda-Tsion in the 14th century, but this pertinent information is not included in the text. This tale of Solomon and Sheba helped lead to the consolidation of the Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia until 1974 by claiming that Menelik I was the son of the two, thereby directly relating Ethiopia to King Solomon. The literary and historiographic magnitude of this on the system of personal rule in Ethiopia is neglected. It does show, however, that the Ethiopic writing system in the form of Ge'ez has produced a number of culturally significant works.
Ayele Bekerie concludes the text with the convincing argument that Ethiopic, whether the roots are indigenous to the Puntites and spread to the Ethiopian highlands, or whether Ethiopic as a writing system originated from South Arabia in the BC era and became extinct there, is an African writing system by virtue of the fact that Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya, and Tigre directly correlate with the Ethiopic writing system. To end the tome, the author poses questions for his next work, many of which are not addressed here, such as the relationship between a writing system and a philosophical system of knowledge, why and how 19th century archaeologists discovered evidence linking Ethiopic to Semitic origins in South Arabia, or the process of extinction and resurrection of writing systems.
The text entitled Ethiopic decisively demonstrates that there is a great literary tradition in Ethiopia, and as such the third and fourth chapters carry the strongest arguments of the study. Paradoxically perhaps, the greatest strength of Ayele Bekerie's argument is also its greatest weakness, other than clinging to the notion that Ethiopic is not Semitic in origin. Though thoroughly demonstrating that through Ethiopic there has been a rich cultural, literary, and religious tradition among the languages associated with Ge'ez, such as Tigre, Tigrinya, and Amharic, this is only true among the Christian highlanders of Tigrinyan, Tigrean, and Amhara ethnicities.
Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, Gojjame, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin. They are of Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic origin, respectively. As such, they do not conform to this linguistic and cultural model, for the aforementioned ethnic groups combined comprise over 50% of present-day Ethiopia's population. As such, the Ethiopic writing system, a system imposed on the predominantly Muslim Somali and Oromo peoples through the system of imperialist Amhara personal rule from the 19th century, has ended with the EPRDF government in Ethiopia, from 1991 to the present. Ethiopic, even if not Semitic in origin, certainly is not of Cushitic, Omotic, or Nilo-Saharan origin.
Prof. David Zerbe is a graduate of Central Connecticut State University and the American University at Cairo.
Thank you for inviting me to send you a rejoinder to the review of my book by David S. Zerbe.
First of all, I commend Mr. Zerbe for taking his time to review the book. The review seems to concentrate on paradigmatic issues that are addressed from the perspective of the old school. According to this school, the origin of the Ethiopian civilization, its writing system, its classical language are presumed to have external origin. True to the old school, the reviewer continued to divide the Ethiopian people by identifying the Ethiopic writing system with the "Semitic" people of the northern part of Ethiopia, thereby continuing to pursue a racist divisive theory, between the so-called Semitic and Hamitic peoples of the Horn of Africa.
Contrary to the claim that "imperial Amhara's imposition" of their language and FIDEL writing system (a modified and expanded Ethiopic writing system developed for Amharic) on non-Amharas, the people of the south, just to cite one example, chose Amharic after 1991, as their official language together with FIDEL. In other words, Amharic is no longer the imperial language; it is a language the majority of the Ethiopian people opted to have as their official language. Besides the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in Ethiopia, they do have constitutional rights to use their languages as major modes of communication and commerce in their geo-cultural regions.
It seems to me that apart from presenting a general description of the format of the text as well as some critical and valuable comments, the review does not thoroughly interrogate the "history and principles" of the Ethiopic writing system, which is the central defining theme of the book. This point became apparent to me when Mr. Zerbe referred to the Ethiopic writing system as an "alphabet." The Ethiopic is not an alphabet; it is a syllabic writing system. As a matter of fact, I suggested a term "syllography" in order to reflect the syllabic feature of the system. I wonder how such a critical distinction ended up being overlooked by the reviewer.
In Chapter 1 on "The Arabian Peninsula in Ethiopian Historiography," I clearly stated my positions:
"The most critical question that must be raised is: What is the logic of beginning a history of a people from a source other than their own? Are Ethiopians incapable of making their own history? A history of a people that begins with an external source is quite problematic. It would not be the history of the Ethiopian people, but the history of South Arabians in Ethiopia. A history of a people cannot begin from outside or by outsiders. History records the material and spiritual cultures of all peoples. All people make history. All people are of history." (p.38)
This is the principle that I followed throughout the text. The purpose of my study was to investigate the historical data regarding the Ethiopic writing system, primarily from within and to present an interpretation of the history, fully cognizant of the languages, the cultures, and experiences of the people of Ethiopia.
In one of his critical comments, Mr. Zerbe wrote: ". . . Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa." The "migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt" was not my idea. I see migration, in the African context, with its varying and vast ecological zones as multidirectional and the initial migration was probably from the south to Upper and Lower Egypt.
Punt is a term the Ancient Egyptians reportedly used for the people of the south. The coastal region of northeast Africa, roughly between today's Red Sea port of Suwakin in the north, and the Cape of Guardafui in the southeast, was known to the ancient Egyptians as the land of the Punt, the land of spices, incense, and deities. "The Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origin as the Egyptian themselves. The physical characteristics of the Punts from the wall-picture of Deir el-Bahri, based on studies made, differ little from the Egyptians' physical attributes. Zayed (1990) attempted to limit the geographical locale of Punts to Somaliland; he cited the similarity of the term BARCHI or headdress both in Somali and ancient Egyptian language. Zayed perhaps did not know that round seats with three legs are also called BARCHUMA in the Amharic and Oromo languages of Ethiopia." (p. 53)
At least from the time of the V Dynasty, there was a reference to the Land of the Punt. "In the XVIII Dynasty, Pharaoh Hatshepsut sent Nehasi to Punt with five ships. He was accepted by the Punt king Perehu. All Godly fragrant woods of God's land was presented by the Queen to Amon." (p.53) The Godly fragrant woods, such as incense woods are found on the highlands of Ethiopia. In other words, the land of Punt cannot be restricted to the "Isaak clan" in Somaliland.
Regarding the question of pictographic writing systems, Mr. Zerbe was quick to point out my "failure to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and Ancient Egyptian writing systems." While it is true that comparable pictographic writing system to Egyptian hieroglyphics are not yet found in Ethiopia, the Ethiopic writing system definitely displays pictographic and ideographic properties. (Please see the part on the "Description and Analysis of the Major Properties of the System, pp. 82-96, particularly Table 13 on p. 85.)
According to Mr. Zerbe, the epic tale of KEBRA NAGAST (THE GLORY OF KINGS) "was written in the time of Amda-Tsion [1312- 1342A.D.] in the 14th century." King Amde-Tsion was not the "restorer' of the Solomonic line of rule. Saint Takla Haymanot in the reign of Yekuno Amlak (1268-1283) is recognized in Ethiopian history with gratitude and reverence as the "restorer of the Solomonic line of rule," with its capital moving out of Aksum to Shoa, in the central part of present day Ethiopia.
It is important to note here that Ethiopians as sovereign and free people had cultural and economic relations with various peoples and states of the ancient as well as medieval world, including the Israelites, Romans, Syrians, Egyptians, Nubians, and Yemenites. These relations partly involved significant cultural exchanges and adoptions. The mythology of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon should be seen in the context of cultural exchanges.
In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Zerbe wrote: "Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, GOJJAME, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin." (Emphasis added.) First of all, as it is stated at the outset, Ethiopic refers to the Ge'ez writing system. The book is not about Fidel or the Amharic writing system. Fidel and Amharic language are now widely used by choice among the peoples of southern Ethiopia, whose indigenous languages include "Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic groupings!!"
The Oromos have opted to use Latin script for Orominya and the script is widely used in the Oromo region. As I stated in the book, the Oromo language could have found a sounder script in the Ethiopic system for the system has already addressed the question of explosive and implosive sounds that are found in most Ethiopian languages, including Orominya and Amarinya (pp.94-96).
As to the Gojjames, I am not sure if Mr. Zerbe has the information right. Gojjam is one of the most important centers of Ge'ez and Amharic literary traditions and scholarship. Gojjam is also home to the Agaus, one of the most ancient peoples of Ethiopia. The Agau language is believed to be older than Ge'ez and yet it contributed quite significantly to the development of both Ge'ez and Amharic languages. A quick glance of Table 21 (Major Centers of Quine [Poetry]) would have prevented the hasty and wrongful generalization.
To conclude: The Ethiopic writing system's elaborate and complex knowledge properties, such as philosophy, linguistics, and aesthetics, which are indigenous only in Ethiopia, and the arduous processes associated with the creation and perfection of a writing system, make the external hypothesis very difficult to accept. Moreover, the system is truly self-sustaining and autonomous production. All the components of the knowledge were produced within the country -from goat skins to inks to ideas. Finally, Ethiopic is of African origin.
Professor Ayele Bekerie is in the African Studies Program at Cornell University
2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.
Israel you have just mentioned one of the reasons why Eurocentricts hate the fact that the Slaves learned how to read. A cursory reading of the history books in the Bible make it clear that Blacks founded the first civilizations. This is what makes your statement both valid and reliable.
quote:Concerning my use of terminologies, well, it is what it is. The fact that linguists from the past and present use Biblical terminology to describe all of these various languages is sufficient enough to prove that usage of the term "Ham" or "Kush" isn't out of place.......Again, I am not saying that the primary sources(Kibra Negast and others) are evidence concerning the origin of the language, but I am saying that you have to take into account the fact that the ancient scholars of the language proclaimed that Geez came from "Ham". Yom, my friend, you cannot tell me that that isn't significant on some type of level. I could seriously write a book concerning its importance........
These names were coined in the 19th century because they thought that divisions of languages were tied to ethnicity and they took the names from the Bible because Hebrew was described as a descendent of Shem. They really do not have that much importance. That "Ge'ez came from Ham" is important only in that medieval Ethiopian historiographers (and probably the common people) thought of "Ham" as representing Africans and "Shem/Sem" as representing Arabs. It doesn't mean that Ge'ez shouldn't be classified with Arabic, Hebrew, Ugaritic, etc. as a member of the same language family.
quote:Concerning Fattovich, I hope he is right. If there is more detail to his discovery, that would smash a serious hole into the "Sebean theory". Too bad he didn't provide more detail. Again, hopefully in the future more things will be unveiled and revealed.
Fattovich isn't exactly against the Sabaean theory. He believes that Sabaeans migrated to Ethiopia in the 9th century instead and mixed with the local populace to create a ruling Ethio-Arabian class ala Kenya.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....
The question should rather be, whether you have objective linguistic rebuttals to Mr. Daniels' assessments. I think it's safe to say that, you don't.
quote:Isreal:
2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why?
...because I have seen no evidence of such - for instance, whereby ESA had been found in only a local "Ethiopic" language, barring inscriptions in South Arabian language. Please don't tell me that you hadn't been paying any attention the exchanges that had already taken place here.
quote:Isreal:
Concerning Bekerie, well Yom, you and Supercar need to acutually go to the local library and read the book! That is my opinion. I haven't read the whole entire book in terms of every word, but I flipped through it beginning to end, and I can truly say that I grasp alot more of it than either one of you guys.
I suggest that before you recommend anything to others, you ought to first practice as you preach. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Super is right, Israel. Stop grasping in the dark and replacing FACTS with wishful thinking.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I must say that I once WAS almost impressed by your knowledge. Now I see that you can be silly for no reason at all. All I am saying is that if you are going to use authoritatively the words of Mr. Daniels concerning the work of Bekerie, perhaps you should acutually READ Bekerie's work. Isn't that logical? Isn't that just simply "Basic science/schlarship"? Since your such the big "scholar", perhaps you should read the book to expand your knowledge base and have a TRUE basis upon which to attack Bekerie's credibility, i.e. you ought to use PRIMARY RESOURCES instead of SECONDARY sources. Again, this is what is taught in undergraduate studies.......you did go to school, right??????
Also, concerning my reading of the book, no, I didn't read every single page, but I read MOST OF IT! So please don't be a fool.... Your are rejecting what Bekerie thesis on account of what you have learned through Daniel's critique, and you haven't read what he had to say himself. As you probably know, Daniels is biased. He is so biased I personally am disgusted by it. So how the hell are you supposed to have an even handed understanding of Bekerie when the SECONDARY SOURCE(already illegitimate cause it isn't the primary source) is full of bias?.
And in case you can't get a hold of his book at this moment, above(my previous post) I provided you with a link of a critique of his book, and HIS REBUTTAL. Do yourself a favor and don't mention Daniels or Bekerie again in this instance unless you have gone to the library and read Bekerie's book.
Concerning the Sabean inscriptions, see your blinding yourself to the possibilites. Again, if the EARLIEST Sabean script is found in Ethiopia, why couldn't Ethiopians be the inventers of the script? And if they were the inventors, maybe scholars today ought to CHANGE the name of the script(maybe perhaps Ethiopic-Sabean........lol)! See, you are so caught up on "South Arabian" when that very language could be Ethiopian in origin. See, this in my opinion may have less to do with linguistics and more to do with PERCEPTION!
Anyway, I am done. Let's see if you reply with substance this time rather than foolishness. If again you REACT foolishly(cause that is what you did), I don't got time for it. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I must say that I once WAS almost impressed by your knowledge.
I am not impressed by your lack of it, and unwillingness to learn.
quote:Israel:
Now I see that you can be silly for no reason at all.
You are actually wrong on that account, because it is obvious that you ask silly questions, for which no intelligent answers can be provided. LOL.
quote:Israel:
All I am saying is that if you are going to use authoritatively the words of Mr. Daniels concerning the work of Bekerie, perhaps you should acutually READ Bekerie's work. Isn't that logical? Isn't that just simply "Basic science/schlarship"?
And All I am saying is that, you ought to be attentive towards the exchanges that had already taken place, so as to avoid making yourself look foolish by engaging in circular arguments, instead of offering anything new, including a rebuttal to Mr. Daniels' assessment. Disproving Mr. Daniels is your burden, not mine.
quote:Israel:
Since your such the big "scholar", perhaps you should read the book to expand your knowledge base and have a TRUE basis upon which to attack Bekerie's credibility, i.e. you ought to use PRIMARY RESOURCES instead of SECONDARY sources. Again, this is what is taught in undergraduate studies.......you did go to school, right??????
Yes, I'm obviously a learned individual; the more intelligent question should rather be; have you gone to school?
quote:Israel:
...And in case you can't get a hold of his book at this moment, above(my previous post) I provided you with a link of a critique of his book, and HIS REBUTTAL.
Where's the "rebuttal"; haven't seen it. I have on the on other hand, read plenty of infantile rantings from you.
quote:Israel:
Anyway, I am done. Let's see if you reply with substance this time rather than foolishness. If again you REACT foolishly(cause that is what you did), I don't got time for it. Salaam
I am glad to hear that you are done with accomplishing essentially nothing of value. And no, I don't intend to act "foolishly"; we've seen enough foolishness from you already. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
You THINK yourself such an expert on South Arabian linguistics that you can't read English........lol
If you go back and LOOK at my previous posts, you will find the rebuttal.......
It is funny how you accuse me for not reading every little detail of ya'lls postings, yet the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book I have provided and yet you can't find it. Hence, you haven't taken the time to read all of my postings either........
FYI, I was not involved heavily in you and Yom's debate. I asked you a few simple questions that was parallel to your debate, but nonetheless different from your debate. So no, I didn't read all your stuff. Is that something you want to make fun of? If it sounds funny to you, just remember that English language readers can read the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book if they would only look through my previous posts......... .
Concerning my questions to you about the Sabeans: that is right. You didn't answer my question cause you couldn't! The fact is that if the Sabean inscription in Ethiopia is indeed the oldest on record, then it is entirely POSSIBLE that Ethiopia was the originator of the Sabean script................this mystery will be unveiled in due time I'm sure.........
Also, I noticed that besides your slick remarks, you really didn't challenge my point about PRIMARY SOURCES. Thats right homeboy, read the primary sources. MY point is that you ought to try to see both sides of the issue. Daniels is VERY biased, therefore, since your only knowledge of Bekerie's work is from a biased book review, you have a slanted view of Bekerie.
Really, I am only doing what an open-minded, probing person is supposed to do: interrogate information. You are quoting Daniel's review about Bekerie, so the logical question to ask is: HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?! Like I said, this is stuff you ought to have learned in undergrad(assuming that you went to college......... ).
Also, you never commented on my post concerning the sons of Kush...........Why didn't you comment on it? Lets see if you go back and look, and then speak your opinion concerning the Biblical tradition concerning the Kushite influence in ancient Arabia.......
So anyway Supercar,
This little spat came about because I asked you a question. Instead of just saying, "No Israel, I didn't read the book", you tried to challenge my knowledge of linguistics. The fact is that I know some Hebrew and Arabic, so be careful.........but see you didn't answer my question, you tried to throw some B.S. in my face. That is how this little spat came about. Next time, humble yourself. I didn't throw no slick remarks at you, but you threw them at me! Go back and read my "question-post". The only challenge, perhaps, was when I asked you about the possibility of an Ethiopian origin of the Sabean language. And that challenge wasn't beyond just my earnest passion for truth. So because I interrogated you and challenged you, you gave snide remarks. Well, like I said, you lost alot of cool points. I can see that you dislike being challenged.
Anyway, I think I have established my case.....Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Yeah whatever Supercar.
You THINK yourself such an expert on South Arabian linguistics that you can't read English........lol
Whatever happened to your earlier claim that you won't continue to make a fool of yourself?
quote:Israel:
If you go back and LOOK at my previous posts, you will find the rebuttal.......
It is funny how you accuse me for not reading every little detail of ya'lls postings, yet the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book I have provided and yet you can't find it. Hence, you haven't taken the time to read all of my postings either........
I am not accusing you of anything, but acknowledging your deeds for what they are. Moreover, I am not sure you even understand your own postings, 'cause if you did, you'd know that you have yet to provide any objective refutation of Mr. Daniels' assessment.
quote:Israel:
FYI, I was not involved heavily in you and Yom's debate.
See, there lies the problem; it is because of your short attention span, that you are trying to get me to follow you in circular nonsensical arguments.
quote:Israel:
I asked you a few simple questions that was parallel to your debate, but nonetheless different from your debate.
And I gave you a simple answer that you couldn't comprehend.
quote:Israel:
So no, I didn't read all your stuff. Is that something you want to make fun of? If it sounds funny to you, just remember that English language readers can read the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book if they would only look through my previous posts.........
I don't need to make fun of you; you are doing that to yourself just fine. "English language" readers are still waiting for you to deliver what was asked of you. Why bother; you won't allow us to interrupt you in waisting folks' time.
quote:Israel:
Concerning my questions to you about the Sabeans: that is right. You didn't answer my question cause you couldn't!
...more like my not wanting to entertain your circular meaningless exchanges. Like you said, you haven't been paying attention to the exchanges, so it understandable for you to delude yourself, as indicative of this remark.
quote:Israel:
Also, I noticed that besides your slick remarks, you really didn't challenge my point about PRIMARY SOURCES.
There is nothing therein [i.e. of coherent thought] to challenge. On the other hand, you are still challenged to do what's been asked of you. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
you are silly for real. Waste of time. Again, the only thing I asked you is "HAVE YOU READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? It really is a simple question. I didn't state anything concerning Daniels. At best, I implied that he was biased. But that only came about because you made an issue about Daniels. My original question had nothing to do with Daniels! So again, the question that you have not answered still stands, "HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?"
Beyond that, you are a waste. Again, why haven't you commented on the Biblical tradition of the sons of Kush? See, you hate to be challenged. You don't respond to things that you don't have knowledge of(which perhaps is good for you....... ).
Anyway, question still stands. If you refuse to give a yes or no to this question, everything else you say is nothing but clanging gongs(meaning empty sounds).
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is funny how you try to justify yourself. I notice that while you rambled about nonsense, you didn't respond to my claim that the rebuttal is in the posting above........
See, you got issues of pride. The nonsense you spit about not seeing the rebuttal, well I responded to that saying that you haven't acutually LOOKED for the rebuttal. Then, you AVOID the mistake that you made by making an issue about other stuff. Your flaws are truly opened. Could name three or four if I wanted to. But whatever man. Please Supercar, by all means, carry on......... . Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are a very funny individual; of course, I have to dumb discourse down for you, precisely because you are "silly". LOL
quote:Israel:
Waste of time.
Exactly. Why are you wasting our time, if you have nothing new, much less worthwhile to bring to the table?
quote:Israel: Again, the only thing I asked you is "HAVE YOU READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? It really is a simple question.
I am scratching my head too, as to why you still fail to comprehend the simple answer that was provided to you.
quote:Israel:
I didn't state anything concerning Daniels.
Exactly; you haven't said anything of 'note' "concerning Mr. Daniels." You have not refuted the man; all you can do, is to simply make unsubstantiated claims that his assessment maybe [a.k.a wishful thinking] "biased".
quote:Israel:
At best, I implied that he was biased.
Talk about hypocrisy. I thought just moments ago, you disavowed saying anything about the man. LOL.
quote:Israel:
But that only came about because you made an issue about Daniels. My original question had nothing to do with Daniels! So again, the question that you have not answered still stands, "HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?"
You are a confused individual. One minute you claim that you have said nothing about the man, then you claim the man is biased, only to revert back to saying that your question had nothing to do with him. Sort out your thought process, man.
The better question you should be asking yourself, is whether you have any objective material that refutes what has been presented from Mr. Daniels' notes; though, I suspect you won't, for obvious reasons.
quote:Isreal:
Beyond that, you are a waste.
Then, why are you wasting your time, knowing that I refused to be duped into your circular arguments.
quote:Israel:
Again, why haven't you commented on the Biblical tradition of the sons of Kush? See, you hate to be challenged. You don't respond to things that you don't have knowledge of(which perhaps is good for you...
"Biblical traditions" have been and can be subjected to contemporary political manipulations, but that is not to say that they cannot be cautiously approached for limited historical value in some shape or form, which has to be reconciled with scientific findings, e.g. archeological evidence.
quote:Israel:
Anyway, question still stands. If you refuse to give a yes or no to this question, everything else you say is nothing but clanging gongs(meaning empty sounds).
It is not a matter of my refusing to answer your weak question, but a matter of you understanding the response to it,
posted
Israel, let me give you an example of how Ayele Bekerie often doesn't know what he's talking about. He correctly connects Ge'ez ሀ (pre-vocalization "h," modern "ha") to ESA , in turn correctly connecting it to the Egyptian heiroglyph .
He makes the amateurish mistake, however, of connecting this Egyptian letter form with an ox's head to show what he believes to be a connection between "hoy" (Ge'ez name for ሀ) amd the horns of long-horned cattle. The truth of the matter is, however, that an Ox's head is the form for Ge'ez አ ("Alf") and Latin "A."
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just to let you know, I didn't even waste my time reading your response. Why should I? Are you saying anything of substance? Nope. But if you feel the need to vent, then by all means carry on......... Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
To be honest, I am new to this field of study(which I do on my own during the present). Like I said, when I first came on here I was impressed by how much knowledge ya'll cats have. Now, concerning Bekerie's thought, well, ........I guess that makes sense. I remember studying the ancient Hebrew, and we briefly ckecked out how the Alif was originally an Ox's head.......so since Geez is Semitic, I guess you have a point..............
Further study is required. If that premise is so elementary, why would Bekerie say that? I mean, IF(notice I said "If") this conception concerning the Ox head is set in stone, then why would Bekerie do that? Man, I wish I had the book in front of me! Assuming that he could be wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT(his thesis could still be correct, he could just be wrong on this point), then please Yom tell me why he tried to make this point. See, I'm bout the truth! Now, if something ain't true, it ain't true. But if it is true, Imma smash and tear down the lies that are being perpetrated! Anyway, do you think that it is Bekerie's zeal that PERHAPS made him wrong on this point?
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
check out the critique of his work and Bekerie rebuttal. I have it in one of the posts above. Check it out and tell me what you think. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL Supercar is not venting so much as mocking you, Israel.
You still have failed to produce anything to refute what he has said, and you obviously don't comprehend what his answers were either.
Just to help you out: You admitted that you haven't read Bekerie's book in it's entirety, so how are you even able to argue using that book as a source.
We are waiting for valid answers.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
To be honest, I am new to this field of study(which I do on my own during the present). Like I said, when I first came on here I was impressed by how much knowledge ya'll cats have. Now, concerning Bekerie's thought, well, ........I guess that makes sense. I remember studying the ancient Hebrew, and we briefly ckecked out how the Alif was originally an Ox's head.......so since Geez is Semitic, I guess you have a point..............
Actually, it has nothing to do with whether or not Ge'ez is Semitic, all (current) alphabets (including abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, etc.) are derived from Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs by way of Proto-Sinaitic (let's please not start this semantic debate again Supercar). Non-alphabets like Chinese characters have their origin elsewhere, however.
quote:Further study is required. If that premise is so elementary, why would Bekerie say that? I mean, IF(notice I said "If") this conception concerning the Ox head is set in stone, then why would Bekerie do that? Man, I wish I had the book in front of me! Assuming that he could be wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT(his thesis could still be correct, he could just be wrong on this point), then please Yom tell me why he tried to make this point. See, I'm bout the truth! Now, if something ain't true, it ain't true. But if it is true, Imma smash and tear down the lies that are being perpetrated! Anyway, do you think that it is Bekerie's zeal that PERHAPS made him wrong on this point?
I'm pretty certain he's wrong on this point. The connection between the oxhead glyph and Latin "A" (as well as Ge'ez "Alf") is clear and its evolution evident. While the connection of Ge'ez "h" with Egyptian probably isn't as certain, it's relatively secure, and more clear through ESA "h."
Ayele (Bekerie is his father's name) unsuccessfully tries to connect Egyptian to an earlier ox-head, which is where he makes his mistake. He was trying to show the pictographic properties of the Ge'ez alphabet and prove the importance of cattle through it.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
who the hell is talking to you??????? But if you insist on being just as foolish as Supercar, then by all means, carry on......... .
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
).
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, in turn correctly connecting it to the Egyptian heiroglyph 
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic